Safety of antibiotic audit and feedback: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND

We previously demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial that antibiotic prescribing feedback to family physicians reduced antibiotic use. However, that trial did not evaluate for patient harms from potential under-prescribing of antibiotics.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety of an antibiotic audit and feedback intervention.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared an intervention group, who received a mailed antibiotic prescribing peer comparison feedback letter, compared with a control group who did not receive a letter. The initial trial was limited to patients aged 65 years or older due to availability of pharmacy claims data. The primary outcome was an emergency department visit or hospital admission for a bacterial infection. The outcome was assessed at 6 months post-intervention using administrative data claims data and multivariable linear regression models. The initial trial was registered (NCT04594200).

RESULTS

We included 4879 physicians-3909 intervention physicians and 970 control physicians. There were 37 345 severe infection events in the 6 month post-intervention period. The observed mean (SD) of all severe infection events per physician was 7.73 (12.42) for control and 7.64 (11.91) for intervention groups. The model-based adjusted mean difference was -0.23 (95% CI, -0.92 to 0.45; P = 0.505).

CONCLUSIONS

In this post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing antibiotic prescribing feedback versus no feedback to physicians in primary care, there was no evidence of severe bacterial infection complications associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing. These findings support antibiotic peer comparison feedback as a safe and effective tool to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing.