Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Unit of Infectious Diseases, Clinical Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Universidad de Sevilla and Biomedicine Institute of Sevilla (IBiS), Seville, Spain.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Jan;26(1):41-50. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.08.017. Epub 2019 Sep 4.
Antimicrobial stewardship interventions and programmes aim to ensure effective treatment while minimizing antimicrobial-associated harms including resistance. Practice in this vital area is undermined by the poor quality of research addressing both what specific antimicrobial use interventions are effective and how antimicrobial use improvement strategies can be implemented into practice. In 2016 we established a working party to identify the key design features that limit translation of existing research into practice and then to make recommendations for how future studies in this field should be optimally designed. The first part of this work has been published as a systematic review. Here we present the working group's final recommendations.
An international working group for design of antimicrobial stewardship intervention evaluations was convened in response to the fourth call for leading expert network proposals by the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR). The group comprised clinical and academic specialists in antimicrobial stewardship and clinical trial design from six European countries. Group members completed a structured questionnaire to establish the scope of work and key issues to develop ahead of a first face-to-face meeting that (a) identified the need for a comprehensive systematic review of study designs in the literature and (b) prioritized key areas where research design considerations restrict translation of findings into practice. The working group's initial outputs were reviewed by independent advisors and additional expertise was sought in specific clinical areas. At a second face-to-face meeting the working group developed a theoretical framework and specific recommendations to support optimal study design. These were finalized by the working group co-ordinators and agreed by all working group members.
We propose a theoretical framework in which consideration of the intervention rationale the intervention setting, intervention features and the intervention aims inform selection and prioritization of outcome measures, whether the research sets out to determine superiority or non-inferiority of the intervention measured by its primary outcome(s), the most appropriate study design (e.g. experimental or quasi- experimental) and the detailed design features. We make 18 specific recommendation in three domains: outcomes, objectives and study design.
Researchers, funders and practitioners will be able to draw on our recommendations to most efficiently evaluate antimicrobial stewardship interventions.
抗菌药物管理干预措施和方案旨在确保有效治疗,同时最大限度地减少抗菌药物相关危害,包括耐药性。在这个至关重要的领域,由于研究质量差,无法确定哪些具体的抗菌药物使用干预措施有效,以及如何将抗菌药物使用改善策略付诸实践,因此实践受到了影响。2016 年,我们成立了一个工作组,以确定限制现有研究转化为实践的关键设计特征,然后提出如何优化该领域未来研究的设计建议。这项工作的第一部分已作为系统评价发表。在这里,我们提出工作组的最终建议。
应抗菌药物管理干预措施评估的领先专家网络提案第四次征集的要求,成立了一个国际性的抗菌药物管理干预措施评价设计工作组。该小组由来自六个欧洲国家的抗菌药物管理和临床试验设计方面的临床和学术专家组成。小组成员完成了一份结构化问卷,以确定工作范围和需要优先考虑的关键问题,然后进行第一次面对面会议,该会议(a)确定需要对文献中的研究设计进行全面系统评价,(b)确定限制研究结果转化为实践的研究设计因素的关键领域。工作组的初步成果由独立顾问进行了审查,并在特定临床领域寻求了额外的专业知识。在第二次面对面会议上,工作组制定了一个理论框架和具体建议,以支持最佳研究设计。这些建议由工作组协调员进行了最终确定,并得到了所有小组成员的同意。
我们提出了一个理论框架,其中考虑干预的基本原理、干预环境、干预特征和干预目标,以告知选择和优先考虑结果测量指标,无论研究的目的是通过其主要结果(s)来确定干预措施的优越性还是非劣效性,最合适的研究设计(例如,实验性或准实验性)和详细的设计特征。我们在三个领域提出了 18 条具体建议:结果、目标和研究设计。
研究人员、资助者和从业人员将能够借鉴我们的建议,最有效地评估抗菌药物管理干预措施。