15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessment of the Appropriateness of Antibiotic Prescriptions for Infection Prophylaxis Before Dental Procedures, 2011 to 2015

      research-article
      , PharmD, MS 1 , 2 , , , PharmD, MPH, PhD 1 , , MD, MPH 1 , , DDS 3 , , PharmD, BCPS, BCIDP 1 , , MD 4 , 5 , , BS 5 , , PhD 6 , 7 , , MPH, PhD 2 , 8
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Are antibiotics appropriately prescribed for infection prophylaxis before dental procedures?

          Findings

          In this cohort study of 91 438 patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis for 168 420 dental visits from 2011 to 2015, a total of 90.7% of dental visits had manipulation of the gingiva or tooth periapex, but only 20.9% of patients had a cardiac condition at the highest risk of adverse outcome from infective endocarditis. Therefore, 80.9% of antibiotic prophylaxis prescriptions were discordant with guidelines.

          Meaning

          Most antibiotics prescribed for infection prophylaxis before dental procedures are unnecessary.

          Abstract

          This cohort study assesses the appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis prescriptions for infection prophylaxis before dental procedures using Truven, a US national integrated health claims database.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Antibiotics are recommended before certain dental procedures in patients with select comorbidities to prevent serious distant site infections.

          Objective

          To assess the appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures using Truven, a national integrated health claims database.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          Retrospective cohort study. Dental visits from 2011 to 2015 were linked to medical and prescription claims from 2009 to 2015. The dates of analysis were August 2018 to January 2019. Participants were US patients with commercial dental insurance without a hospitalization or extraoral infection 14 days before antibiotic prophylaxis (defined as a prescription with ≤2 days’ supply dispensed within 7 days before a dental visit).

          Exposures

          Presence or absence of cardiac diagnoses and dental procedures that manipulated the gingiva or tooth periapex.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis was defined as a prescription dispensed before a dental visit with a procedure that manipulated the gingiva or tooth periapex in patients with an appropriate cardiac diagnosis. To assess associations between patient or dental visit characteristics and appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis, multivariable logistic regression was used. A priori hypothesis tests were performed with an α level of .05.

          Results

          From 2011 to 2015, antibiotic prophylaxis was prescribed for 168 420 dental visits for 91 438 patients (median age, 63 years; interquartile range, 55-72 years; 57.2% female). Overall, these 168 420 dental visits were associated with 287 029 dental procedure codes (range, 1-14 per visit). Most dental visits were classified as diagnostic (70.2%) and/or preventive (58.8%). In 90.7% of dental visits, a procedure was performed that would necessitate antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk cardiac patients. Prevalent comorbidities include prosthetic joint devices (42.5%) and cardiac conditions at the highest risk of adverse outcome from infective endocarditis (20.9%). Per guidelines, 80.9% of antibiotic prophylaxis prescriptions before dental visits were unnecessary. Clindamycin was more likely to be unnecessary relative to amoxicillin (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.15). Prosthetic joint devices (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 2.22-2.41), tooth implant procedures (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.45-1.89), female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17-1.25), and visits occurring in the western United States (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25) were associated with unnecessary antibiotic prophylaxis.

          Conclusion and Relevance

          More than 80% of antibiotics prescribed for infection prophylaxis before dental visits were unnecessary. Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship in dental practices is an opportunity to improve antibiotic prescribing for infection prophylaxis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          US outpatient antibiotic prescribing variation according to geography, patient population, and provider specialty in 2011.

          Appropriate antibiotic prescribing is an essential strategy to reduce the spread of antibiotic resistance. US prescribing practices have not been thoroughly characterized. We analyzed outpatient antibiotic prescribing data to identify where appropriate antibiotic prescribing interventions could have the most impact.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Epidemiology of community-associated Clostridium difficile infection, 2009 through 2011.

            Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been increasingly reported among healthy individuals in the community. Recent data suggest that community-associated CDI represents one-third of all C difficile cases. The epidemiology and potential sources of C difficile in the community are not fully understood. To determine epidemiological and clinical characteristics of community-associated CDI and to explore potential sources of C difficile acquisition in the community. Active population-based and laboratory-based CDI surveillance in 8 US states. Medical records were reviewed and interviews performed to assess outpatient, household, and food exposures among patients with community-associated CDI (ie, toxin or molecular assay positive for C difficile and no overnight stay in a health care facility within 12 weeks). Molecular characterization of C difficile isolates was performed. Outpatient health care exposure in the prior 12 weeks among patients with community-associated CDI was a priori categorized into the following 3 levels: no exposure, low-level exposure (ie, outpatient visit with physician or dentist), or high-level exposure (ie, surgery, dialysis, emergency or urgent care visit, inpatient care with no overnight stay, or health care personnel with direct patient care). Prevalence of outpatient health care exposure among patients with community-associated CDI and identification of potential sources of C difficile by level of outpatient health care exposure. Of 984 patients with community-associated CDI, 353 (35.9%) did not receive antibiotics, 177 (18.0%) had no outpatient health care exposure, and 400 (40.7%) had low-level outpatient health care exposure. Thirty-one percent of patients without antibiotic exposure received proton pump inhibitors. Patients having CDI with no or low-level outpatient health care exposure were more likely to be exposed to infants younger than 1 year (P = .04) and to household members with active CDI (P = .05) compared with those having high-level outpatient health care exposure. No association between food exposure or animal exposure and level of outpatient health care exposure was observed. North American pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (NAP) 1 was the most common (21.7%) strain isolated; NAP7 and NAP8 were uncommon (6.7%). Most patients with community-associated CDI had recent outpatient health care exposure, and up to 36% would not be prevented by reduction of antibiotic use only. Our data support evaluation of additional strategies, including further examination of C difficile transmission in outpatient and household settings and reduction of proton pump inhibitor use.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Increasing rates of cardiac device infections among Medicare beneficiaries: 1990-1999.

              Although cardiac devices have been found to reduce symptoms and mortality rates in appropriate patient populations, the implications of certain important risks, such as infection, are incompletely understood. The purpose of this study was to use a large population-based database to define the population that is at risk for cardiac device infections, determine the prevalence of device infections, and study changes in the rates of cardiac device implantation and infection in the past decade. Patients with cardiac device implantations and infections were identified with claims files from the Health Care Finance Administration for Medicare beneficiaries from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 1999. Rates of implantation of cardiac devices were determined. Time trend analyses were performed to determine the significance of the observed change in rates. Cardiac device implantation rates increased from 3.26 implantations per 1000 beneficiaries in 1990 to 4.64 implantations per 1000 beneficiaries in 1999, which represents an increase of 42% in 10 years (P for trend <.001). Cardiac device infections showed a larger increase, from 0.94 device infections per 1000 beneficiaries in 1990 to 2.11 device infections per 1000 beneficiaries in 1999, which represents an increase of 124% during the study period (P for trend <.001). During the previous decade, there was a significant increase in both cardiac device implantations and infections in elderly patients, although the increase in the rates of device infections was substantially higher. Additional studies are needed to better understand the relationship and timing between cardiac device implantation and infection.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                31 May 2019
                May 2019
                31 May 2019
                : 2
                : 5
                : e193909
                Affiliations
                [1 ]College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago
                [2 ]Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Edward Hines, Jr VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
                [3 ]College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago
                [4 ]School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago
                [5 ]College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago
                [6 ]Oregon State University, Corvallis
                [7 ]College of Pharmacy, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
                [8 ]Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: March 27, 2019.
                Published: May 31, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3909
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Suda KJ et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Katie J. Suda, PharmD, MS, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 833 S Wood St, Room 227 (Mail Code 871), Chicago, IL 60612 ( ksuda@ 123456uic.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Suda and Zhou had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Suda, Calip, Zhou, Gross, Perez, McGregor, Evans.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Suda, Calip, Zhou, Rowan, Gross, Hershow, McGregor.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Suda, Calip, Zhou, Perez, Evans.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Suda, Calip, Zhou, Rowan, Gross, Hershow, McGregor.
                Statistical analysis: Suda, Calip, Zhou, McGregor, Evans.
                Obtained funding: Suda.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Suda, Gross, Perez.
                Supervision: Suda.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Suda reported receiving funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), US Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development (VA HSR&D), VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Roybal Foundation. Dr Rowan reported receiving grants from the AHRQ. Dr Gross reported receiving personal fees from Paratek. Dr McGregor reported receiving grants from the AHRQ, VA HSR&D, and Merck. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: Research reported in this publication was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality under award R01 HS25177 (Dr Suda).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent those of the US Department of Veterans Affairs or the US government.
                Meeting Presentation: This work was presented in part at IDWeek 2018; October 5, 2018; San Francisco, California.
                Article
                zoi190172
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3909
                6547109
                31150071
                3a90d4ee-53f6-42da-9456-b3f525c95f47
                Copyright 2019 Suda KJ et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 14 February 2019
                : 24 March 2019
                : 27 March 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Infectious Diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article