IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1003034.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of a clinical decision rule to guide antibiotic prescription in children with suspected lower respiratory tract infection in The Netherlands: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

Author

Listed:
  • Josephine S van de Maat
  • Daphne Peeters
  • Daan Nieboer
  • Anne-Marie van Wermeskerken
  • Frank J Smit
  • Jeroen G Noordzij
  • Gerdien Tramper-Stranders
  • Gertjan J A Driessen
  • Charlie C Obihara
  • Jeanine Punt
  • Johan van der Lei
  • Suzanne Polinder
  • Henriette A Moll
  • Rianne Oostenbrink

Abstract

Background: Optimising the use of antibiotics is a key component of antibiotic stewardship. Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are the most common reason for antibiotic prescription in children, even though most of these infections in children under 5 years are viral. This study aims to safely reduce antibiotic prescriptions in children under 5 years with suspected lower RTI at the emergency department (ED), by implementing a clinical decision rule. Methods and findings: In a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, we included children aged 1–60 months presenting with fever and cough or dyspnoea to 8 EDs in The Netherlands. The EDs were of varying sizes, from diverse geographic and demographic regions, and of different hospital types (tertiary versus general). In the pre-intervention phase, children received usual care, according to the Dutch and NICE guidelines for febrile children. During the intervention phase, a validated clinical prediction model (Feverkidstool) including clinical characteristics and C-reactive protein (CRP) was implemented as a decision rule guiding antibiotic prescription. The intervention was that antibiotics were withheld in children with a low or intermediate predicted risk of bacterial pneumonia (≤10%, based on Feverkidstool). Co-primary outcomes were antibiotic prescription rate and strategy failure. Strategy failure was defined as secondary antibiotic prescriptions or hospitalisations, persistence of fever or oxygen dependency up to day 7, or complications. Hospitals were randomly allocated to 1 sequence of treatment each, using computer randomisation. The trial could not be blinded. We used multilevel logistic regression to estimate the effect of the intervention, clustered by hospital and adjusted for time period, age, sex, season, ill appearance, and fever duration; predicted risk was included in exploratory analysis. We included 999 children (61% male, median age 17 months [IQR 9 to 30]) between 1 January 2016 and 30 September 2018: 597 during the pre-intervention phase and 402 during the intervention phase. Most children (77%) were referred by a general practitioner, and half of children were hospitalised. Intention-to-treat analyses showed that overall antibiotic prescription was not reduced (30% to 25%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.07 [95% CI 0.57 to 2.01, p = 0.75]); strategy failure reduced from 23% to 16% (aOR 0.53 [95% CI 0.32 to 0.88, p = 0.01]). Exploratory analyses showed that the intervention influenced risk groups differently (p

Suggested Citation

  • Josephine S van de Maat & Daphne Peeters & Daan Nieboer & Anne-Marie van Wermeskerken & Frank J Smit & Jeroen G Noordzij & Gerdien Tramper-Stranders & Gertjan J A Driessen & Charlie C Obihara & Jeanin, 2020. "Evaluation of a clinical decision rule to guide antibiotic prescription in children with suspected lower respiratory tract infection in The Netherlands: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003034
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003034
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003034&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003034?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003034. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.