Impact of the French Infectious Diseases Society's (SPILF) proposals for shorter antibiotic therapies

Abstract

Objective. - To compare the practices of French infection specialists related to antibiotic therapy duration between 2016 and 2018. Methods. - We conducted two identical surveys (in 2016 and 2018) targeting hospital-based infection specialists (medical physicians, pharmacists) who gave at least weekly advice on antibiotic prescriptions. The questionnaire included 15 clinical vignettes. Part A asked about the durations of antibiotic therapies they would usually advise to prescribers, and part B asked about the shortest duration they would be willing to advise for the same clinical situations. Results. - We included 325 specialists (165 in 2016 and 160 in 2018), mostly infectious disease specialists (82.4%, 268/325), members of antibiotic stewardship teams in 72% (234/325) of cases. Shorter antibiotic treatments (as compared with the literature) were advised to prescribers in more than half of the vignettes by 71% (105/147) of respondents in 2018, versus 46% (69/150) in 2016 (P<0.001). Guidelines used by participants displayed fixed durations for 77% (123/160) of cases in 2018 versus 21% (35/165) in 2016. Almost all respondents (89%, 131/160) declared they were aware of the 2017 SPILF's proposal. Conclusion. - The release of guidelines promoting shorter durations of antibiotic therapy seems to have had a favourable impact on practices of specialists giving advice on antibiotic prescriptions. (C) 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.