Suppr超能文献

长期护理机构中的抗菌药物管理干预措施是否有效且安全?系统评价和荟萃分析。

Are antimicrobial stewardship interventions effective and safe in long-term care facilities? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Infectious Diseases, Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, Infectious Diseases Research Group, Institute of Biomedicine of Seville (IBiS), University of Seville/CSIC/University Hospital Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain.

Department of Infectious Diseases, Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, Infectious Diseases Research Group, Institute of Biomedicine of Seville (IBiS), University of Seville/CSIC/University Hospital Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain; Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain.

出版信息

Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Oct;27(10):1431-1438. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.06.003. Epub 2021 Jun 10.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are health-care settings with high antimicrobial consumption and hence need to develop effective antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of ASPs on care-related, clinical and ecological outcomes in LTCFs.

METHODS

Data sources were PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS. Study eligibility criteria were original research articles (controlled clinical trials or controlled before and after studies) published up to 1 October 2020. Participants were adult residents of LTCFs, residential aged-care facilities, nursing homes, veterans' homes, skilled nursing facilities and assisted living facilities for older people. Interventions included ASPs versus standard care. Outcomes assessed were antimicrobial consumption and appropriateness, infections, hospital admissions and mortality. Available data were pooled in a meta-analysis, and inconsistency between studies was evaluated using the I statistic. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Of the 3111 papers identified, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. All of them analysed the impact of interventions on antimicrobial use based on consumption-related variables (n = 8) and/or percentage of inappropriate prescriptions (n = 6). Pooled data showed a mean difference of -0.47 prescriptions per 1000 resident-days in favour of ASPs (95% CI -0.87 to -0.07, I = 71%). Five studies analysed the clinical effect of ASPs on the number of hospital admissions and/or resident mortality. The meta-analysis showed a mean difference of 0.17 hospital admissions per 1000 resident-days (95% CI -0.07 to 0.41, I = 17%) and a mean difference of -0.02 deaths per 1000 resident-days (95% CI -0.14 to 0.09, I = 0%). Only two studies included infections as a study outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

ASPs appear to improve antimicrobial use in this setting without increasing hospital admissions or deaths, indicating that these programmes do not lead to under-treatment of infections. Nonetheless, further higher-quality clinical trials are required to understand the effects of ASPs in LTCFs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021225127.

摘要

背景

长期护理机构(LTCF)是抗生素消耗量大的医疗保健场所,因此需要制定有效的抗生素管理计划(ASP)。

目的

评估 ASP 对 LTCF 中与护理相关的临床和生态结果的影响。

方法

数据来源为 PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 SCOPUS。研究纳入标准为截至 2020 年 10 月 1 日发表的原始研究文章(对照临床试验或对照前后研究)。参与者为 LTCF、养老院、护理院、退伍军人之家、熟练护理设施和老年人辅助生活设施的成年居民。干预措施包括 ASP 与标准护理。评估的结果是抗生素的使用和适当性、感染、住院和死亡。可用数据汇总进行荟萃分析,并使用 I 统计评估研究之间的不一致性。使用 GRADE 方法评估证据的确定性。

结果

在 3111 篇论文中,有 12 篇符合纳入标准。所有研究都根据与消耗相关的变量(n=8)和/或不适当处方的百分比(n=6)分析了干预措施对抗生素使用的影响。汇总数据显示,ASP 组的每 1000 名居民日处方数平均减少 0.47 张(95%CI-0.87 至-0.07,I=71%)。五篇研究分析了 ASP 对住院人数和/或居民死亡率的临床效果。荟萃分析显示,每 1000 名居民日住院人数平均差异为 0.17 次(95%CI-0.07 至 0.41,I=17%),每 1000 名居民日死亡人数平均差异为-0.02 次(95%CI-0.14 至 0.09,I=0%)。只有两项研究将感染作为研究结果。

结论

ASP 似乎改善了该环境中的抗生素使用,而不会增加住院人数或死亡人数,这表明这些方案不会导致感染治疗不足。尽管如此,仍需要进行更多高质量的临床试验,以了解 ASP 在 LTCF 中的作用。

PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42021225127。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验