Faculty of Science and Engineering, Department of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology and Economics, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022 Jun;88(6):2617-2641. doi: 10.1111/bcp.15254. Epub 2022 Feb 28.
The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effects of community pharmacist-led interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics and identify which interventions are most effective.
This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42020188552). PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomised) controlled trials. Included interventions were required to target antibiotic use, be set in the community pharmacy context, and be pharmacist-led. Primary outcomes were quality of antibiotic supply and adverse effects while secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the 'Cochrane suggested risk of bias criteria' and narrative synthesis of primary outcomes conducted.
Seventeen studies were included covering in total 3822 patients (mean age 45.6 years, 61.9% female). Most studies used educational interventions. Three studies reported on primary outcomes, 12 on secondary outcomes and two on both. Three studies reported improvements in quality of dispensing, interventions led to more intensive symptom assessment (up to 30% more advice given) and a reduction of over-the-counter supply up to 53%. Three studies led to higher consumer satisfaction, effects on adherence from nine studies were mixed (risk difference 0.04 [-0.02, 0.10]). All studies had unclear or high risks of bias across at least one domain, with large heterogeneity between studies.
Our review suggests some positive results from pharmacist-led interventions, but the interventions do not seem sufficiently effective as currently implemented. This review should be interpreted as exploratory research, as more high-quality research is needed.
本系统评价的目的是评估由社区药剂师主导的干预措施优化抗生素使用的效果,并确定哪些干预措施最有效。
本研究按照 PRISMA 指南(PROSPERO:CRD42020188552)进行。检索了 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 中央对照试验注册库中的(随机)对照试验。纳入的干预措施必须针对抗生素使用,在社区药房环境中进行,并且由药剂师主导。主要结局是抗生素供应质量和不良反应,次要结局包括患者报告的结局。使用“Cochrane 建议的偏倚风险标准”评估偏倚风险,并对主要结局进行叙述性综合。
共纳入了 17 项研究,共涉及 3822 名患者(平均年龄 45.6 岁,61.9%为女性)。大多数研究采用了教育干预措施。有 3 项研究报告了主要结局,12 项研究报告了次要结局,2 项研究报告了两者。有 3 项研究报告了配药质量的改善,干预措施导致更深入的症状评估(提供的建议增加了 30%),非处方供应减少了 53%。有 3 项研究导致了更高的消费者满意度,9 项研究对依从性的影响不一(风险差异 0.04[-0.02,0.10])。所有研究在至少一个领域都存在不明确或高偏倚风险,研究之间存在很大的异质性。
本研究表明,由社区药剂师主导的干预措施可能有一些积极的结果,但目前实施的干预措施似乎效果不够显著。本研究应被视为探索性研究,因为需要更多高质量的研究。