ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2024
A quasi-experimental analysis comparing antimicrobial usage on COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 wards.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe antimicrobial usage (AMU) trends before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 wards, and if there was any association with a COVID-19 order set. Design: Quasi-experimental retrospective interrupted time series analysis of AMU rates with a contemporaneous comparison of COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 control wards. Analysis using incidence rate ratios (IRR) was conducted using a Poisson regression generalized linear model. Setting: Five COVID-19 and 4 comparable non-COVID-19 wards and 6 intensive care units (ICUs) at 4 hospitals during pandemic waves 1-4. Participants: All inpatients receiving systemic antimicrobials. Intervention: The COVID-19 checkbox antimicrobial order set was implemented in March 2020, to be used only if considered clinically indicated with modification in August 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a change in AMU rates (defined daily dose per 100 patient days per month) comparing pre- versus peri-pandemic periods and COVID-19 versus control non-COVID-19 wards. Secondary outcomes included antifungal usage rate in ICUs and assessing AMUs following implementation and modification of a COVID-19 order set. Results: Significantly greater rates of AMU (IRR[95%CI]) were observed on COVID-19 wards versus non-COVID-19 wards during waves 1-4 for all systemic antimicrobials (1.76[1.71-1.81], 1.10[1.07-1.13], 1.48[1.43-1.53], and 1.06[1.03-1.09]); for azithromycin (11.76[9.80-14.23], 10.96[9.49-12.74], 12.41[10.73-14.45], and 4.88[4.31-5.55]); and for ceftriaxone (2.39[2.16-2.65], 3.64[3.29-4.03], 2.94[2.67-3.23], and 1.62[1.49-1.76]). Conclusions: We observed significantly increased AMU rates of all systemic agents during the first 4 waves of the pandemic and on COVID-19 wards compared with control wards for azithromycin and ceftriaxone. These agents saw a twofold reduction following order-set removal, suggesting that the clinical decision-support tool order set, as utilized, had influenced prescribing behavior.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.