Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Evidence-based appraisal of two guidelines for the diagnosis of suspected, uncomplicated urinary tract infections in primary care: a diagnostic accuracy validation study.

OBJECTIVES: Given the lack of accurate rapid diagnostics for urinary tract infection (UTI) in women, many countries have developed guidelines aiming to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing, but some guidelines have not been validated. We performed a diagnostic accuracy validation study of two guidelines: Public Health England (GW-1263) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN160). METHODS: We used data from women with symptoms suggestive of uncomplicated UTI from a randomized controlled trial comparing urine collection devices. Symptom information was recorded via baseline questionnaire and primary care assessment. Women provided urine samples for dipstick testing and culture. We calculated the number within each risk category of diagnostic flowcharts who had positive/mixed growth/no significant growth urine culture. Results were presented as positive/negative predictive values, with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of women aged under 65 years, 311/509 (61.1%, 95% CI 56.7%-65.3%) classified to the highest risk category (recommended to consider immediate antibiotic prescribing) and 80/199 (40.2%, 95% CI 33.4%-47.4%) classified to the lowest risk category (recommended to reassure that UTI is less likely) by the GW-1263 guideline (n = 810) had positive culture. For the SIGN160 guideline (n = 814), the proportion with positive culture ranged from 60/82 (73.2%, 95% CI 62.1%-82.1%) in those for whom immediate treatment was indicated to 33/76 (43.4%, 95% CI 32.3%-55.3%) in those recommended a self-care/waiting strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be aware of the potential for diagnostic error when using diagnostic guidelines for managing uncomplicated UTI and making antimicrobial prescribing decisions. Infection cannot be excluded on the basis of symptoms and dipstick testing alone.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection in children presenting in primary care in England (ARTIC PC): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat. Antibiotics are very commonly prescribed for children presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness of antibiotics, both overall or among key clinical subgroups. In ARTIC PC, we assessed whether amoxicillin reduces the duration of moderately bad symptoms in children presenting with uncomplicated (non-pneumonic) LRTI in primary care, overall and in key clinical subgroups. METHODS: ARTIC PC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 56 general practices in England. Eligible children were those aged 6 months to 12 years presenting in primary care with acute uncomplicated LRTI judged to be infective in origin, where pneumonia was not suspected clinically, with symptoms for less than 21 days. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day or placebo oral suspension, in three divided doses orally for 7 days. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary) for up to 28 days or until symptoms resolved. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN79914298). FINDINGS: Between Nov 9, 2016, and March 17, 2020, 432 children (not including six who withdrew permission for use of their data after randomisation) were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group (n=221) or the placebo group (n=211). Complete data for symptom duration were available for 317 (73%) patients; missing data were imputed for the primary analysis. Median durations of moderately bad or worse symptoms were similar between the groups (5 days [IQR 4-11] in the antibiotics group vs 6 days [4-15] in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 1·13 [95% CI 0·90-1·42]). No differences were seen for the primary outcome between the treatment groups in the five prespecified clinical subgroups (patients with chest signs, fever, physician rating of unwell, sputum or chest rattle, and short of breath). Estimates from complete-case analysis and a per-protocol analysis were similar to the imputed data analysis. INTERPRETATION: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated chest infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective either overall or for key subgroups in whom antibiotics are commonly prescribed. Unless pneumonia is suspected, clinicians should provide safety-netting advice but not prescribe antibiotics for most children presenting with chest infections. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

C-Reactive Protein Testing to Guide Antibiotic Prescribing for COPD Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing of C-reactive protein (CRP) may be a way to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics without harming patients who have acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with a diagnosis of COPD in their primary care clinical record who consulted a clinician at 1 of 86 general medical practices in England and Wales for an acute exacerbation of COPD. The patients were assigned to receive usual care guided by CRP point-of-care testing (CRP-guided group) or usual care alone (usual-care group). The primary outcomes were patient-reported use of antibiotics for acute exacerbations of COPD within 4 weeks after randomization (to show superiority) and COPD-related health status at 2 weeks after randomization, as measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, a 10-item scale with scores ranging from 0 (very good COPD health status) to 6 (extremely poor COPD health status) (to show noninferiority). RESULTS: A total of 653 patients underwent randomization. Fewer patients in the CRP-guided group reported antibiotic use than in the usual-care group (57.0% vs. 77.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.47). The adjusted mean difference in the total score on the Clinical COPD Questionnaire at 2 weeks was -0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI, -0.33 to -0.05) in favor of the CRP-guided group. The antibiotic prescribing decisions made by clinicians at the initial consultation were ascertained for all but 1 patient, and antibiotic prescriptions issued over the first 4 weeks of follow-up were ascertained for 96.9% of the patients. A lower percentage of patients in the CRP-guided group than in the usual-care group received an antibiotic prescription at the initial consultation (47.7% vs. 69.7%, for a difference of 22.0 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.45) and during the first 4 weeks of follow-up (59.1% vs. 79.7%, for a difference of 20.6 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.46). Two patients in the usual-care group died within 4 weeks after randomization from causes considered by the investigators to be unrelated to trial participation. CONCLUSIONS: CRP-guided prescribing of antibiotics for exacerbations of COPD in primary care clinics resulted in a lower percentage of patients who reported antibiotic use and who received antibiotic prescriptions from clinicians, with no evidence of harm. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; PACE Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN24346473.).

Impact of Adding Oseltamivir to Usual Care on Quality-Adjusted Life-Years During Influenza-Like Illness.

OBJECTIVES: The ALIC4E trial has shown that oseltamivir reduces recovery time while increasing the risk of nausea. This secondary analysis of the ALIC4E trial aimed to determine the gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in patients presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI). METHODS: Patients with ILI were recruited during the influenza season (2015-2018) in 15 European countries. Patients were assigned to usual care with or without oseltamivir through stratified randomization (age, severity, comorbidities, and symptom onset). Patients' health status was valued with the EQ-5D and visual analog scale (VAS) for up to 28 days. Average EQ-5D and VAS scores over time were estimated for both treatment groups using one-inflated beta regression in children (<13 years old) and adults (≥13 years old). QALY gain was calculated as the difference between the groups. Sensitivity analysis considered the value set to convert EQ-5D answers to summary scores and the follow-up period. RESULTS: In adults, oseltamivir gained 0.0006 (95% confidence interval 0.0002-0.0010) QALYs, whereas no statistically significant gain was found in children (14-day follow-up, EQ-5D). QALY gains were statistically significant in patients aged ≥65 years, patients without relevant comorbidities, or patients experiencing symptoms for ≤48 hours. Using VAS and accounting for 28-day follow-up resulted in higher QALY gain. CONCLUSIONS: QALY gain owing to oseltamivir is limited compared with other diseases, and its clinical meaningfulness remains to be determined. Further analysis is needed to evaluate whether QALY gain and its impact on ILI treatment cost render oseltamivir cost-effective.

Clinical prediction of laboratory-confirmed influenza in adults with influenza-like illness in primary care. A randomized controlled trial secondary analysis in 15 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Clinical findings do not accurately predict laboratory diagnosis of influenza. Early identification of influenza is considered useful for proper management decisions in primary care. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the diagnostic value of the presence and the severity of symptoms for the diagnosis of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection among adults presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI) in primary care. METHODS: Secondary analysis of patients with ILI who participated in a clinical trial from 2015 to 2018 in 15 European countries. Patients rated signs and symptoms as absent, minor, moderate, or major problem. A nasopharyngeal swab was taken for microbiological identification of influenza and other microorganisms. Models were generated considering (i) the presence of individual symptoms and (ii) the severity rating of symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 2,639 patients aged 18 or older were included in the analysis. The mean age was 41.8 ± 14.7 years, and 1,099 were men (42.1%). Influenza was microbiologically confirmed in 1,337 patients (51.1%). The area under the curve (AUC) of the model for the presence of any of seven symptoms for detecting influenza was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.68), whereas the AUC of the symptom severity model, which included eight variables-cough, fever, muscle aches, sweating and/or chills, moderate to severe overall disease, age, abdominal pain, and sore throat-was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.69-0.72). CONCLUSION: Clinical prediction of microbiologically confirmed influenza in adults with ILI is slightly more accurate when based on patient reported symptom severity than when based on the presence or absence of symptoms.

Influenza is usually diagnosed clinically. However, the accuracy of a diagnosis of influenza based on clinical features is limited because symptoms overlap considerably with those caused by other microorganisms. This study examined whether identification of the severity rather than the presence of key signs and symptoms could aid in the diagnosis of influenza, thereby helping clinicians to determine when antiviral agent use is appropriate. The authors used the database of a previous randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of an antiviral carried out in primary care centers in 15 countries in Europe during three epidemic periods from 2015/2016 to 2017/2018. Participants with influenza symptoms were included and they were asked about the presence and severity of different symptoms during the baseline visit with their doctors and a nasopharyngeal swab was taken for microbiological analysis. Overall, only 51% of the patients aged 18 or older had a confirmed influenza infection. Clinical findings are not particularly useful for confirming or excluding the diagnosis of influenza. However, the results of our study recommend considering how intense the different symptoms are, since key symptoms rated as moderate or severe are slightly better for predicting flu rather than the presence or absence of these symptoms.

Public preferences for delayed or immediate antibiotic prescriptions in UK primary care: A choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Delayed (or "backup") antibiotic prescription, where the patient is given a prescription but advised to delay initiating antibiotics, has been shown to be effective in reducing antibiotic use in primary care. However, this strategy is not widely used in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to identify factors influencing preferences among the UK public for delayed prescription, and understand their relative importance, to help increase appropriate use of this prescribing option. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an online choice experiment in 2 UK general population samples: adults and parents of children under 18 years. Respondents were presented with 12 scenarios in which they, or their child, might need antibiotics for a respiratory tract infection (RTI) and asked to choose either an immediate or a delayed prescription. Scenarios were described by 7 attributes. Data were collected between November 2018 and February 2019. Respondent preferences were modelled using mixed-effects logistic regression. The survey was completed by 802 adults and 801 parents (75% of those who opened the survey). The samples reflected the UK population in age, sex, ethnicity, and country of residence. The most important determinant of respondent choice was symptom severity, especially for cough-related symptoms. In the adult sample, the probability of choosing delayed prescription was 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.56, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough and runny nose compared to 0.30 (0.28 to 0.33, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough with fever, 0.47 (0.44 to 0.50, p < 0.001) for sore throat with swollen glands, and 0.37 (0.34 to 0.39, p < 0.001) for sore throat, swollen glands, and fever. Respondents were less likely to choose delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (odds ratio (OR) 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96, p < 0.001)). Probabilities of choosing delayed prescription were similar for parents considering treatment for a child (44% of choices versus 42% for adults, p = 0.04). However, parents differed from the adult sample in showing a more marked reduction in choice of the delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (OR 0.83 (0.80 to 0.87) versus 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001) and a smaller effect of disruption of usual activities (OR 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) versus 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001). Females were more likely to choose a delayed prescription than males for minor symptoms, particularly minor cough (probability 0.62 (0.58 to 0.66, p < 0.001) for females and 0.45 (0.41 to 0.48, p < 0.001) for males). Older people, those with a good understanding of antibiotics, and those who had not used antibiotics recently showed similar patterns of preferences. Study limitations include its hypothetical nature, which may not reflect real-life behaviour; the absence of a "no prescription" option; and the possibility that study respondents may not represent the views of population groups who are typically underrepresented in online surveys. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that delayed prescription appears to be an acceptable approach to reducing antibiotic consumption. Certain groups appear to be more amenable to delayed prescription, suggesting particular opportunities for increased use of this strategy. Prescribing choices for sore throat may need additional explanation to ensure patient acceptance, and parents in particular may benefit from reassurance about the usual duration of these illnesses.

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups. METHODS: We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group. INTERPRETATION: Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner. FUNDING: European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.

The early use of Antibiotics for at Risk CHildren with InfluEnza-like illness (ARCHIE): a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The UK government stockpiles co-amoxiclav to treat bacterial complications during influenza pandemics. This pragmatic trial examines whether early co-amoxiclav use reduces reconsultation due to clinical deterioration in "at risk" children presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI) in primary or ambulatory care. METHODS: "At risk" children aged from 6 months to 12 years presenting within 5 days of ILI onset were randomly assigned to oral co-amoxiclav 400/57 or a placebo twice daily for 5 days (dosing based on age±weight). "At risk" groups included children with respiratory, cardiac and neurological conditions. Randomisation was stratified by region and used a non-deterministic minimisation algorithm to balance age and current seasonal influenza vaccination status. Our target sample size was 650 children which would have allowed us to detect a reduction in the proportion of children reconsulting due to clinical deterioration from 40% to 26%, with 90% power and 5% two-tailed alpha error (including allowance for 25% loss to follow-up and an inflation factor of 1.041). Participants, caregivers and investigators were blinded to treatment allocation. Intention-to-treat analysis included all randomised participants with primary outcome data on reconsultation due to clinical deterioration within 28 days. Safety analysis included all randomised participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 70714783. EudraCT 2013-002822-21. RESULTS: We recruited 271 children between February 11, 2015 and April 20, 2018. Primary outcome data were available for 265 children. Only 61 out of 265 children (23.0%) reconsulted due to clinical deterioration. No evidence of a treatment effect was observed for reconsultation due to clinical deterioration (33 out of 133 for co-amoxiclav (24.8%) and 28 out of 132 (21.2%) for placebo; adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.80). There was also no evidence of a difference between groups in the proportion of children for whom one or more adverse events (AEs) were reported (32 out of 136 (23.5%) for co-amoxiclav and 22 out of 135 (16.3%) for placebo; adjusted RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90-2.34). In total, 66 AEs were reported (co-amoxiclav, n=37; placebo, n=29). Nine serious AEs were reported per group, although none were considered related to study medication. CONCLUSION: Our trial did not find evidence that treatment with co-amoxiclav reduces risk of reconsultation due to clinical deterioration in "at risk" children who present early with ILI during influenza season. Our findings therefore do not support early co-amoxiclav use in children with seasonal ILI.

Implementing interventions to reduce antibiotic use: a qualitative study in high-prescribing practices.

BACKGROUND: Trials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use. METHODS: This was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Nine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience - participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as 'clinical tools', perceiving them as useful only in 'rare' instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as 'social tools' - participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities - participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context - various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies. CONCLUSIONS: High-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful 'clinical tools' in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as 'social tools' to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation.

Management of penicillin allergy in primary care: a qualitative study with patients and primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Six percent of patients are allergic to penicillin according to their medical records. While this designation protects a small number of truly allergic patients from serious reactions, those who are incorrectly labelled may be denied access to recommended first line treatment for many infections. Removal of incorrect penicillin allergy may have positive health consequences for the individual and the general population. We aimed to explore primary care physicians' (PCPs) and patients' views and understanding of penicillin allergy with a focus on clinical management of infections in the face of a penicillin allergy record. METHODS: We conducted an interview study with 31 patients with a penicillin allergy record, and 19 PCPs in the North of England. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Patients made sense of their allergy status by considering the timing and severity of symptoms. Diagnosis of penicillin allergy was reported to be 'imperfect' with PCPs relying on patient reports and incomplete medical records. PCPs and patients often suspected that an allergy record was incorrect, but PCPs were reluctant to change records. PCPs had limited knowledge of allergy services. PCPs often prescribed alternative antibiotics which were easy to identify. Both patients and PCPs differed in the extent to which they were aware of the negative consequences of incorrect penicillin allergy records, their relevance and importance to their lives, and management of penicillin allergy. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs and patients appear insufficiently aware of potential harms associated with incorrect penicillin allergy records. Some of the problems experienced by PCPs could be reduced by ensuring the details of newly diagnosed reactions to antibiotics are clearly documented. In order for PCPs to overturn more incorrect penicillin records through appropriate use of allergy services, more information and training about these services will be needed.

Does C-reactive protein predict time to recovery and benefit from oseltamivir treatment in primary care patients with influenza-like illness? A randomized controlled trial secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Recovery time and treatment effect of oseltamivir in influenza-like illness (ILI) differs between patient groups. A point-of-care test to better predict ILI duration and identify patients who are most likely to benefit from oseltamivir treatment would aid prescribing decisions in primary care. This study aimed to investigate whether a C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration of ≥30 mg/L can predict (1) ILI disease duration, and (2) which patients are most likely to benefit from oseltamivir treatment. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial data. SETTING: Primary care in Lithuania, Sweden and Norway during three consecutive influenza seasons 2016-2018. SUBJECTS: A total of 277 ILI patients aged one year or older and symptom duration of ≤72 h. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Capillary blood CRP concentration at baseline, and ILI recovery time defined as having 'returned to usual daily activity' with residual symptoms minimally interfering. RESULTS: At baseline, 20% (55/277) had CRP concentrations ≥30mg/L (range 0-210). CRP concentration ≥30 mg/L was not associated with recovery time (adjusted hazards ratio (HR) 0.80: 95% CI 0.50-1.3; p = 0.33). Interaction analysis of CRP concentration ≥30 mg/L and oseltamivir treatment did not identify which patients benefit more from oseltamivir treatment (adjusted HR 0.69: 95% CI 0.37-1.3; p = 0.23). CONCLUSION: There was no association between CRP concentration of ≥30 mg/L and recovery time from ILI. Furthermore, CRP could not predict which ILI patients benefit more from oseltamivir treatment. Hence, we do not recommend CRP testing for predicting ILI recovery time or identifying patients who will receive particular benefit from oseltamivir treatment.Key PointsPredicting disease course of influenza-like illness (ILI), and identifying which patients benefit from oseltamivir treatment is a challenge for physicians.• There was no association between CRP concentration at baseline and recovery time in patients consulting with ILI in primary care.• There was no association between CRP concentration at baseline and benefit from oseltamivir treatment.• We, therefore, do not recommend CRP testing for predicting recovery time or in decision-making concerning oseltamivir prescribing in ILI patients.

Molecular epidemiology and clinical impact of rhinovirus infections in adults during three epidemic seasons in 11 European countries (2007-2010).

BACKGROUND: Differences in clinical impact between rhinovirus (RVs) species and types in adults are not well established. The objective of this study was to determine the epidemiology and clinical impact of the different RV species. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of RVs infections in adults with acute cough/lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and asymptomatic controls. Subjects were recruited from 16 primary care networks located in 11 European countries between 2007 and 2010. RV detection and genotyping was performed by means of real time and conventional reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assays, followed by sequence analysis. Clinical data were obtained from medical records and patient symptom diaries. RESULTS: RVs were detected in 566 (19%) of 3016 symptomatic adults, 102 (4%) of their 2539 follow-up samples and 67 (4%) of 1677 asymptomatic controls. Genotyping was successful for 538 (95%) symptomatic subjects, 86 (84%) follow-up infections and 62 (93%) controls. RV-A was the prevailing species, associated with an increased risk of LRTI as compared with RV-B (relative risk (RR), 4.5; 95% CI 2.5 to 7.9; p<0.001) and RV-C (RR 2.2; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.9; p=0.010). In symptomatic subjects, RV-A loads were higher than those of RV-B (p=0.015). Symptom scores and duration were similar across species. More RV-A infected patients felt generally unwell in comparison to RV-C (p=0·023). Of the 140 RV types identified, five were new types; asymptomatic infections were associated with multiple types. INTERPRETATION: In adults, RV-A is significantly more often detected in cases with acute cough/LRTI than RV-C, while RV-B infection is often found in asymptomatic patients.

Oseltamivir and influenza-related complications in children: a retrospective cohort in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI) place considerable burden on healthcare systems, especially during influenza epidemics and pandemics. During the 2009/10 H1N1 influenza pandemic, UK national guidelines recommended antiviral medications for patients presenting within 72 h of ILI onset. However, it is not clear whether antiviral treatment was associated with reductions in influenza-related complications. METHODS: Our study population consisted of a retrospective cohort of children aged ≤17 years who presented with influenza/ILI at UK primary care practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink during the 2009/10 pandemic. We used doubly robust inverse-probability weighted propensity scores and physician prior prescribing instrumental variable methods to estimate the causal effect of oseltamivir prescribing on influenza-related complications. Secondary outcomes were complications requiring intervention, pneumonia, pneumonia or hospitalisation, influenza-related hospitalisation and all-cause hospitalisation. RESULTS: We included 16 162 children, of whom 4028 (24.9%) were prescribed oseltamivir, and 753 (4.7%) had recorded complications. Under propensity score analyses oseltamivir prescriptions were associated with reduced influenza-related complications (risk difference (RD) -0.015, 95% CI -0.022--0.008), complications requiring further intervention, pneumonia, pneumonia or hospitalisation and influenza-related hospitalisation, but not all-cause hospitalisation. Adjusted instrumental variable analyses estimated reduced influenza-related complications (RD -0.032, 95% CI -0.051--0.013), pneumonia or hospitalisation, all-cause and influenza-related hospitalisations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on causal inference analyses of observational data, oseltamivir treatment in children with influenza/ILI was associated with a small but statistically significant reduction in influenza-related complications during an influenza pandemic.

Reducing expectations for antibiotics in primary care: a randomised experiment to test the response to fear-based messages about antimicrobial resistance.

BACKGROUND: To reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, public health campaigns often provide fear-based information about antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Meta-analyses have found that fear-based campaigns in other contexts are likely to be ineffective unless respondents feel confident they can carry out the recommended behaviour ('self-efficacy'). This study aimed to test the likely impact of fear-based messages, with and without empowering self-efficacy elements, on patient consultations/antibiotic requests for influenza-like illnesses, using a randomised design. METHODS: We hypothesised that fear-based messages containing empowering information about self-management without antibiotics would be more effective than fear alone, particularly in a pre-specified subgroup with low AMR awareness. Four thousand respondents from an online panel, representative of UK adults, were randomised to receive three different messages about antibiotic use and AMR, designed to induce fear about AMR to varying degrees. Two messages (one 'strong-fear', one 'mild-fear') also contained empowering information regarding influenza-like symptoms being easily self-managed without antibiotics. The main outcome measures were self-reported effect of information on likelihood of visiting a doctor and requesting antibiotics, for influenza-like illness, analysed separately according to whether or not the AMR information was 'very/somewhat new' to respondents, pre-specified based on a previous (non-randomised) survey. RESULTS: The 'fear-only' message was 'very/somewhat new' to 285/1000 (28.5%) respondents, 'mild-fear-plus-empowerment' to 336/1500 (22.4%), and 'strong-fear-plus-empowerment' to 388/1500 (25.9%) (p = 0.002). Of those for whom the respective information was 'very/somewhat new', only those given the 'strong-fear-plus-empowerment' message said they would be less likely to request antibiotics if they visited a doctor for an influenza-like illness (p < 0.0001; 182/388 (46.9%) 'much less likely'/'less likely', versus 116/336 (34.5%) with 'mild-fear-plus-empowerment' versus 85/285 (29.8%) with 'fear-alone'). Those for whom the respective information was not 'very/somewhat new' said they would be less likely to request antibiotics for influenza-like illness (p < 0.0001) across all messages (interaction p < 0.0001 versus 'very/somewhat new' subgroup). The three messages had analogous self-reported effects on likelihood of visiting a doctor and in subgroups defined by believing antibiotics would 'definitely/probably' help an influenza-like illness. Results were reproduced in an independent randomised survey (additional 4000 adults). CONCLUSIONS: Fear could be effective in public campaigns to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, but should be combined with messages empowering patients to self-manage symptoms effectively without antibiotics.

How did a Quality Premium financial incentive influence antibiotic prescribing in primary care? Views of Clinical Commissioning Group and general practice professionals.

BACKGROUND: The Quality Premium (QP) was introduced for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England to optimize antibiotic prescribing, but it remains unclear how it was implemented. OBJECTIVES: To understand responses to the QP and how it was perceived to influence antibiotic prescribing. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 22 CCG and 19 general practice professionals. Interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The findings were organized into four categories. (i) Communication: this was perceived as unstructured and infrequent, and CCG professionals were unsure whether they received QP funding. (ii) Implementation: this was influenced by available local resources and competing priorities, with multifaceted and tailored strategies seen as most helpful for engaging general practices. Many antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies were implemented independently from the QP, motivated by quality improvement. (iii) Mechanisms: the QP raised the priority of AMS nationally and locally, and provided prescribing targets to aim for and benchmark against, but money was not seen as reinvested into AMS. (iv) Impact and sustainability: the QP was perceived as successful, but targets were considered challenging for a minority of CCGs and practices due to contextual factors (e.g. deprivation, understaffing). CCG professionals were concerned with potential discontinuation of the QP and prescribing rates levelling off. CONCLUSIONS: CCG and practice professionals expressed positive views of the QP and associated prescribing targets and feedback. The QP helped influence change mainly by raising the priority of AMS and defining change targets rather than providing additional funding. To maximize impact, behavioural mechanisms of financial incentives should be considered pre-implementation.

Reductions in Parent Interest in Receiving Antibiotics following a 90-Second Video Intervention in Outpatient Pediatric Clinics.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a 90-second animated video on parents' interest in receiving an antibiotic for their child. STUDY DESIGN: This pre-post test study enrolled English and Spanish speaking parents (n = 1051) of children ages 1-5 years presenting with acute respiratory tract infection symptoms. Before meeting with their provider, parents rated their interest in receiving an antibiotic for their child, answered 6 true/false antibiotic knowledge questions, viewed the video, and then rated their antibiotic interest again. Parents rated their interest in receiving an antibiotic using a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 100, with 0 being "I definitely do not want an antibiotic," 50 "Neutral," and 100 "I absolutely want an antibiotic." RESULTS: Parents were 84% female, with a mean age of 32 ± 6.0, 26.0% had a high school education or less, 15% were black, and 19% were Hispanic. After watching the video, parents' average antibiotic interest ratings decreased by 10 points (mean, 57.0 ± 20 to M ± 21; P < .0001). Among parents with the highest initial antibiotic interest ratings (≥60), even greater decreases were observed (83.0 ± 12.0 to 63.4 ± 22; P < .0001) with more than one-half (52%) rating their interest in the low or neutral ranges after watching the video. CONCLUSIONS: A 90-second video can decrease parents' interest in receiving antibiotics, especially among those with higher baseline interest. This scalable intervention could be used in a variety of settings to reduce parents' interest in receiving antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03037112.

Performance and ease of use of a molecular point-of-care test for influenza A/B and RSV in patients presenting to primary care.

Annual influenza epidemics cause substantial morbidity and mortality, and the majority of patients with influenza-like illness present to primary care. Point-of-care influenza tests could support treatment decisions. It is critical to establish analytic performance of these platforms in real-life patient samples before uptake can be considered. We aimed to assess the analytical performance and ease of use of the cobas® Liat® PCR POCT in detecting influenza A/B and RSV in samples collected from patients with influenza-like illness in primary care. Sensitivity and specificity of the cobas® Liat® POCT are calculated in comparison with a commercial laboratory-based PCR test (Fast-Track Respiratory Pathogens 21 Plus kit (Fast-Track Diagnostics)). Samples with discordant results were analysed additionally by the RespiFinder 2Smart (PathoFinder) using an Extended Gold Standard (EGS). Acceptability was scored on a five-point Likert scale as well as a failure mode analysis of the cobas® Liat® POCT was performed. Nasal and oropharyngeal swabs were obtained from 140 children and nasopharyngeal swabs from 604 adults (744 patients). The cobas® Liat® POCT had a sensitivity and specificity of 100% (95% CI 99-100%) and 98.1% (95%CI 96.3-99%) for influenza A, 100% (95% CI 97.7-100%) and 99.7% (95%CI 98.7-99.9%) for influenza B and 100% (95% CI 87.1-100%) and 99.4% (95%CI 98.6-99.8%) for RSV, respectively. According to trained lab technicians, the cobas® Liat® POCT was considered easy-to-use, with a fast turn-around-time. Cobas® Liat® POCT is a promising decentralised test platform for influenza A/B and RSV in primary care as it provides fairly rapid results with excellent analytic performance. Point-of-care influenza tests could support treatment decisions in primary care. Cobas® Liat® POCT is a promising decentralised test platform for influenza A/B and RSV in primary care as it provides fairly rapid results with excellent analytic performance.

Effect of Probiotic Use on Antibiotic Administration Among Care Home Residents: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Probiotics are frequently used by residents in care homes (residential homes or nursing homes that provide residents with 24-hour support for personal care or nursing care), although the evidence on whether probiotics prevent infections and reduce antibiotic use in these settings is limited. Objective: To determine whether a daily oral probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 compared with placebo reduces antibiotic administration in care home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of 310 care home residents, aged 65 years and older, recruited from 23 care homes in the United Kingdom between December 2016 and May 2018, with last follow-up on October 31, 2018. Interventions: Study participants were randomized to receive a daily capsule containing a probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 (total cell count per capsule, 1.3 × 1010 to 1.6 × 1010) (n = 155), or daily matched placebo (n = 155), for up to 1 year. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cumulative antibiotic administration days for all-cause infections measured from randomization for up to 1 year. Results: Among 310 randomized care home residents (mean age, 85.3 years; 66.8% women), 195 (62.9%) remained alive and completed the trial. Participant diary data (daily data including study product use, antibiotic administration, and signs of infection) were available for 98.7% randomized to the probiotic group and 97.4% randomized to placebo. Care home residents randomized to the probiotic group had a mean of 12.9 cumulative systemic antibiotic administration days (95% CI, 0 to 18.05), and residents randomized to placebo had a mean of 12.0 days (95% CI, 0 to 16.95) (absolute difference, 0.9 days [95% CI, -3.25 to 5.05]; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.63]; P = .50). A total of 120 care home residents experienced 283 adverse events (150 adverse events in the probiotic group and 133 in the placebo group). Hospitalizations accounted for 94 of the events in probiotic group and 78 events in the placebo group, and deaths accounted for 33 of the events in the probiotic group and 32 of the events in the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among care home residents in the United Kingdom, a daily dose of a probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 did not significantly reduce antibiotic administration for all-cause infections. These findings do not support the use of probiotics in this setting. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier:16392920.