Early antibiotic review and AWaRe prescribing in respiratory infections before vs during COVID-19: a two-hospital retrospective cohort study.

IF 2.6 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2026-09-14 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20523211.2026.2719528
Rasha Abdelsalam Elshenawy, Nkiruka Umaru, Zoe Aslanpour
{"title":"Early antibiotic review and AWaRe prescribing in respiratory infections before vs during COVID-19: a two-hospital retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Rasha Abdelsalam Elshenawy, Nkiruka Umaru, Zoe Aslanpour","doi":"10.1080/20523211.2026.2719528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is essential for optimising antibiotic use and limiting antimicrobial resistance. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare delivery, but its effect on early antibiotic review remains unclear. This study compared antibiotic review practices and prescribing patterns among hospitalised patients with respiratory tract infections before and during the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was conducted across two acute hospitals within an NHS Foundation Trust in England. Adults aged 25 years or older admitted with respiratory tract infections and prescribed systemic antibiotics were included from 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2020 (pandemic). Data covered review timing, stewardship interventions based on the CARES framework, and prescribing patterns according to the WHO AWaRe classification. Stratified systematic random sampling identified 640 patients: 320 per year and 160 per hospital annually.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median age was 78 years in 2019 and 79 years in 2020. Mortality was comparable (15.0% versus 15.6%; <i>p</i> = 0.83). Early antibiotic review at 48-72 hours was maintained across both periods (51.6% versus 50.9%; <i>p</i> = 0.87). However, Watch antibiotic prescribing increased significantly from 52% to 60% (<i>p</i> < 0.001), accompanied by reduced Access antibiotic use, while Reserve use remained restricted (3-5%). Among guideline-concordant prescriptions, de-escalation was the most frequent intervention (19-38%). Continuation without documented change increased from 7% and 9% in 2019 to 21% and 16% in 2020 at Hospitals A and B, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Early antibiotic review remained resilient during COVID-19 despite operational pressures. Nevertheless, increased Watch prescribing highlights the need for enhanced diagnostic stewardship and pandemic-resilient AMS infrastructure. Embedded review processes, multidisciplinary collaboration, workforce development, and digital stewardship tools may strengthen antibiotic optimisation during future healthcare disruptions. The contribution of pharmacists requires further investigation. These findings demonstrate that maintaining review frequency alone may not prevent broader-spectrum prescribing and support targeted strategies to improve documentation, promote Access antibiotics, and preserve stewardship quality during periods of pressure.</p>","PeriodicalId":16740,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","volume":"19 1","pages":"2719528"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13577274/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2026.2719528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is essential for optimising antibiotic use and limiting antimicrobial resistance. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare delivery, but its effect on early antibiotic review remains unclear. This study compared antibiotic review practices and prescribing patterns among hospitalised patients with respiratory tract infections before and during the pandemic.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted across two acute hospitals within an NHS Foundation Trust in England. Adults aged 25 years or older admitted with respiratory tract infections and prescribed systemic antibiotics were included from 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2020 (pandemic). Data covered review timing, stewardship interventions based on the CARES framework, and prescribing patterns according to the WHO AWaRe classification. Stratified systematic random sampling identified 640 patients: 320 per year and 160 per hospital annually.

Results: Median age was 78 years in 2019 and 79 years in 2020. Mortality was comparable (15.0% versus 15.6%; p = 0.83). Early antibiotic review at 48-72 hours was maintained across both periods (51.6% versus 50.9%; p = 0.87). However, Watch antibiotic prescribing increased significantly from 52% to 60% (p < 0.001), accompanied by reduced Access antibiotic use, while Reserve use remained restricted (3-5%). Among guideline-concordant prescriptions, de-escalation was the most frequent intervention (19-38%). Continuation without documented change increased from 7% and 9% in 2019 to 21% and 16% in 2020 at Hospitals A and B, respectively.

Conclusions: Early antibiotic review remained resilient during COVID-19 despite operational pressures. Nevertheless, increased Watch prescribing highlights the need for enhanced diagnostic stewardship and pandemic-resilient AMS infrastructure. Embedded review processes, multidisciplinary collaboration, workforce development, and digital stewardship tools may strengthen antibiotic optimisation during future healthcare disruptions. The contribution of pharmacists requires further investigation. These findings demonstrate that maintaining review frequency alone may not prevent broader-spectrum prescribing and support targeted strategies to improve documentation, promote Access antibiotics, and preserve stewardship quality during periods of pressure.

在COVID-19之前和期间呼吸道感染的早期抗生素审查和AWaRe处方:一项两家医院的回顾性队列研究
背景:抗菌药物管理(AMS)对优化抗生素使用和限制抗菌药物耐药性至关重要。COVID-19大流行扰乱了医疗服务,但其对早期抗生素审查的影响尚不清楚。本研究比较了大流行之前和期间住院呼吸道感染患者的抗生素审查做法和处方模式。方法:回顾性队列研究在英国NHS基金会信托的两家急性医院进行。纳入了2019年(大流行前)和2020年(大流行)住院的25岁或以上呼吸道感染和全身性抗生素患者。数据包括审查时间、基于CARES框架的管理干预措施以及根据世卫组织AWaRe分类的处方模式。分层系统随机抽样确定640例患者:每年320例,每家医院每年160例。结果:2019年中位年龄为78岁,2020年为79岁。死亡率具有可比性(15.0% vs 15.6%; p = 0.83)。在这两个时期,48-72小时的早期抗生素复查保持不变(51.6%对50.9%;p = 0.87)。然而,观察抗生素处方从52%显著增加到60% (p < 0.001),同时减少了可获得抗生素的使用,而储备抗生素的使用仍然受到限制(3-5%)。在与指南一致的处方中,降级是最常见的干预措施(19-38%)。在A医院和B医院,无记录变化的延续率分别从2019年的7%和9%增加到2020年的21%和16%。结论:尽管存在操作压力,但在COVID-19期间,早期抗生素审查仍具有弹性。然而,监测处方的增加凸显了加强诊断管理和抗大流行辅助医疗服务基础设施的必要性。嵌入式审查流程、多学科协作、劳动力发展和数字管理工具可能会在未来医疗保健中断期间加强抗生素优化。药师的贡献有待进一步研究。这些发现表明,仅维持审查频率可能不会阻止更广泛的处方,并支持有针对性的战略,以改进文件,促进可及性抗生素,并在压力时期保持管理质量。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
81
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书