Evaluation of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and management through pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship programmes: a meta-analysis of evidence

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the Gulf region and determine the effect of pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes on reducing inappropriateness. METHOD: Articles were searched, analysed, and quality assessed through the risk of bias (ROB) quality assessment tool to select articles with a low level of bias. In step 1, 515 articles were searched, in step 2, 2360 articles were searched, and ultimately 32 articles were included by critical analysis. Statistical analysis used to determine risk ratio and standard mean differences were calculated using Review manager 5.4; 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effect model. The I(2) statistic assessed heterogeneity. In statistical heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses, a random effect model was performed. The α threshold was 0.05. The primary outcome was inappropriateness in antibiotic prescribing in the Gulf region and reduction of inappropriateness through AMS. RESULT: Detailed review and analysis of 18 studies of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the Gulf region showed the risk of inappropriateness was 43 669/100 846=43.3% (pooled RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.32). Test with overall effect was 58.87; in the second step 28 AMS programmes led by pharmacists showed reduced inappropriateness in AMS with pharmacist versus pre-AMS without pharmacist (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.39). CONCLUSION: Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the Gulf region is alarming and needs to be addressed through pharmacist-led AMS programmes.