Are insect bites responsible for the rise in summer flucloxacillin prescribing in United Kingdom general practices?

BACKGROUND: Insect bite inflammation may mimic cellulitis and promote unnecessary antibiotic usage, contributing to antimicrobial resistance in primary care. We wondered how general practice clinicians assess and manage insect bites, diagnose cellulitis, and prescribe antibiotics. METHOD: This is a Quality Improvement study in which 10 general practices in England and Wales investigated patients attending for the first time with insect bites between April and September 2021 to their practices. Mode of consultation, presentation, management plan, and reattendance or referral were noted. Total practice flucloxacillin prescribing was compared to that for insect bites. RESULTS: A combined list size of 161,346 yielded 355 insect bite consultations. Nearly two-thirds were female, ages 3-89 years old, with July as the peak month and a mean weekly incidence of 8 per 100,000. GPs still undertook most consultations; most were phone consultations, with photo support for over half. Over 40% presented between days 1 and 3 and common symptoms were redness, itchness, pain, and heat. Vital sign recording was not common, and only 22% of patients were already taking an antihistamine despite 45% complaining of itch. Antibiotics were prescribed to nearly three-quarters of the patients, mainly orally and mostly as flucloxacillin. Reattendance occurred for 12% and referral to hospital for 2%. Flucloxacillin for insect bites contributed a mean of 5.1% of total practice flucloxacillin prescriptions, with a peak of 10.7% in July. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics are likely to be overused in our insect bite practice and patients could make more use of antihistamines for itch before consulting.

It can be difficult to know if redness, heat, swelling, and pain from insect bites are due to inflammation or infection. Prescribing unnecessary antibiotics may result in germs becoming resistant to antibiotics when needed. Ten general practices in England and Wales investigated their management of insect bites in the 6 months of April to September 2021 inclusive. There were 355 bites; women presented more often than men, and ages were from 3 to 89 years old, half of them were 30­69 years old. People mainly consulted their GP by phone with photos of their bites. Key symptoms were redness, itchness, heat, and pain. More people had itch than were taking antihistamines or using steroid cream. Most people (nearly 7 out of 10) were prescribed an oral antibiotic, usually flucloxacillin, which accounted for about 5% of total flucloxacillin prescribed in the practices. Only 2 in 100 people needed further hospital care. It is likely that general practice clinicians are over-using antibiotics for insect bites and that home management before seeking medical help with painkillers, antihistamines, and steroid creams could be used more. Now that we have baseline data, there is a need to set up studies to prove that these reduce antibiotic usage.

Rapid respiratory microbiological point-of-care-testing and antibiotic prescribing in primary care: Protocol for the RAPID-TEST randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are prescribed for over 50% of respiratory tract infections in primary care, despite good evidence of there being no benefit to the patient, and evidence of over prescribing driving microbial resistance. The high treatment rates are attributed to uncertainty regarding microbiological cause and clinical prognosis. Point-of-care-tests have been proposed as potential antibiotic stewardship tools, with some providing microbiological results in 15 minutes. However, there is little research on their impact on antibiotic use and clinical outcomes in primary care. METHODS: This is a multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial with mixed-methods investigation of microbial, behavioural and antibiotic mechanisms on outcomes in patients aged 12 months and over presenting to primary care in the UK with a suspected respiratory tract infection, where the clinician and/or patient thinks antibiotic treatment may be, or is, necessary. Once consented, all participants are asked to provide a combined nose and throat swab sample and randomised to have a rapid microbiological point-of-care-test or no point-of-care-test. For intervention patients, clinicians review the result of the test, before contacting the patient to finalise treatment. Treatment decisions are made as per usual care in control group patients. The primary outcome is whether an antibiotic is prescribed at this point. All swab samples are sent to the central laboratory for further testing. Patients are asked to complete a diary to record the severity and duration of symptoms until resolution or day 28, and questionnaires at 2 months about their beliefs and intention to consult for similar future illnesses. Primary care medical records are also reviewed at 6-months to collect further infection consultations, antibiotic prescribing and hospital admissions. The trial aims to recruit 514 patients to achieve 90% power with 5% significance to detect a 15% absolute reduction in antibiotic prescribing. Qualitative interviews are being conducted with approximately 20 clinicians and 30 participants to understand any changes in beliefs and behaviour resulting from the point-of-care-test and generate attributes for clinician and patient discrete choice experiments. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence of efficacy, acceptability and mechanisms of action of a rapid microbiological point-of-care test on antibiotic prescribing and patient symptoms in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16039192, prospectively registered on 08/11/2022.

A Clinical Investigation of the Performance and Safety of Epaderm®, an Emollient Cream.

INTRODUCTION: Emollients provide an occlusive barrier for dry and atopic skin, retain moisture, protect it from irritants, and form the basis of eczema treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective interventional single arm study to evaluate the performance and safety of Epaderm® Cream, an emollient and cleanser containing 25% (w/w) paraffin and 5% (w/w) glycerine (thereafter, an emollient cream), in patients with dry skin conditions. The primary outcome measure was participant evaluation of skin moisturisation after treatment with an emollient cream for up to 4 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included: evaluation of skin softness using a questionnaire and of pruritus on a visual analogue scale (VAS); clinician assessment of xerosis using Overall Dry Skin (ODS) score and measurement of skin hydration using a non-invasive device (MoistureMeterEpiD, Delfin Technologies) at each visit. Sign test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used to analyse changes from baseline. RESULTS: A total of 114 participants completed the study. 84.2% (80 out of 95) of participants or parents strongly agreed or agreed that the cream improved skin moisturisation at 4 weeks of treatment at the target area (p<0.0001). 86.3% of participants agreed that skin softness improved after 4 weeks (p <0.0001). ODS score improved from 2.1 (standard deviation (SD) 1.0) to 0.7 (SD 0.8) at 4 weeks. Skin hydration at the target area improved from 31.5 (SD 9.3) to 40.5 (SD 8.3) (p<0.001) at 4 weeks. Mean skin itchiness reduced from 38.0 (SD 25.4) to 17.7 (SD 19.8) at 4 weeks (p<0.0001). Ten (8.3%) adverse device events (ADEs) were reported. CONCLUSION: The emollient cream was well tolerated and demonstrated significant improvements in patient-reported skin moisturisation and softness as well as in clinical measurement of xerosis and skin hydration across all age groups including infants. The emollient cream can be recommended for dry skin conditions including atopic dermatitis and psoriasis.

Management of diagnostic uncertainty in children with possible meningitis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B is the most common cause of bacterial meningitis in children and young adults. Early recognition and prompt intervention with antibiotics are thought to be key to preventing serious complications. AIM: Explore how general practitioners evaluate and manage febrile children with possible meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia. DESIGN OF THE STUDY: Qualitative study using one-to-one, semi-structured interviews. SETTING: General practices in the Avon Health Authority district. METHOD: Twenty-six general practitioners were purposefully sampled, using a sampling frame to ensure a range of experience and practices in a variety of settings Data management and analysis were conducted using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Key themes to emerge were the effect that fear of meningitis has upon parents and general practitioners; the difficulties associated with reaching a diagnosis; and the existence of barriers to the use of guidelines and pre-hospital penicillin. When assessing a febrile child, participating general practitioners rarely thought that meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia were likely, but were aware that this was frequently the principal parental concern. They relied upon intuitive rather than systematic methods to distinguish serious from self-limiting conditions, rarely making a definitive diagnosis. Although concerned about 'missed cases', interviewees doubted that current management could be improved. They questioned the assumption that guidelines could be sufficiently discriminating to be helpful and thought it unlikely that they would be followed in everyday clinical practice. Pre-hospital penicillin was only given if the diagnosis of meningitis or septicaemia was thought to be certain. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial gap in perception between primary and secondary care in the diagnostic and management approach to children who may have meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia. Until this is addressed, further attempts to improve early intervention in primary care are unlikely to succeed.