A Multifaceted Intervention and Its Effects on Antibiotic Usage in Norwegian Nursing Homes.

We explored the impact of an antibiotic quality improvement intervention across 33 nursing homes (NHs) in one Norwegian county, compared against four control counties. This 12-month multifaceted intervention consisted of three physical conferences, including educational sessions, workshops, antibiotic feedback reports, and academic detailing sessions. We provided clinical guiding checklists to participating NHs. Pharmacy sales data served as a measure of systemic antibiotic use. The primary outcome was a change in antibiotic use in DDD/100 BD from the baseline through the intervention, assessed using linear mixed models to identify changes in antibiotic use. Total antibiotic use decreased by 15.8%, from 8.68 to 7.31 DDD/100BD (model-based estimated change (MBEC): -1.37, 95% CI: -2.35 to -0.41) in the intervention group, albeit not a significantly greater reduction than in the control counties (model-based estimated difference in change (MBEDC): -0.75, 95% CI: -1.91 to 0.41). Oral antibiotic usage for urinary tract infections (UTI-AB) decreased 32.8%, from 4.08 to 2.74 DDD/100BD (MBEC: -1.34, 95% CI: -1.85 to -0.84), a significantly greater reduction than in the control counties (MBEDC: -0.9, 95% CI: -1.28 to -0.31). The multifaceted intervention may reduce UTI-AB use in NHs, whereas adjustments in the implementation strategy may be needed to reduce total antibiotic use.

Barriers and facilitators of appropriate antibiotic use in primary care institutions after an antibiotic quality improvement program - a nested qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prescribing by physicians in primary care institutions is common and affected by several factors. Diagnosis and treatment of infections in a nursing home (NH) resident is challenging, with the risk of both under- and overtreatment. Identifying barriers and facilitators of appropriate antibiotic prescribing in NHs and municipal acute care units (MACUs) is essential to ensure the most adequate antibiotic treatment possible and develop future antibiotic stewardship programs. METHODS: After implementing a one-year antibiotic quality improvement program, we conducted six semi-structured focus group interviews with physicians (n = 11) and nurses (n = 14) in 10 NHs and 3 MACUs located in the county of Østfold, Norway. We used a semi-structured interview guide covering multiple areas influencing antibiotic use to identify persistent barriers and facilitators of appropriate antibiotic prescribing after the intervention. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The content analysis was performed following the six phases of thematic analysis developed by Braun and Clarke. RESULTS: We identified thirteen themes containing barriers and facilitators of the appropriateness of antibiotic use in primary care institutions. The themes were grouped into four main levels: Barriers and facilitators 1) at the clinical level, 2) at the resident level, 3) at the next of kin level, and 4) at the organisational level. Unclear clinical presentation of symptoms and lack of diagnostic possibilities were described as essential barriers to appropriate antibiotic use. At the same time, increased availability of the permanent nursing home physician and early and frequent dialogue with the residents' next of kin were emphasized as facilitators of appropriate antibiotic use. The influence of nurses in the decision-making process regarding infection diagnostics and treatment was by both professions described as profound. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative study identified four main levels containing several barriers and facilitators of appropriate antibiotic prescribing in Norwegian NHs and MACUs. Diagnostic uncertainty, frequent dialogue with next of kin and organisational factors should be targeted in future antibiotic stewardship programs in primary care institutions. In addition, for such programs to be as effective as possible, nurses should be included on equal terms with physicians.

Erratum to: Oral and parenteral antibiotic use in Norwegian nursing homes: are primary care institutions becoming our new local hospitals?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/jacamr/dlaa093.].

Clinical presentation, microbiological aetiology and disease course in patients with flu-like illness: a post hoc analysis of randomised controlled trial data.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence about the relationship between aetiology, illness severity, and clinical course of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care. Understanding these associations would aid in the development of effective management strategies for these infections. AIM: To investigate whether clinical presentation and illness course differ between RTIs where a viral pathogen was detected and those where a potential bacterial pathogen was found. DESIGN AND SETTING: Post hoc analysis of data from a pragmatic randomised trial on the effects of oseltamivir in patients with flu-like illness in primary care (n = 3266) in 15 European countries. METHOD: Patient characteristics and their signs and symptoms of disease were registered at baseline. Nasopharyngeal (adults) or nasal and pharyngeal (children) swabs were taken for polymerase chain reaction analysis. Patients were followed up until 28 days after inclusion. Regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyse the relationship between aetiology, clinical presentation at baseline, and course of disease including complications. RESULTS: Except for a less prominent congested nose (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.86) and acute cough (OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.65) in patients with flu-like illness in whom a possible bacterial pathogen was isolated, there were no clear clinical differences in presentations between those with a possible bacterial aetiology compared with those with a viral aetiology. Also, course of disease and complications were not related to aetiology. CONCLUSION: Given current available microbiological tests and antimicrobial treatments, and outside pandemics such as COVID-19, microbiological testing in primary care patients with flu-like illness seems to have limited value. A wait-and-see policy in most of these patients with flu-like illness seems the best option.

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.

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.

Is C-reactive protein associated with influenza A or B in primary care patients with influenza-like illness? A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Identifying influenza A or B as cause of influenza-like illness (ILI) is a challenge due to non-specific symptoms. An accurate, cheap and easy to use biomarker might enhance targeting influenza-specific management in primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate if C-reactive protein (CRP) is associated with influenza A or B, confirmed with PCR testing, in patients presenting with ILI. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Primary care in Lithuania, Norway and Sweden. SUBJECTS: A total of 277 patients at least 1 year of age consulting primary care with ILI during seasonal influenza epidemics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Capillary blood CRP analysed as a point-of-care test and detection of influenza A or B on nasopharyngeal swabs in adults, and nasal and pharyngeal swabs in children using PCR. RESULTS: The prevalence of positive tests for influenza A among patients was 44% (121/277) and the prevalence of influenza B was 21% (58/277). Patients with influenza A infection could not be identified based on CRP concentration. However, increasing CRP concentration in steps of 10 mg/L was associated with a significantly lower risk for influenza B with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.42 (0.25-0.70; p<.001). Signs of more severe symptoms like shortness of breath, sweats or chills and dizziness were associated with higher CRP. CONCLUSIONS: There was no association between CRP and influenza A. Increased concentration of CRP was associated with a lower risk for having influenza B, a finding that lacks clinical usefulness. Hence, CRP testing should be avoided in ILI, unless bacterial pneumonia is suspected. Key points Identifying influenza A or B as cause of influenza-like illness (ILI) is a challenge due to non-specific symptoms. There was no association between concentration of CRP and influenza A. Increased concentration of CRP was associated with a lower risk for having influenza B, a finding that lacks clinical usefulness. A consequence is that CRP testing should be avoided in ILI, unless bacterial pneumonia or similar is suspected.

Oral and parenteral antibiotic use in Norwegian nursing homes: are primary care institutions becoming our new local hospitals?

BACKGROUND: Norwegian nursing homes (NHs) have over the last 10 years increasingly applied the use of parenteral treatment, which in turn allows more broad-spectrum use of antibiotics. Previous studies from Norwegian NHs have for the most part not described parenteral formulations. OBJECTIVES: To describe systemic antibiotic use in Norwegian NHs. METHODS: Thirty-seven NHs in the county of Østfold, Norway, were invited to participate in this retrospective cross-sectional study. Associated pharmacies provided sales data for systemic antibiotic use for the participating NHs for 1 year (October 2015 to October 2016). General institutional characteristics were collected through a questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirty-four NHs participated in the study. Mean use of antibiotics was 10.0 DDD/100 bed days (range 0.6-30.9 DDD/100 bed days). Oral antibiotics accounted for 83% and parenteral antibiotics for 17% of the total antibiotic use. Of parenteral antibiotics, ampicillin was most used (31.1%) followed by cefotaxime (17.7%) and penicillin G (16.6%). The proportion of antibiotics compliant with guideline recommendations was 60%. Being a short-term NH was associated with increased antibiotic use, with an unstandardized coefficient of 13.1 (95% CI 4.2-21.9; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: We found a high level of total and parenteral antibiotic use compared with previous studies from Norwegian NHs. Data showed wide variations in total antibiotic use and that only a moderate proportion of the antibiotic use was considered guideline compliant. This highlights the necessity of further implementation strategies regarding the national guidelines for antibiotic use in NHs.