Dipsticks and point-of-care Microscopy to reduce antibiotic use in women with an uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection (MicUTI): protocol of a randomised controlled pilot trial in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) in women are common infections encountered in primary care. Evidence suggests that rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) to detect bacteria and erythrocytes in urine at presentation may help primary care clinicians to identify women with uUTIs in whom antibiotics can be withheld without influencing clinical outcomes. This pilot study aims to provide preliminary evidence on whether a POCT informed management of uUTI in women can safely reduce antibiotic use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an open-label two-arm parallel cluster-randomised controlled pilot trial. 20 general practices affiliated with the Bavarian Practice-Based Research Network (BayFoNet) in Germany were randomly assigned to deliver patient management based on POCTs or to provide usual care. POCTs consist of phase-contrast microscopy to detect bacteria and urinary dipsticks to detect erythrocytes in urine samples. In both arms, urine samples will be obtained at presentation for POCTs (intervention arm only) and microbiological analysis. Women will be followed-up for 28 days from enrolment using self-reported symptom diaries, telephone follow-up and a review of the electronic medical record. Primary outcomes are feasibility of patient enrolment and retention rates per site, which will be summarised by means and SDs, with corresponding confidence and prediction intervals. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic use for UTI at day 28, time to symptom resolution, symptom burden, number of recurrent and upper UTIs and re-consultations and diagnostic accuracy of POCTs versus urine culture as the reference standard. These outcomes will be explored at cluster-levels and individual-levels using descriptive statistics, two-sample hypothesis tests and mixed effects models or generalised estimation equations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Würzburg institutional review board approved MicUTI on 16 December 2022 (protocol n. 109/22-sc). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences, reports addressed to clinicians and the local citizen's forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05667207.

Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple vaccines were developed. Little was known about reactogenicity and safety in comparison to established vaccines, e.g. influenza, pneumococcus, or herpes zoster. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare self-reported side effects in persons vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with the incidence of side effects in persons receiving one of the established vaccines. METHODS: A longitudinal observational study was conducted over a total of 124 days using web-based surveys. Persons receiving either a vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 or one of the established vaccines (comparator group) were included. In the first questionnaire (short-term survey), 2 weeks after vaccination, mainly local and systemic complaints were evaluated. The long-term survey (42 days after vaccination) and follow-up survey (124 weeks after vaccination) focused on medical consultations for any reason. Multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the vaccine type (SARS-CoV-2 vs. comparator) and demographic factors. RESULTS: In total, data from 16,636 participants were included. Self-reported reactogenicity was lowest in the comparator group (53.2%) and highest in the ChAdOx1 group (85.3%). Local reactions were reported most frequently after mRNA-1273 (73.9%) and systemic reactions mainly after vector-based vaccines (79.8%). Almost all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines showed increased odds of reporting local or systemic reactions. Approximately equal proportions of participants reported medical consultations. None in the comparator group suspected a link to vaccination, while this was true for just over one in 10 in the mRNA-1273 group. The multivariate analysis showed that people with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were not more likely to report medical consultations; patients who had received a regimen with at least one ChAdOx1 were even less likely to report medical consultations. Younger age, female gender and higher comorbidity were mostly associated with higher odds of medical consultations. CONCLUSION: The rate of adverse reactions after established vaccinations was roughly comparable to previous studies. Two weeks after vaccination, participants in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination group reported more local and systemic local reactions than participants in the comparator group. In the further course, however, there were no higher odds of medical consultations in either of the two groups. Thus, altogether, we assume comparable safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS-ID DRKS00025881 and DRKS-ID DRKS00025373.

Reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 primary immunisation and booster vaccination regimens: a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, recommendations regarding the vaccination have been very dynamic. Although the safety and efficacy of different vaccines have been analysed, data were scarce for vaccine regimens combining different vaccines. We therefore aimed to evaluate and compare the perceived reactogenicity and need for medical consultation after the most frequently applied homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens. METHODS: In an observational cohort study, reactogenicity and safety were assessed within a maximum follow-up time of 124 days using web-based surveys. Reactogenicity was assessed for different vaccination regimens 2 weeks after a vaccination (short-term survey). The following surveys, long-term and follow-up surveys, focused on the utilisation of medical services, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related. RESULTS: Data of 17,269 participants were analysed. The least local reactions were seen after a ChAdOx1 - ChAdOx1 regimen (32.6%, 95% CI [28.2, 37.2]) and the most after the first dose with mRNA-1273 (73.9%, 95% CI [70.5, 77.2]). Systemic reactions were least frequent in participants with a BNT162b2 booster after a homologous primary immunisation with ChAdOx1 (42.9%, 95% CI [32.1, 54.1]) and most frequent after a ChAdOx1 - mRNA-1273 (85.5%, 95% CI [82.9, 87.8]) and mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 regimen (85.1%, 95% CI [83.2, 87.0]). In the short-term survey, the most common consequences were medication intake and sick leave (after local reactions 0% to 9.9%; after systemic reactions 4.5% to 37.9%). In the long-term and follow-up surveys, between 8.2 and 30.9% of participants reported consulting a doctor and between 0% and 5.4% seeking hospital care. The regression analyses 124 days after the first and after the third dose showed that the odds for reporting medical consultation were comparable between the vaccination regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed differences in reactogenicity between the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination regimens in Germany. The lowest reactogenicity as reported by participants was seen with BNT162b2, especially in homologous vaccination regimens. However, in all vaccination regimens reactogenicity rarely led to medical consultations. Small differences in seeking any medical consultation after 6 weeks diminished during the follow-up period. In the end, none of the vaccination regimens was associated with a higher risk for medical consultation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS DRKS00025881 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025373 ). Registered on 14 October 2021. DRKS DRKS00025373 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025881 ). Registered on 21 May 2021. Registered retrospectively.

Consequences of early thyroid ultrasound on subsequent tests, morbidity and costs: an explorative analysis of routine health data from German ambulatory care.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate whether the use of thyroid ultrasound (US) early in the work-up of suspected thyroid disorders triggers cascade effects of medical procedures and to analyse effects on morbidity, healthcare usage and costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of claims data from ambulatory care (2012-2017). SETTING: Primary care in Bavaria, Germany, 13 million inhabitants. PARTICIPANTS: Patients having received a thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) test were allocated to (1) observation group: TSH test followed by an early US within 28 days or (2) control group: TSH test, but no early US. Propensity score matching was used adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics, morbidity and symptom diagnosis (N=41 065 per group after matching). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using cluster analysis, groups were identified regarding frequency of follow-up TSH tests and/or US and compared. RESULTS: Four subgroups were identified: cluster 1: 22.8% of patients, mean (M)=1.6 TSH tests; cluster 2: 16.6% of patients, M=4.7 TSH tests; cluster 3: 54.4% of patients, M=3.3 TSH tests, 1.8 US; cluster 4: 6.2% of patients, M=10.9 TSH tests, 3.9 US. Overall, reasons that explain the tests could rarely be found. An early US was mostly found in clusters 3 and 4 (83.2% and 76.1%, respectively, were part of the observation group). In cluster 4 there were more women, thyroid-specific morbidity and costs were higher and the early US was more likely to be performed by specialists in nuclear medicine or radiologists. CONCLUSION: Presumably unnecessary tests in the field of suspected thyroid diseases seem to be frequent, contributing to cascades effects. Neither German nor international guidelines provide clear recommendations for or against US screening. Therefore, guidelines on when to apply US and when not are urgently needed.

Vitamin-K-antagonist phenprocoumon versus direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a real-world analysis of German claims data.

OBJECTIVES: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were introduced based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing them to vitamin-K-antagonist (VKA) warfarin. In Germany, almost exclusively phenprocoumon is used as VKA. RCTs with phenprocoumon being absent we analysed the benefits and harms of DOACs and phenprocoumon for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in a real-world setting. DESIGN: In a retrospective observational cohort study, claims data covering inpatient and outpatient care from 2015 to 2019 were analysed by Cox regression and propensity score matching (PSM). SETTING: Data from a group of small-sized to medium-sized health insurance companies in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: We analysed datasets of 71 961 patients with AF and first prescription of phenprocoumon (n=20 179) or DOAC in standard dose (n=51 782). Patients with reduced dose of DOACs were excluded (n=21 724). OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were thromboembolic events, major bleeding and death during a 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: The regression analysis widely showed similarity between phenprocoumon and standard dose DOACs regarding effectiveness and safety. There were only three statistically significant differences: a lower bleeding risk with composite DOACs and apixaban (HR (95% CI) = 0.67 (0.59 to 0.76) and 0.54 (0.46 to 0.63), respectively) and a higher risk of death with rivaroxaban (1.21 (1.10 to 2.34)). The analysis after PSM was consistent with the first two results regarding composite DOACs and apixaban (number needed to treat, NNT 101 and 78) and showed a lower bleeding risk with rivaroxaban (NNT 156). Absolute differences were small. CONCLUSIONS: The small superiority or non-inferiority of DOACs over warfarin seen in the RCTs might not translate into relevant advantages of DOACs over phenprocoumon. To confirm the hypothesis, an RCT with phenprocoumon is needed. Next to the safety and effectiveness assessments other factors might also play a substantial role in the decision on the right OAC for stroke prevention.

Active monitoring of adverse reactions following COVID-19 and other vaccinations: a feasibility study as part of the CoVaKo project.

BACKGROUND: The Corona-Vakzin-Konsortium project (CoVaKo) analyses the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in a real-world setting, as well as breakthrough infections in Bavaria, Germany. A subproject of CoVaKo aims to identify adverse reactions of the COVID-19 vaccine and compare these to adverse reactions of other vaccines in an online survey. In a preceding feasibility study, the study materials were tested for comprehensibility, visual design, and motivation to participate, as well as for their ability to be implemented and carried out in primary care practices and vaccination centres. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods research design. First, three focus groups consisting of general population participants were organised to evaluate the study materials and survey. Second, a test roll-out was conducted in vaccination centres and primary care practices that involved implementing and quantitatively evaluating the online survey. Third, interviews were conducted with participating general practitioners and heads of vaccination centres four weeks after the test roll-out. RESULTS: Parts of the information and registration form proved incomprehensible, specifically regarding the recruitment material and/or online survey. For example, headings were misleading given that, relative to other vaccinations, the COVID-19 vaccination was overemphasised in the title. Participants requested additional information regarding the procedure and completion time. Within 31 days, 2199 participants, who received either a COVID-19 vaccination (99%) or at least one of the control vaccinations (1%), registered for the study. Participants (strongly) agreed that the registration process was easy to understand, that the completion time was reasonable, and that the technical setup was straightforward. Physicians and heads of the vaccination centres perceived the study as easy to integrate into their workflow. The majority expressed willingness to participate in the main study. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that identifying and documenting adverse reactions following vaccinations using an online survey is feasible. Testing materials and surveys provided valuable insight, enabling subsequent improvements. Participation from health professionals proved essential in ensuring the practicality of procedures. Lastly, adapting the study's organisation to external fluctuating structures and requirements confirmed necessary for a successful implementation, especially due to dynamic changes in the nation's COVID-19 vaccination strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at the "Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien" (DRKS-ID: DRKS00025881 ) on Oct 14, 2021.

Reactogenicity after heterologous and homologous COVID-19 prime-boost vaccination regimens: descriptive interim results of a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Due to safety signals after vaccination with COVID-19 vector vaccines, several states recommended to complete the primary immunization series in individuals having received one dose of ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) with an mRNA vaccine. However, data on safety and reactogenicity of this heterologous regimen are still scarce. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the reactogenicity and the frequency of medical consultations after boost vaccination in a heterologous regimen with ChAdOx1 and mRNA-vaccines (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Pfizer or mRNA-1273, Moderna) to homologous regimens with ChAdOx1 or mRNA-vaccines, respectively. METHODS: In an observational cohort study reactogenicity and safety were assessed 14-19 days (short-term) and 40 to 56 days (long-term) after the boost vaccination using web-based surveys. In the short-term survey solicited and unsolicited reactions were assessed, while the long-term survey focussed on health problems leading to medical consultation after the vaccination, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related. RESULTS: In total, 9146 participants completed at least one of the surveys (ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1: n = 552, ChAdOx1/mRNA: n = 2382, mRNA/mRNA: n = 6212). In the short-term survey, 86% with ChAdOx1/mRNA regimen reported at least one reaction, in the ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 and mRNA/mRNA cohorts 58% and 76%, respectively (age and sex adjusted p < 0.0001). In the long-term survey, comparable proportions of individuals reported medical consultation (ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 vs. ChAdOx1/mRNA vs. mRNA/mRNA: 15% vs. 18% vs. 16%, age and sex adjusted p = 0.398). Female gender was associated with a higher reactogenicity and more medical consultations. Younger age was associated with a higher reactogenicity, whereas elderly people reported more medical consultations. CONCLUSION: Although the short-term reactogenicity was higher with the heterologous regimen than with the homologous regimens, other factors such as higher efficacy and limited resources during the pandemic may prevail in recommending specific regimens.

Vitamin-K-antagonist phenprocoumon versus low-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation: a real-world analysis of German claims data.

BACKGROUND: For stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly prescribed instead of vitamin-K-antagonists (VKA). For some patients a lower dosage of DOACs (ld-DOACs) is recommended. Ld-DOAC prescribing seems to be common, although previous studies did not show clear superiority of ld-DOACs over warfarin. In Germany, phenprocoumon is used almost exclusively as VKA. Randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs and phenprocoumon in the general population of patients with AF do not exist. Therefore, we aimed to compare ld-DOACs and phenprocoumon in a real-world setting in Germany. METHODS: In a retrospective observational cohort study, claims data from a group of small to medium-sized health insurance companies were analysed. Risks for the outcomes thromboembolism, death and major bleeding were estimated by Cox regression. Out of 93,685 patients with atrial fibrillation and a first prescription of an oral anticoagulant, 20,179 receiving VKA and 21,724 ld-DOACs (29.6% of all DOAC patients) were included. For the sensitivity analysis phenprocoumon was compared to the five ld-DOAC groups (ld-apixaban, ld-dabigatran, ld-edoxaban, ld-rivaroxaban, and the composite of all ld-DOACs) after propensity-score matching. RESULTS: Phenprocoumon was associated with statistically significant fewer thromboembolic events (HR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.13, 1.48], p < .001) and deaths (HR = 1.52, 95% CI [1.41, 1.63], p < .001) and a non-significant higher bleeding risk (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.79, 1.00], p = .051) than composite ld-DOAC. Regarding the subgroups, only patients with ld-apixaban had a statistically significant higher risk for thromboembolic events (HR = 1.42, 95% CI [1.21, 1.65], p < .001) and a lower bleeding risk (HR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.65, 0.86], p < .001). Ld-apixaban, ld-edoxaban, and ld-rivaroxaban were associated with a higher risk of death. The sensitivity analysis confirmed these associations. CONCLUSION: Phenprocoumon seems to be superior to ld-DOACs for patients with AF. As a hypothesis phenprocoumon might turn out to be the wiser choice for high-risk patients with AF as compared to ld-DOACs, especially regarding thromboembolic events and death. Therefore, RCTs comparing ld-DOACs with phenprocoumon are needed.