Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41939849›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026

Effectiveness and safety of a prospective audit and feedback-based antimicrobial stewardship program in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a quasi-experimental before-and-after study.

Ariana Martínez-Suárez, Elena Salamanca-Rivera, Jaime Cordero-Ramos, Jesús Rodríguez-Baño, Pilar Retamar-Gentil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ariana Martínez-SuárezPharmacy Department, University Hospital Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain.
Elena Salamanca-RiveraUnidad Clínica de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS), Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, CSIC, Seville, Spain.
Jaime Cordero-RamosPharmacy Department, University Hospital Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain.
Jesús Rodríguez-BañoUnidad Clínica de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS), Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, CSIC, Seville, Spain.
Pilar Retamar-GentilUnidad Clínica de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS), Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, CSIC, Seville, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Antibiotic use among hospitalized patients with confirmed active SARS-CoV-2 infection is notably high (>70%) compared to the incidence of bacterial coinfections and superinfections (3.5% and 14.3%, respectively). Unjustified antimicrobial use poses preventable risks due to its toxicity and potential for long-term negative consequences. In this context, antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) play a pivotal role in optimizing antibiotic therapy for COVID-19 patients. Methods: A quasi-experimental, before-and-after study was conducted to assess the impact of the COVID-ASP. The pre-ASP cohort included patients retrospectively, while the ASP cohort included patients prospectively, following the program implementation. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the impact of the COVID-ASP on days of therapy (DOT)/1,000 patient-days. Secondary outcomes included the rate of antibiotic use, rate of inappropriate use, number of recommendations made, their acceptance rate, the incidence of Results: A total of 1,289 patients admitted were included, 561 (43.5%) in the pre-ASP cohort and 728 (56.5%) in the ASP cohort. The COVID-ASP cohort showed a significantly lower DOT/ 1,000 patient-days (162.96 vs. 105.71; p < 0.001). Additionally, the COVID-ASP was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of antibiotic use for suspected pneumonic coinfections (13.2% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.001), for all causes (17.5% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.012), and for pneumonic superinfection (9.3% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.022). No significant difference was observed in antibiotic use for superinfection from all causes (16.0% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.936). The program also reduced the inappropriate antibiotic use rate for suspected pneumonic coinfection (8.7% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001), for all causes (10.3% vs. 4.0%, p < 0.001), and for pneumonic superinfection (4.3% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.013). However, it showed no impact on inappropriate antibiotic use in superinfections across all causes (5.9% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.605). The most common recommendations included discontinuing antibiotics (58.6%) and adjusting the antibiotic regimen (30.3%). The program showed no significant effect on the incidence of Conclusion: In our experience, the three-step evaluation methodology allows for the evaluation of antibiotic prescriptions in patients with COVID-19 and allows for their optimization.

Indexed as

antibioticsantimicrobial stewardshipfeedbackprospective auditSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID41939849
PMCPMC13047313

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.