@article {Llewelyn2022.06.13.22275007, author = {Martin J Llewelyn and Eric P Budgell and Magda Laskawiec-Szkonter and Elizabeth LA Cross and Rebecca Alexander and Stuart Bond and Phil Coles and Geraldine Conlon-Bingham and Samantha Dymond and Morgan Evans and Rosemary Fok and Kevin J Frost and Veronica Garcia-Arias and Stephen Glass and Cairine Gormley and Katherine Gray and Clare Hamson and David Harvey and Tim Hills and Shabnam Iyer and Alison Johnson and Nicola Jones and Parmjit Kang and Gloria Kiapi and Damien Mack and Charlotte Makanga and Damian Mawer and Bernie McCullagh and Mariyam Mirfenderesky and Ruth McEwen and Sath Nag and Aaron Nagar and John Northfield and Jean O{\textquoteright}Driscoll and Amanda Pegden and Robert Porter and Neil Powell and David Price and Elizabeth Sheridan and Mandy Slatter and Bruce Stewart and Cassandra Watson and Immo Weichert and Katy Sivyer and Sarah Wordsworth and Jack Quaddy and Marta Santillo and Adele Krusche and Laurence SJ Roope and Fiona Mowbray and Kieran S Hand and Melissa Dobson and Derrick Crook and Louella Vaughan and Susan Hopkins and Lucy Yardley and Timothy EA Peto and Ann Sarah Walker and the ARK trial team}, title = {Antibiotic Review Kit for Hospitals (ARK-Hospital): a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial}, elocation-id = {2022.06.13.22275007}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.1101/2022.06.13.22275007}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press}, abstract = {Background Strategies to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitals depend on clinicians taking decisions to stop unnecessary antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence on how support clinicians do this effectively. We evaluated a multifaceted behaviour change intervention (ARK) which aims to reduce antibiotic consumption in hospitals by increasing decisions to stop antibiotics at clinical review.Methods We performed a stepped-wedge, hospital-level, cluster-randomised controlled trial using computer-generated sequence randomisation of 39 acute hospitals to 7 calendar-time blocks (12/February/2018{\textendash}01/July/2019). Co-primary outcomes were monthly antibiotic defined-daily-doses (DDD) per acute/medical admission (organisation-level, superiority) and all-cause 30-day mortality (patient-level, non-inferiority, margin 5\%). Clusters were eligible if they admitted non-elective medical patients, could identify an intervention {\textquotedblleft}champion{\textquotedblright} and provide pre-intervention data from February/2016. Sites were followed up for a minimum of 14 months. Intervention effects were assessed using interrupted time series analyses in each cluster. Overall effects were derived through random-effects meta-analysis, using meta-regression to assess heterogeneity in effects across prespecified factors. Trial registration was ISRCTN12674243.Findings Adjusted estimates showed a year-on-year reduction in antibiotic consumption (-4.8\%, 95\%CI: -9.1\%,-0.2\%, p=0.042) following the ARK intervention. Among 7,160,421 acute/medical admissions, we observed a -2.7\% (95\%CI: -5.7\%,+0.3\%, p=0.079) immediate and +3.0\% (95\%CI: - 0.1\%,+6.2\%, p=0.060) sustained change in adjusted 30-day mortality. This mortality trend was not related to the magnitude of antibiotic reduction achieved (Spearman{\textquoteright}s ρ=0.011, p=0.949). Whilst 90-day mortality odds appeared to increase over time (+3.9\%, 95\%CI:+0.5\%,+7.4\%, p=0.023), this was not observed among admissions before COVID-19 onset (+3.2\%, 95\%CI:-1.5\%,+8.2\%, p=0.182). Length of hospital stay was unaffected.Interpretation The weak, inconsistent effects of the intervention on mortality are likely to be explained by the COVID-19 pandemic onset during the post-implementation phase. We conclude that the ARK-intervention resulted in sustained, safe reductions in hospital antibiotic use.Funding NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research, RP-PG-0514-20015.Evidence before this study Acutely ill patients often need to receive antibiotics before full diagnostic information is available. Consequently, reducing overuse of antibiotics in hospitals requires clinicians to review and where appropriate, stop unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions. Evidence-based tools to support clinicians stop unnecessary antibiotics do not exist.We searched PubMed, with no language or date restrictions, on 31/January/2022 for clinical studies focused on improving antibiotic use for hospitalised adults using the terms {\textquotedblleft}anti-bacterial agents therapeutic use{\textquotedblright} AND {\textquotedblleft}antibiotic stewardship{\textquotedblright}. Among the 427 studies found, the great majority were uncontrolled evaluations of different approaches to education, decision support and feedback. These included one before-after study, which found no impact of unsupported clinician-led prescription review. Three small, hospital-level cluster-randomised trials were identified. One evaluated different approaches to feedback, one compared different hospital specialties and one found intense feedback to be effective. All were small and none considered clinical outcomes or sustainability. There is a need for research to deliver proven interventions ready for implementation into practice.Added value of this study We evaluated a multifaceted {\textquotedblleft}Antibiotic Review Kit{\textquotedblright} (ARK) intervention to support prescribers to appropriately stop antibiotics at clinical review. ARK comprises a prescription decision-aid supported by a brief online training tool, guidance on implementation (including regular data collection and feedback) and a patient information leaflet. We found that the intervention was associated with a sustained reduction in hospital-level antibiotic use overall and of oral and narrow-spectrum antibiotics specifically. Weak trends were observed for 30-day mortality in opposite directions for immediate and sustained impact. Although there was a sustained increase in 90-day mortality after the intervention, this was only seen when analyses included patients admitted after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Taken together we conclude that these mortality effects are unrelated to the intervention.Implications of all available evidence The ARK intervention is safe and effective in reducing antibiotic use among adult medical hospital admissions. The tools used are now freely available for adoption into practice.Competing Interest StatementThe trial was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Reference Number RP-PG-0514-20015). ASW and LY are NIHR Senior Investigators. ASW, DWC, TEAP, ML, LSJR are supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford. FDRH acknowledges part support from the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (SPCR), the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Research in Health and Care (CLARHC) Oxford, and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Oxford. LY is partly supported by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC)-West and NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) for Behavioural Science and Evaluation.The ARK online tool was developed using the LifeGuide software, which was partly funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Southampton. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The study sponsor and funders have had no role in study design; collection or management of data; and will not have any role in the analysis and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication, nor will they will have ultimate authority over any of these activities. Clinical TrialISRCTN12674243Funding StatementThe trial was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Reference Number RP-PG-0514-20015). ASW and LY are NIHR Senior Investigators.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval was obtained from the South Central Oxford C Research Ethics Committee (17/SC/ 0034) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0015) without individual patient consent since electronic health records were pseudonymised and no personal identifiable data was collected other than date of death.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors}, URL = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/14/2022.06.13.22275007}, eprint = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/14/2022.06.13.22275007.full.pdf}, journal = {medRxiv} }