Marjan Kandimahforoujaki, Kiplin A Patanwala, Jan-Willem C Alffenaar, Asad E Patanwala
{"title":"对用于衡量医院抗生素消耗的指标进行系统的范围审查。","authors":"Marjan Kandimahforoujaki, Kiplin A Patanwala, Jan-Willem C Alffenaar, Asad E Patanwala","doi":"10.1002/bcp.70111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs were introduced to promote the judicious use of antimicrobials and to combat antimicrobial resistance. Quantifying antibiotic consumption is an important part of AMS initiatives to achieve these objectives. However, various metrics are available for measuring antibiotic usage, each providing valuable insights but also possessing inherent limitations. The aim of this scoping review was to compare AMS metrics quantifying antibiotic consumption that have been evaluated within hospital settings. It examines the advantages, disadvantages, complexity and components of these metrics to inform their implementation. Four electronic databases, Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, were searched to identify articles, where two or more antibiotic consumption metrics were compared in the hospital setting. A total of 4874 articles were screened, with 21 selected for inclusion. The two most commonly used metrics (n = 19/21 studies) were defined daily dose (DDD) and days of therapy (DOT), which were compared to other metrics. DDD most likely overestimates antibiotic consumption for certain antibiotics such as beta-lactams and in certain settings such as the intensive care unit. Days of antibiotic spectrum coverage (DASC) and antibiotic spectrum index (ASI) are newer metrics that incorporate antibiotic spectrum and have been compared to DOT. DASC and ASI have shown low correlation with DOT. Reliance on a single metric such as DDD or DOT does not provide an accurate picture of antibiotic use. Hospitals should use DDD or DOT in combination with DASC or ASI to measure antibiotic consumption and the effectiveness of AMS programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9251,"journal":{"name":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic scoping review of metrics utilized to measure antibiotic consumption in hospital settings.\",\"authors\":\"Marjan Kandimahforoujaki, Kiplin A Patanwala, Jan-Willem C Alffenaar, Asad E Patanwala\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bcp.70111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs were introduced to promote the judicious use of antimicrobials and to combat antimicrobial resistance. Quantifying antibiotic consumption is an important part of AMS initiatives to achieve these objectives. However, various metrics are available for measuring antibiotic usage, each providing valuable insights but also possessing inherent limitations. The aim of this scoping review was to compare AMS metrics quantifying antibiotic consumption that have been evaluated within hospital settings. It examines the advantages, disadvantages, complexity and components of these metrics to inform their implementation. Four electronic databases, Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, were searched to identify articles, where two or more antibiotic consumption metrics were compared in the hospital setting. A total of 4874 articles were screened, with 21 selected for inclusion. The two most commonly used metrics (n = 19/21 studies) were defined daily dose (DDD) and days of therapy (DOT), which were compared to other metrics. DDD most likely overestimates antibiotic consumption for certain antibiotics such as beta-lactams and in certain settings such as the intensive care unit. Days of antibiotic spectrum coverage (DASC) and antibiotic spectrum index (ASI) are newer metrics that incorporate antibiotic spectrum and have been compared to DOT. DASC and ASI have shown low correlation with DOT. Reliance on a single metric such as DDD or DOT does not provide an accurate picture of antibiotic use. Hospitals should use DDD or DOT in combination with DASC or ASI to measure antibiotic consumption and the effectiveness of AMS programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/bcp.70111\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bcp.70111","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
引入抗菌素管理(AMS)计划,以促进抗菌素的明智使用和对抗抗菌素耐药性。量化抗生素消费是辅助医疗系统实现这些目标的重要举措。然而,有各种各样的指标可用于测量抗生素的使用,每一个都提供了有价值的见解,但也有固有的局限性。这一范围审查的目的是比较已在医院环境中评估的量化抗生素消耗的AMS指标。它检查了这些指标的优点、缺点、复杂性和组成部分,以告知它们的实现。四个电子数据库,Medline, Embase, Web of Science和Cochrane Library,被搜索以确定在医院环境中比较两种或两种以上抗生素消耗指标的文章。共筛选4874篇文章,其中21篇入选。两个最常用的指标(n = 19/21项研究)是定义日剂量(DDD)和治疗天数(DOT),并将其与其他指标进行比较。DDD很可能高估了某些抗生素(如β -内酰胺类抗生素)和某些环境(如重症监护病房)的抗生素用量。抗生素谱覆盖天数(DASC)和抗生素谱指数(ASI)是包含抗生素谱的较新的指标,并已与DOT进行了比较。DASC和ASI与DOT的相关性较低。依赖单一指标,如DDD或DOT,并不能提供抗生素使用的准确情况。医院应使用DDD或DOT结合DASC或ASI来衡量抗生素的消耗和AMS项目的有效性。
A systematic scoping review of metrics utilized to measure antibiotic consumption in hospital settings.
Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs were introduced to promote the judicious use of antimicrobials and to combat antimicrobial resistance. Quantifying antibiotic consumption is an important part of AMS initiatives to achieve these objectives. However, various metrics are available for measuring antibiotic usage, each providing valuable insights but also possessing inherent limitations. The aim of this scoping review was to compare AMS metrics quantifying antibiotic consumption that have been evaluated within hospital settings. It examines the advantages, disadvantages, complexity and components of these metrics to inform their implementation. Four electronic databases, Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, were searched to identify articles, where two or more antibiotic consumption metrics were compared in the hospital setting. A total of 4874 articles were screened, with 21 selected for inclusion. The two most commonly used metrics (n = 19/21 studies) were defined daily dose (DDD) and days of therapy (DOT), which were compared to other metrics. DDD most likely overestimates antibiotic consumption for certain antibiotics such as beta-lactams and in certain settings such as the intensive care unit. Days of antibiotic spectrum coverage (DASC) and antibiotic spectrum index (ASI) are newer metrics that incorporate antibiotic spectrum and have been compared to DOT. DASC and ASI have shown low correlation with DOT. Reliance on a single metric such as DDD or DOT does not provide an accurate picture of antibiotic use. Hospitals should use DDD or DOT in combination with DASC or ASI to measure antibiotic consumption and the effectiveness of AMS programs.
期刊介绍:
Published on behalf of the British Pharmacological Society, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology features papers and reports on all aspects of drug action in humans: review articles, mini review articles, original papers, commentaries, editorials and letters. The Journal enjoys a wide readership, bridging the gap between the medical profession, clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry. It also publishes research on new methods, new drugs and new approaches to treatment. The Journal is recognised as one of the leading publications in its field. It is online only, publishes open access research through its OnlineOpen programme and is published monthly.