Probiotic capsules and xylitol chewing gum to manage symptoms of pharyngitis: a randomized controlled factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections is needed to limit the global threat of antibiotic resistance. We estimated the effectiveness of probiotics and xylitol for the management of pharyngitis. METHODS: In this parallel-group factorial randomized controlled trial, participants in primary care (aged 3 years or older) with pharyngitis underwent randomization by nurses who provided sequential intervention packs. Pack contents for 3 kinds of material and advice were previously determined by computer-generated random numbers: no chewing gum, xylitol-based chewing gum (15% xylitol; 5 pieces daily) and sorbitol gum (5 pieces daily). Half of each group were also randomly assigned to receive either probiotic capsules (containing 24 × 109 colony-forming units of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria) or placebo. The primary outcome was mean self-reported severity of sore throat and difficulty swallowing (scale 0-6) in the first 3 days. We used multiple imputation to avoid the assumption that data were missing completely at random. RESULTS: A total of 1009 individuals consented, 934 completed the baseline assessment, and 689 provided complete data for the primary outcome. Probiotics were not effective in reducing the severity of symptoms: mean severity scores 2.75 with no probiotic and 2.78 with probiotic (adjusted difference -0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.24 to 0.24). Chewing gum was also ineffective: mean severity scores 2.73 without gum, 2.72 with sorbitol gum (adjusted difference 0.07, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.37) and 2.73 with xylitol gum (adjusted difference 0.01, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.30). None of the secondary outcomes differed significantly between groups, and no harms were reported. INTERPRETATION: Neither probiotics nor advice to chew xylitol-based chewing gum was effective for managing pharyngitis. Trial registration: ISRCTN, no. ISRCTN51472596.

Effectiveness of steam inhalation and nasal irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews support nasal saline irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms, but trials have been small and few in primary care settings. Steam inhalation has also been proposed, but supporting evidence is lacking. We investigated whether brief pragmatic interventions to encourage use of nasal irrigation or steam inhalation would be effective in relieving sinus symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial involving adults (age 18-65 yr) from 72 primary care practices in the United Kingdom who had a history of chronic or recurrent sinusitis and reported a "moderate to severe" impact of sinus symptoms on their quality of life. Participants were recruited between Feb. 11, 2009, and June 30, 2014, and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 advice strategies: usual care, daily nasal saline irrigation supported by a demonstration video, daily steam inhalation, or combined treatment with both interventions. The primary outcome measure was the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI). Patients were followed up at 3 and 6 months. We imputed missing data using multiple imputation methods. RESULTS: Of the 961 patients who consented, 871 returned baseline questionnaires (210 usual care, 219 nasal irrigation, 232 steam inhalation and 210 combined treatment). A total of 671 (77.0%) of the 871 participants reported RSDI scores at 3 months. Patients' RSDI scores improved more with nasal irrigation than without nasal irrigation by 3 months (crude change -7.42 v. -5.23; estimated adjusted mean difference between groups -2.51, 95% confidence interval -4.65 to -0.37). By 6 months, significantly more patients maintained a 10-point clinically important improvement in the RSDI score with nasal irrigation (44.1% v. 36.6%); fewer used over-the-counter medications (59.4% v. 68.0%) or intended to consult a doctor in future episodes. Steam inhalation reduced headache but had no significant effect on other outcomes. The proportion of participants who had adverse effects was the same in both intervention groups. INTERPRETATION: Advice to use steam inhalation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care was not effective. A similar strategy to use nasal irrigation was less effective than prior evidence suggested, but it provided some symptomatic benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, no. 88204146.

A qualitative study of GP, NP and patient views about the use of rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) in primary care: 'swamped with sore throats?'.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient and healthcare professionals' (HCP) views of clinical scores and rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) for acute sore throat. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interview study. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and patients from general practices across Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the West Midlands who were participating in the Primary Care Streptococcal Management (PRISM) study. METHOD: Semistructured, face-to-face and phone interviews were conducted with GPs, NPs and patients from general practices across Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the West Midlands. RESULTS: 51 participants took part in the study. Of these, 42 were HCPs (29 GPs and 13 NPs) and 9 were patients. HCPs could see a positive role for RADTs in terms of reassurance, as an educational tool for patients, and for aiding inexperienced practitioners, but also had major concerns about RADT use in clinical practice. Particular concerns included the validity of the tests (the role of other bacteria, and carrier states), the tension and possible disconnect with clinical assessment and intuition, the issues of time and resource use and the potential for medicalisation of self-limiting illness. In contrast, however, experience of using RADTs over time seemed to make some participants more positive about using the tests. Moreover, patients were much more positive about the place of RADTs in providing reassurance and in limiting their antibiotic use. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that RADTs will have a (comfortable) place in clinical practice in the near future until health professionals' concerns are met, and they have direct experience of using them. The routine use of clinical scoring systems for acute upper respiratory illness also face important barriers related to clinicians' perceptions of their utility in the face of clinician experience and intuition.

Depression management in primary care: an observational study of management changes related to PHQ-9 score for depression monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Since 2009 UK GPs have been incentivised to use depression severity scores to monitor patients' response to treatment after 5-12 weeks of treatment. AIM: To examine the association between the severity scores obtained and follow-up questionnaires to monitor depression and subsequent changes made to the treatment of it. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study utilising routine primary care records was conducted between April 2009 and March 2011 in 13 general practices recruited from within Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Southampton City primary care trusts. METHOD: Records were examined of 604 patients who had received a new diagnosis of depression since 1 April 2009, and who had completed the nine-item depression scale of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) at initial diagnosis and a subsequent PHQ-9 within 6 months. The main outcome measure was the odds ratio (OR) for a change in depression management. Change in management was defined as change in antidepressant drug prescription, dose, or referral. RESULTS: Controlling for the effects of potentially confounding factors, patients who showed an inadequate response in score change at the time of second assessment were nearly five times as likely to experience a subsequent change to treatment in comparison with those who showed an adequate response (OR 4.72, 95% confidence interval = 2.83 to 7.86). CONCLUSION: GPs' decisions to change treatment or to make referrals following a second PHQ-9 appear to be in line with guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for the monitoring of depression in primary care. Although the present study demonstrates an association between a lack of change in questionnaire scores and treatment changes, the extent to which scores influence choice and whether they are associated with improvements in depression outcomes is an important area for further research.