Efficacy of educational intervention on reducing the inappropriate use of oral third-generation cephalosporins
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an educational intervention on reducing the inappropriate use of oral third-generation cephalosporins, the prevalence of resistant bacteria, and clinical outcomes.
A before-after study was conducted to compare the data for 1 year before and after intervention at a Japanese university hospital. Educational intervention included lectures for all medical staff on oral antibiotics and educational meetings with each medical department. The primary outcome was the use of oral third-generation cephalosporins in inpatients as measured by the monthly median days of therapy (DOTs) per 1000 patient days. Secondary outcomes included the use of each oral antibiotic in inpatients and outpatients, proportion of β-lactamase-nonproducing ampicillin-resistant Haemophilus influenzae (BLNAR), penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae (PRSP) and extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Escherichia coli (ESBLEC), the incidence of hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infection (HA-CDI), and hospital mortality.
The use of oral third-generation cephalosporins in inpatients was significantly decreased after intervention [DOTs (interquartile range): 24.2 (23.5–25.1) vs. 3.7 (0.0–7.1), P < 0.001], and the value in outpatients was also decreased significantly. The use of fluoroquinolones and macrolides did not increase after intervention. The proportion of BLNAR, PRSP and ESBLEC did not change significantly during the study period. The incidence of HA-CDI was significantly decreased, and hospital mortality did not change after intervention.
Educational intervention was effective in reducing the use of oral third-generation cephalosporins without increasing the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and worsening clinical outcome. The prevalence of resistant bacteria did not change during the study period.
KeywordsEducational intervention Oral third-generation cephalosporins Antibiotic stewardship Haemophilus influenzae Streptococcus pneumoniae
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
T. Miyara has received grant support from Shionogi & Co., Ltd. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
- 1.World Health Organization. Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. https://www.who.int/antimicrobial-resistance/global-action-plan/en/. 2015. Accessed 8 June 2019.
- 2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013 United States, 2013. https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf. 2013. Accessed 8 June 2019.
- 14.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outpatient Antibiotic Prescriptions, United States, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/community/programs-measurement/state-local-activities/outpatient-antibiotic-prescriptions-US-2016.html. 2018. Accessed 8 June 2019.
- 16.The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Antimicrobial resistance surveillance in Europe 2012. https://ecdc.europa.eu/sites/portal/files/media/en/publications/Publications/antimicrobial-consumption-europe-esac-net-2012.pdf. 2014. Accessed 8 June 2019.
- 18.Lindsay Grayson M, Crowe SM, McCarthy JS, et al. Kucers’ the use of antibiotics. 6th ed. USA: ASM Press; 2010.Google Scholar
- 20.Shiro H, Sato Y, Toyonaga Y, Hanaki H, Sunakawa K. Nationwide survey of the development of drug resistance in the pediatric field in 2000-2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2012: evaluation of the changes in drug sensitivity of Haemophilus influenzae and patients’ background factors. J Infect Chemother. 2015;21:247–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2014.11.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Honda H, Sato T, Shinagawa M, et al. Multiclonal expansion and high prevalence of β-lactamase-negative haemophilus influenzae with high-level ampicillin resistance in japan and susceptibility to quinolones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e00851-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00851-18 pii.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Karlowsky JA, Critchley IA, Blosser-Middleton RS, et al. Antimicrobial surveillance of Haemophilus influenzae in the United States during 2000–2001 leads to detection of clonal dissemination of a beta-lactamase-negative and ampicillin-resistant strain. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:1063–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.The Government of Japan. National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) 2016–2020. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10900000-Kenkoukyoku/0000138942.pdf. 2016. Accessed 8 June 2019.
- 26.World Health Organization. Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance 2014. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/112642/9789241564748_eng.pdf;jsessionid=15655CCA02D5864D4E8BB41CA697CE76?sequence=1. 2014. Accessed 8 June 2019.
- 35.Wilson W, Taubert KA, Gewitz M, et al. Prevention of infective endocarditis: guidelines from the American Heart Association: a guideline from the American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group. Circulation. 2007;116:1736–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, M100-S22. Wayne: CLSI; 2012.Google Scholar
- 39.Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Japan Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (JANIS): annual open report. 2016. https://janis.mhlw.go.jp/english/report/open_report/2016/3/1/ken_Open_Report_Eng_201600_clsi2012.pdf. 2017. Accessed 8 June 2019.
- 40.Baur D, Gladstone BP, Burkert F, et al. Effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:990–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30325-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar