Objective:Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are effective in developed countries. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of an infectious disease (ID) physician–driven post-prescription review and feedback as an ASP strategy in India, a low middle-income country (LMIC).Design and setting:This prospective cohort study was carried out for 18 months in 2 intensive care units of a tertiary-care hospital, consisting of 3 phases: baseline, intervention, and follow up. Each phase spanned 6 months.Participants:Patients aged ≥15 years receiving 48 hours of study antibiotics were recruited for the study.Methods:During the intervention phase, an ID physician reviewed the included cases and gave alternate recommendations if the antibiotic use was inappropriate. Acceptance of the recommendations was measured after 48 hours. The primary outcome of the study was days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 study patient days (PD).Results:Overall, 401 patients were recruited in the baseline phase, 381 patients were recruited in the intervention phase, and 379 patients were recruited in the follow-up phase. Antimicrobial use decreased from 831.5 during the baseline phase to 717 DOT per 1,000 PD in the intervention phase (P < .0001). The effect was sustained in the follow-up phase (713.6 DOT per 1,000 PD). De-escalation according to culture susceptibility improved significantly in the intervention phase versus the baseline phase (42.7% vs 23.6%; P < .0001). Overall, 73.3% of antibiotic prescriptions were inappropriate. Recommendations by the ID team were accepted in 60.7% of the cases.Conclusion:The ID physician–driven implementation of an ASP was successful in reducing antibiotic utilization in an acute-care setting in India.

Background: The high burden of antimicrobial resistance in India necessitates the urgent implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) in all healthcare settings in India. Most ASPs are based at tertiary-care centers, with sparse data available regarding the effectiveness of an ASP in a low-resource primary/secondary-care setting. Methods: We adopted a hub-and-spoke model to implement ASPs in 4 low-resource, secondary-care healthcare settings. The study included 3 phases measuring antimicrobial consumption data. In the baseline phase, we measured days on antimicrobial therapy (DOTs) with no feedback provided. This was followed by the implementation of a customized intervention package. In the postintervention phase, prospective review and feedback were offered by a trained physician or ASP pharmacist, and days of therapy (DOT) were measured. Results: In the baseline phase, 1,459 patients from all 4 sites were enrolled; 1,233 patients were enrolled in the postintervention phase. Both groups had comparable baseline characteristics. The key outcome, DOT per 1,000 patient days, was 1,952.63 in the baseline phase and significantly lower in the post-intervention period, at 1,483.06 (P = .001). Usage of quinolone, macrolide, cephalosporin, clindamycin, and nitroimidazole significantly decreased in the postintervention phase. Also, the rate of antibiotic de-escalation was significantly higher in the postintervention phase than the baseline phase (44% vs 12.5%; P < .0001), which suggests a definite trend toward judicious use of antibiotics. In the postintervention phase, 79.9% of antibiotic use was justified. Overall, the recommendations given by the ASP team were fully followed in 946 cases (77.7%), partially followed in 59 cases (4.8%), and not followed in 137 cases (35.7%). No adverse events were noted. Conclusion: Our hub-and-spoke model of ASP was successful in implementing ASPs in secondary-care hospitals in India, which are urgently needed.