Changes in US long-term care facility antibiotic prescribing, 2013–2021

Katryna Gouin, Stephen Creasy, Mary Beckerson, Marti Wdowicki, Lauri Hicks, Sarah Kabbani
{"title":"Changes in US long-term care facility antibiotic prescribing, 2013–2021","authors":"Katryna Gouin, Stephen Creasy, Mary Beckerson, Marti Wdowicki, Lauri Hicks, Sarah Kabbani","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Antibiotic use (AU) data are needed to improve prescribing in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). CMS requires AU tracking in LTCFs (effective 2017). Although most LTCFs have limited resources for AU tracking, LTCFs contract with LTCF pharmacies to dispense, monitor, and review medications. The objective of our analysis was to report LTCF antibiotic prescribing and characterize temporal changes from 2013 to 2021. Methods: We estimated annual systemic AU rates using prescription dispenses and resident census data from PharMerica, a LTCF-pharmacy services provider that covers ~20% of LTCFs nationwide, although the number of LTCFs and residents serviced by PharMerica varied over time (Fig. 1). We included LTCFs with ≥4 months of antibiotic dispensing and 12 months of census data. We identified courses by collapsing the same drug dispensed to the same resident within 3 days of the preceding end date. Course duration was calculated as the difference between the end and dispense dates. We reported yearly AU rates as courses per 1,000 residents and days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 resident days from 2013 to 2021. We compared AU rates (percentage change) and antibiotic courses by class and agent (absolute percent difference) between 2013 and 2021. Results: From 2013 to 2021, AU course rates reported as antibiotic courses per 1,000 residents decreased (percentage change, −28%), with a notable increase in 2020 (Fig. 1). However, the median course duration remained the same (Table 1). The AU decline was mostly driven by decreases in fluoroquinolone courses (absolute difference, −10%, most commonly levofloxacin) and macrolide courses (−2%, most commonly azithromycin) (Figs. 2 and 3). Increases in cephalosporin courses (absolute difference, +7%, most commonly cephalexin) and tetracycline courses (+5%, most commonly doxycycline) were also observed (Figs. 2 and 3). During this period, AU DOT rates reported as DOT per 1,000 resident days decreased (percentage change, −13%) (Table 1). Conclusions: The LTCF AU rates, especially for fluoroquinolones, have decreased in recent years with associated shifts in the distribution of antibiotic classes. This finding may be due to CMS stewardship requirements and increased awareness of adverse events, including the FDA fluoroquinolone warnings. The observed increase in 2020 could be secondary to changes in prescribing practices and resident population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Opportunities to improve prescribing in LTCFs include optimizing treatment duration and leveraging LTCF-pharmacy resources to provide stewardship expertise and support AU tracking and reporting. Disclosures: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.385","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Antibiotic use (AU) data are needed to improve prescribing in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). CMS requires AU tracking in LTCFs (effective 2017). Although most LTCFs have limited resources for AU tracking, LTCFs contract with LTCF pharmacies to dispense, monitor, and review medications. The objective of our analysis was to report LTCF antibiotic prescribing and characterize temporal changes from 2013 to 2021. Methods: We estimated annual systemic AU rates using prescription dispenses and resident census data from PharMerica, a LTCF-pharmacy services provider that covers ~20% of LTCFs nationwide, although the number of LTCFs and residents serviced by PharMerica varied over time (Fig. 1). We included LTCFs with ≥4 months of antibiotic dispensing and 12 months of census data. We identified courses by collapsing the same drug dispensed to the same resident within 3 days of the preceding end date. Course duration was calculated as the difference between the end and dispense dates. We reported yearly AU rates as courses per 1,000 residents and days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 resident days from 2013 to 2021. We compared AU rates (percentage change) and antibiotic courses by class and agent (absolute percent difference) between 2013 and 2021. Results: From 2013 to 2021, AU course rates reported as antibiotic courses per 1,000 residents decreased (percentage change, −28%), with a notable increase in 2020 (Fig. 1). However, the median course duration remained the same (Table 1). The AU decline was mostly driven by decreases in fluoroquinolone courses (absolute difference, −10%, most commonly levofloxacin) and macrolide courses (−2%, most commonly azithromycin) (Figs. 2 and 3). Increases in cephalosporin courses (absolute difference, +7%, most commonly cephalexin) and tetracycline courses (+5%, most commonly doxycycline) were also observed (Figs. 2 and 3). During this period, AU DOT rates reported as DOT per 1,000 resident days decreased (percentage change, −13%) (Table 1). Conclusions: The LTCF AU rates, especially for fluoroquinolones, have decreased in recent years with associated shifts in the distribution of antibiotic classes. This finding may be due to CMS stewardship requirements and increased awareness of adverse events, including the FDA fluoroquinolone warnings. The observed increase in 2020 could be secondary to changes in prescribing practices and resident population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Opportunities to improve prescribing in LTCFs include optimizing treatment duration and leveraging LTCF-pharmacy resources to provide stewardship expertise and support AU tracking and reporting. Disclosures: None
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2013-2021年美国长期护理机构抗生素处方的变化
背景:需要抗生素使用(AU)数据来改善长期护理机构(ltcf)的处方。CMS要求在ltcf中跟踪AU(2017年生效)。尽管大多数LTCF用于AU跟踪的资源有限,但LTCF与LTCF药房签订合同,负责分发、监测和审查药物。我们分析的目的是报告LTCF抗生素处方并表征2013年至2021年的时间变化。方法:我们使用处方分配和来自PharMerica的居民普查数据来估计年度系统性AU率,PharMerica是一家ltcf药房服务提供商,覆盖了全国约20%的ltcf,尽管由PharMerica服务的ltcf和居民数量随时间而变化(图1)。我们纳入了抗生素分配≥4个月和12个月人口普查数据的ltcf。我们通过在前一个结束日期的3天内将相同的药物分配给同一居民来确定疗程。课程持续时间计算为结束日期和分发日期之间的差异。从2013年到2021年,我们报告了每1000名居民的课程和每1000名居民的治疗天数(DOT)的年度AU率。我们比较了2013年至2021年间,按类别和药物划分的AU率(百分比变化)和抗生素疗程(绝对百分比差异)。结果:从2013年到2021年,报告的每1000名居民抗生素疗程的AU疗程率下降(百分比变化,- 28%),到2020年显着增加(图1)。然而,中位疗程持续时间保持不变(表1)。AU的下降主要是由于氟喹诺酮类药物疗程(绝对差值,- 10%,最常见的是左氧氟沙星)和大环内酯类药物疗程(- 2%,最常见的是阿奇霉素)的减少(图2和3)。头孢菌素疗程的增加(绝对差值,+7%,最常见的是头孢氨苄)和四环素疗程(+5%,最常见的是多西环素)也被观察到(图2和图3)。在此期间,报告的每1000个居民日的DOT下降(百分比变化,- 13%)(表1)。结论:LTCF AU率,特别是氟喹诺酮类药物,近年来随着抗生素类别分布的变化而下降。这一发现可能是由于CMS管理要求和对不良事件的认识提高,包括FDA氟喹诺酮类药物警告。2020年观察到的增加可能是由于2019冠状病毒病大流行期间处方做法和常住人口的变化。改善长期cf处方的机会包括优化治疗时间和利用长期cf药房资源提供管理专业知识并支持AU跟踪和报告。披露:没有
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Using whole genome sequencing to characterize Clostridioides difficile isolates at a tertiary center in Melbourne, Australia Influenza outbreak management tabletop exercise for congregate living settings Bring it on again: antimicrobial stewardship in transplant infectious diseases: updates and new challenges Professor Mahmood Bhutta on disrupting unhealthy supply chains and promoting environmental sustainability in health care Oral amoxicillin challenges for low-risk penicillin-allergic patients at a large Veterans Affairs facility: a retrospective feasibility analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1