Dataset Information

Feasibility and effectiveness of a low cost campaign on antibiotic prescribing in Italy: community level, controlled, non-randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: To test the hypothesis that a multifaceted, local public campaign could be feasible and influence antibiotic prescribing for outpatients.Community level, controlled, non-randomised trial.Provinces of Modena and Parma in Emilia-Romagna, northern Italy, November 2011 to February 2012.1,150,000 residents of Modena and Parma (intervention group) and 3,250,000 residents in provinces in the same region but where no campaign had been implemented (control group).Campaign materials (mainly posters, brochures, and advertisements on local media, plus a newsletter on local antibiotic resistance targeted at doctors and pharmacists). General practitioners and paediatricians in the intervention area participated in designing the campaign messages.Primary outcome was the average change in prescribing rates of antibiotics for outpatient in five months, measured as defined daily doses per 1000 inhabitants/day, using health districts as the unit of analysis.Antibiotic prescribing was reduced in the intervention area compared with control area (-4.3%, 95% confidence interval -7.1% to -1.5%). This result was robust to "sensitivity analysis" modifying the baseline period from two months (main analysis) to one month. A higher decrease was observed for penicillins resistant to ? lactamase and a lower decrease for penicillins susceptible to ? lactamase, consistent with the content of the newsletter on antibiotic resistance directed at health professionals. The decrease in expenditure on antibiotics was not statistically significant in a district level analysis with a two month baseline period (main analysis), but was statistically significant in sensitivity analyses using either a one month baseline period or a more powered doctor level analysis. Knowledge and attitudes of the target population about the correct use of antibiotics did not differ between the intervention and control areas.A local low cost information campaign targeted at citizens, combined with a newsletter on local antibiotic resistance targeted at doctors and pharmacists, was associated with significantly decreased total rates of antibiotic prescribing but did not affect the population's knowledge and attitudes about antibiotic resistance.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01604096.

SUBMITTER: Formoso G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4793446 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Feasibility and effectiveness of a low cost campaign on antibiotic prescribing in Italy: community level, controlled, non-randomised trial.

Formoso Giulio G Paltrinieri Barbara B Marata Anna Maria AM Gagliotti Carlo C Pan Angelo A Moro Maria Luisa ML Capelli Oreste O Magrini Nicola N

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20130912

<h4>Objectives</h4>To test the hypothesis that a multifaceted, local public campaign could be feasible and influence antibiotic prescribing for outpatients.<h4>Design</h4>Community level, controlled, non-randomised trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Provinces of Modena and Parma in Emilia-Romagna, northern Italy, November 2011 to February 2012.<h4>Population</h4>1,150,000 residents of Modena and Parma (intervention group) and 3,250,000 residents in provinces in the same region but where no campaign had been ...[more]

PMID: 24030722

Similar Datasets

Project description:To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing (NMP).Systematic review. Two reviewers independently completed searches, eligibility assessment and assessment of risk of bias.Pre-defined search terms/combinations were utilised to search electronic databases. In addition, hand searches of reference lists, key journals and grey literature were employed alongside consultation with authors/experts.Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical or cost-effectiveness of NMP. Measurements reported on one or more outcome(s) of: pain, function, disability, health, social impact, patient-safety, costs-analysis, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), patient satisfaction, clinician perception of clinical and functional outcomes.Three RCTs from two countries were included (n = 932 participants) across primary and tertiary care settings. One RCT was assessed as low risk of bias, one as high risk of bias and one as unclear risk of bias. All RCTs evaluated clinical effectiveness with one also evaluating cost-effectiveness. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated using a range of safety and patient-reported outcome measures. Participants demonstrated significant improvement in outcomes when receiving NMP compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in all RCTs. An associated cost analysis showed NMP to be more expensive than TAU (regression coefficient p = 0.0000), however experimental groups generated increased QALYs compared to TAU.Limited evidence with overall unclear risk of bias exists evaluating clinical and cost-effectiveness of NMP across all professions and clinical settings. GRADE assessment revealed moderate quality evidence. Evidence suggests that NMP is safe and can provide beneficial clinical outcomes. Benefits to the health economy remain unclear, with the cost-effectiveness of NMP assessed by a single pilot RCT of low risk of bias. Adequately powered low risk of bias RCTs evaluating clinical and cost effectiveness are required to evaluate NMP across clinical specialities, professions and settings.PROSPERO (CRD42015017212).

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Evaluate evidence of the efficacy, safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) models. DESIGN:A systematic review. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (EED), Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, Health Business Elite, Health Information Management Consortium (HMIC), Web of Science Proceedings, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy website. Searches were undertaken from 1993 to 2015. STUDY SELECTION:All studies, except case reports, considering adult patients or practitioners involved in the delivery of OPAT were included. Studies combining outcomes for adults and children or non-intravenous (IV) and IV antibiotic groups were excluded, as were those focused on process of delivery or clinical effectiveness of 1 antibiotic over another. Titles/abstracts were screened by 1 reviewer (20% verified). 2 authors independently screened studies for inclusion. RESULTS:128 studies involving >60?000 OPAT episodes were included. 22 studies (17%) did not indicate the OPAT model used; only 29 involved a comparator (23%). There was little difference in duration of OPAT treatment compared with inpatient therapy, and overall OPAT appeared to produce superior cure/improvement rates. However, when models were considered individually, outpatient delivery appeared to be less effective, and self-administration and specialist nurse delivery more effective. Drug side effects, deaths and hospital readmissions were similar to those for inpatient treatment, but there were more line-related complications. Patient satisfaction was high, with advantages seen in being able to resume daily activities and having greater freedom and control. However, most professionals perceived challenges in providing OPAT. CONCLUSIONS:There were no systematic differences related to the impact of OPAT on treatment duration or adverse events. However, evidence of its clinical benefit compared with traditional inpatient treatment is lacking, primarily due to the dearth of good quality comparative studies. There was high patient satisfaction with OPAT use but the few studies considering practitioner acceptability highlighted organisational and logistic barriers to its delivery.

Project description:BackgroundPrescribing, monitoring and administration of medicines in care homes could be improved. Research has identified the need for one person to assume overall responsibility for the management of medicines within each care home. and shown that a pharmacist independent prescriber service is feasible in this context.Aims and objectivesTo conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-independent prescribing service in care homes compared to usual general practitioner (GP)-led care.ObjectivesTo perform a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot to determine the intervention's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and enable modelling beyond the end of the trial.MethodsThis protocol is for a cluster RCT with a 3-month internal pilot to confirm that recruitment is achievable, and there are no safety concerns. The unit of randomisation is a triad comprising a pharmacist-independent prescriber (PIP) based in a GP practice with sufficient registered patients resident in one or more care homes to allow recruitment of an average of 20 participants. In the intervention group, the PIP will, in collaboration with the GP: assume responsibility for prescribing and managing residents' medicines including medication review and pharmaceutical care planning; support systematic ordering and administration in the care home, GP practice and supplying pharmacy; train care home and GP practice staff; communicate with GP practice, care home, supplying community pharmacy and study team. The intervention will last 6?months. The primary outcome will be resident falls at 6?months. Secondary outcomes include resident health-related quality of life, falls at 3?months, medication burden, medication appropriateness, mortality and hospitalisations. A full health economic analysis will be undertaken. The target sample size is 880 residents (440) in each arm) from 44 triads. This number is sufficient to detect a decrease in fall rate from 1.5 per individual to 1.178 (relative reduction of 21%) with 80% power and an ICC of 0.05 or less.DiscussionRecruitment is on-going and the trial should complete in early 2020. The trial results will have implications for the future management of residents in care homes and the ongoing implementation of independent pharmacist prescribing.Trial registrationISRCTN, ID: 17847169. Registered on 15 December 2017.

Project description:BackgroundEducation and advice is provided for tinnitus management in all UK audiology clinics. Sound therapy, including provision of hearing aids may be offered, but this is often dependent on a clinician's decision rather than UK policy. This inconsistent management reflects a lack of evidence around the effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus. This open-label, two-arm multicentre randomised controlled feasibility trial gathered data around recruitment, acceptability and outcome assessments to determine the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus management.MethodsAdults referred to audiology for tinnitus, with an aidable hearing loss were recruited at five UK audiology clinics. They were randomised 1:1 to either education and advice (treatment as usual (TAU), n = 41) or TAU plus hearing aids (n = 42). Outcomes were collected by questionnaires 12 weeks after randomisation. After participation, interviews were conducted with a subset of both participants and clinicians from each trial centre.ResultsEighty three participants from five sites were randomised. Non-aidable hearing loss was the main reason for ineligibility to participate in the trial reported by the sites. Seventy three percent of participants returned the 12-week questionnaires, with return rates by site ranging from 61 to 100%. Fifteen out of 33 participants (45%) reported using hearing aids for the clinician-recommended time, or longer, during the day. The Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) was the outcome measure most responsive to change. The majority of participants also agreed it was relevant to their tinnitus and hearing loss. Qualitative data demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to participants. Feedback from clinicians revealed a potential lack of equipoise. It also highlighted the differences in referral and treatment pathways between departments and differences in audiometric criteria for fitting hearing aids. Health economic measures were well completed for those returned. No change in health-related quality of life was observed. Costs were higher in the intervention arm, but self-reports of healthcare service use indicated participant confusion in treatment pathways.ConclusionsThis feasibility trial is the first step towards obtaining high quality evidence to determine potential clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus versus usual care. A definitive trial was deemed to be feasible, with some modifications based on feasibility findings and using the TFI as the primary outcome. This trial was funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit Programme (PB-PG-0816-20,014) and registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14218416).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite their marginal benefit, about 60% of acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRTIs) are currently treated with antibiotics in Catalonia. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of a continuous disease-focused intervention (C-reactive protein [CRP]) and an illness-focused intervention (enhancement of communication skills to optimise doctor-patient consultations) on antibiotic prescribing in patients with ALRTIs in Catalan primary care centres. METHODS/DESIGN:A cluster randomised, factorial, controlled trial aimed at including 20 primary care centres (N =?2940 patients) with patients older than 18?years of age presenting for a first consultation with an ALRTI will be included in the study. Primary care centres will be identified on the basis of socioeconomic data and antibiotic consumption. Centres will be randomly assigned according to hierarchical clustering to any of four trial arms: usual care, CRP testing, enhanced communication skills backed up with patient leaflets, or combined interventions. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis will be performed from the societal and national healthcare system perspectives, and the time horizon of the analysis will be 1 year. Two qualitative studies (pre- and post-clinical trial) aimed to identify the expectations and concerns of patients with ALRTIs and the barriers and facilitators of each intervention arm will be run. Family doctors and nurses assigned to the interventions will participate in a 2-h training workshop before the inception of the trial and will receive a monthly intervention-tailored training module during the year of the trial period. Primary outcomes will be antibiotic use within the first 6?weeks, duration of moderate to severe cough, and the quality-adjusted life-years. Secondary outcomes will be duration of illness and severity of cough measured using a symptom diary, healthcare re-consultations, hospital admissions, and complications. Healthcare costs will be considered and expressed in 2021 euros (year foreseen to finalise the study) of the current year of the analysis. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses will be carried out. DISCUSSION:The ISAAC-CAT project will contribute to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of different strategies for more appropriate antibiotic prescribing that are currently out of the scope of the actual clinical guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03931577.

Dataset Information

Feasibility and effectiveness of a low cost campaign on antibiotic prescribing in Italy: community level, controlled, non-randomised trial.

Publications

Feasibility and effectiveness of a low cost campaign on antibiotic prescribing in Italy: community level, controlled, non-randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets