Consultation expectations among patients with respiratory tract infection symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Antibiotic resistance is a growing threat to public health, and antibiotic prescribing increases. About 90% of antibiotics are prescribed in general practice, mostly for acute respiratory tract infections. It is well known that patient expectations and general practitioners' misinterpretation of patients' expectations are associated with antibiotic overuse. The aim of this study was to explore Danish patients' expectations when consulting a general practitioner with symptoms of acute respiratory tract infection, and to determine predictors for these expectations. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted in Danish primary care during 2014. Patients aged ≥ 18 years were asked about their expectations to the consultation when consulting with symptoms of acute respiratory tract infections. Associations between socio-demographic characteristics, self-reported antibiotic prescription and patients' expectations were also explored. RESULTS: A total of 567 patients with symptoms of acute respiratory tract infections were recorded as interested in receiving a questionnaire, 361 of whom responded. The majority expected an examination (94.6%) and an explanation (85.9%). About one third expected antibiotic treatment (32.3%). Patients who expected an antibiotic were more than eight times more likely to be prescribed one than were patients not expecting an antibiotic (odds ratio = 8.6 (95% confidence interval: 4.63-16.03); p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most Danish patients expected an examination and/or an explanation of their symptoms when consulting with their general practitioner. FUNDING: The study was, in part, funded by The Council for Quality Assurance in Primary Care in both The Region of Southern Denmark and Region Zealand. Malene Plejdrup Hansen received a postdoctoral scholarship in general practice and family medicine from The Novo Nordic Foundation. The sponsors have not been involved in the design or the development of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the Danish Data Protection Agency (R. no. 2013-41-2582).

Non-Tuberculous Mycobacteria: Classification, Diagnostics, and Therapy.

Non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are species other than those belonging to the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and do not cause leprosy. NTM are generally free-living organisms that are ubiquitous in the environment. There have been more than 140 NTM species identified to-date. They can cause a wide range of infections, with pulmonary infections being the most frequent (65-90 %). There is growing evidence that the incidence of NTM lung diseases and associated hospitalizations are on the rise, mainly in regions with a low prevalence of tuberculosis. A crucial clinical problem remains the evaluation of NTM significance in relation to the disease, especially in regard to the colonization of the respiratory tract in patients with residual lesions after tuberculosis or bronchiectasis. Clinical and radiographic pictures of mycobacteriosis, as well as therapy, have often similarities to those of tuberculosis. The treatment regimen should be individualized. In addition to antituberculotics, antibiotics are used more frequently. The most common mycobacteria causing lung disease in Slovakia are Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium abscessus.

Clarithromycin: review of a new macrolide antibiotic with improved microbiologic spectrum and favorable pharmacokinetic and adverse effect profiles.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the new macrolide antibiotic clarithromycin with erythromycin in terms of in vitro activity, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical efficacy, and toxicity. DATA IDENTIFICATION: An English-language literature search employing MEDLINE (1987-91), Index Medicus (1987-91), Program and Abstracts of the 30th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1990), Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (1991), and bibliographic reviews of related textbooks and review articles. STUDY SELECTION: Eighty-five articles were selected. Clinical trials with clarithromycin have been limited, and emphasis was placed on trials reported in the Program and Abstracts of the 30th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy and Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were assessed for study quality and specific information addressing the stated purpose. In articles reporting the results of clinical trials, emphasis was placed on comparative efficacy and toxicity. RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS: A review of 24 human trials suggests that clarithromycin is equally effective as erythromycin, penicillin VK, ampicillin, or amoxicillin for treatment of a variety of upper and lower respiratory tract or skin infections. Clarithromycin also appears to be better tolerated than these agents, with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects. Limited clinical studies in patients with Mycobacterium leprae or Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare complex (MAI) suggest that clarithromycin may prove to be efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of these infections. CONCLUSIONS: Clarithromycin is as effective in vivo as erythromycin, with less gastrointestinal irritation. Additionally, clarithromycin appears to expand the traditional spectrum of macrolide antibiotics, with promising activity against M. leprae and MAI.

Azithromycin and clarithromycin: overview and comparison with erythromycin.

Azithromycin and clarithromycin are erythromycin analogues that have recently been approved by the FDA. These drugs inhibit protein synthesis in susceptible organisms by binding to the 50S ribosomal subunit. Alteration in this binding site confers simultaneous resistance to all macrolide antibiotics. Clarithromycin is several-fold more active in vitro than erythromycin against gram-positive organisms, while azithromycin is 2- to 4-fold less potent. Azithromycin has excellent in vitro activity against H influenzae (MIC90 0.5 microgram/ml), whereas clarithromycin, although less active against H influenzae (MIC90 4.0 micrograms/ml) by standard in vitro testing, is metabolized into an active compound with twice the in vitro activity of the parent drug. Both azithromycin and clarithromycin are equivalent to standard oral therapies against respiratory tract and soft tissue infections caused by susceptible organisms, including S aureus, S pneumoniae, S pyogenes, H influenzae, and M catarrhalis. Clarithromycin is more active in vitro against the atypical respiratory pathogens (e.g., Legionella), although insufficient in vivo data are available to demonstrate a clinical difference between azithromycin and clarithromycin. Superior pharmacodynamic properties separate the new macrolides from the prototype, erythromycin. Azithromycin has a large volume of distribution, and, although serum concentrations remain low, it concentrates readily within tissues, demonstrating a tissue half-life of approximately three days. These properties allow novel dosing schemes for azithromycin, because a five-day course will provide therapeutic tissue concentrations for at least ten days. Clarithromycin has a longer serum half-life and better tissue penetration than erythromycin, allowing twice-a-day dosing for most common infections. Azithromycin pharmacokinetics permit a five-day, single daily dose regimen for respiratory tract and soft tissue infections, and a single 1 g dose of azithromycin effectively treats C trachomatis genital infections; these more convenient dosing schedules improve patient compliance. Azithromycin and clarithromycin also are active against some unexpected pathogens (e.g., B burgdorferi, T gondii, M avium complex, and M leprae). Clarithromycin, thus far, appears the most active against atypical mycobacteria, giving new hope to what has become a difficult group of infections to treat. Gastrointestinal distress, a well known and major obstacle to patient compliance with erythromycin, is relatively uncommon with the new macrolides. Further clinical data and experiences may better define and expand the role of these new macrolides in the treatment of infectious diseases.