Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Oct;22(10):1493-1502.
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00308-5. Epub 2022 Jul 20.

Impact of interactive computerised decision support for hospital antibiotic use (COMPASS): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial in three Swiss hospitals

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Impact of interactive computerised decision support for hospital antibiotic use (COMPASS): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial in three Swiss hospitals

Gaud Catho et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Computerised decision-support systems (CDSSs) for antibiotic stewardship could help to assist physicians in the appropriate prescribing of antibiotics. However, high-quality evidence for their effect on the quantity and quality of antibiotic use remains scarce. The aim of our study was to assess whether a computerised decision support for antimicrobial stewardship combined with feedback on prescribing indicators can reduce antimicrobial prescriptions for adults admitted to hospital.

Methods: The Computerised Antibiotic Stewardship Study (COMPASS) was a multicentre, cluster-randomised, parallel-group, open-label superiority trial that aimed to assess whether a multimodal computerised antibiotic-stewardship intervention is effective in reducing antibiotic use for adults admitted to hospital. After pairwise matching, 24 wards in three Swiss tertiary-care and secondary-care hospitals were randomised (1:1) to the CDSS intervention or to standard antibiotic stewardship measures using an online random sequence generator. The multimodal intervention consisted of a CDSS providing support for choice, duration, and re-evaluation of antimicrobial therapy, and feedback on antimicrobial prescribing quality. The primary outcome was overall systemic antibiotic use measured in days of therapy per admission, using adjusted-hurdle negative-binomial mixed-effects models. The analysis was done by intention to treat and per protocol. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT03120975).

Findings: 24 clusters (16 at Geneva University Hospitals and eight at Ticino Regional Hospitals) were eligible and randomly assigned to control or intervention between Oct 1, 2018, and Dec 31, 2019. Overall, 4578 (40·2%) of 11 384 admissions received antibiotic therapy in the intervention group and 4142 (42·8%) of 9673 in the control group. The unadjusted overall mean days of therapy per admission was slightly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (3·2 days of therapy per admission, SD 6·2, vs 3·5 days of therapy per admission, SD 6·8; p<0·0001), and was similar among patients receiving antibiotics (7·9 days of therapy per admission, SD 7·6, vs 8·1 days of therapy per admission, SD 8·4; p=0·50). After adjusting for confounders, there was no statistically significant difference between groups for the odds of an admission receiving antibiotics (odds ratio [OR] for intervention vs control 1·12, 95% CI 0·94-1·33). For admissions with antibiotic exposure, days of therapy per admission were also similar (incidence rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·90-1·07). Overall, the CDSS was used at least once in 3466 (75·7%) of 4578 admissions with any antibiotic prescription, but from the first day of antibiotic treatment for only 1602 (58·9%) of 2721 admissions in Geneva. For those for whom the CDSS was not used from the first day, mean time to use of CDSS was 8·9 days. Based on the manual review of 1195 randomly selected charts, transition from intravenous to oral therapy was significantly more frequent in the intervention group after adjusting for confounders (154 [76·6%] of 201 vs 187 [87%] of 215, +10·4%; OR 1·9, 95% CI 1·1-3·3). Consultations by infectious disease specialists were less frequent in the intervention group (388 [13·4%] of 2889) versus the control group (405 [16·9%] of 2390; OR 0·84, 95% CI 0·59-1·25).

Interpretation: An integrated multimodal computerised antibiotic stewardship intervention did not significantly reduce overall antibiotic use, the primary outcome of the study. Contributing factors were probably insufficient uptake, a setting with relatively low antibiotic use at baseline, and delays between ward admission and first CDSS use.

Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation.

Translations: For the French and Italian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Framework of the multimodal computerized intervention The computerised decision-support system is embedded into the electronic-prescribing system and triggered by the prescription of an antimicrobial in the computerised physician-order entry. The intervention contains four components: decision support for antimicrobial treatment and request for an accountable justification in case of deviation from the recommended duration; alert for self-guided re-evaluation of the prescription on calendar days 3–5; decision support for the duration and request for an accountable justification in case of deviation from the recommended duration; and feedback of quality indicators of antimicrobial prescriptions delivered at the ward level. CAP=community-acquired pneumonia. IV=intraveinous. PO=per os.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow-chart of the study participants, according to study arm and cluster An admission was defined as any admission to a ward. If a patient was admitted several times in the same or in a different ward, the admissions were considered as independent observations. The populations defined are the ITT population and the per-protocol population. ITT=intention to treat.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dyar OJ, Huttner B, Schouten J, Pulcini C, ESCMID Study Group for Antimicrobial stewardshiP What is antimicrobial stewardship? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017;23:793–798. - PubMed
    1. Nathwani D, Varghese D, Stephens J, Ansari W, Martin S, Charbonneau C. Value of hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs [ASPs]: a systematic review. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:35. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Murray CJ, Ikuta KS, Sharara F, et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2022;399:629–655. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barlam TF, Cosgrove SE, Abbo LM, et al. Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62:e51–e77. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baur D, Gladstone BP, Burkert F, et al. Effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:990–1001. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

Associated data