Nasal sprays and behavioural interventions compared with usual care for acute respiratory illness in primary care: a randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: A small amount of evidence suggests that nasal sprays, or physical activity and stress management, could shorten the duration of respiratory infections. This study aimed to assess the effect of nasal sprays or a behavioural intervention promoting physical activity and stress management on respiratory illnesses, compared with usual care. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial was done at 332 general practitioner practices in the UK. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) had at least one comorbidity or risk factor increasing their risk of adverse outcomes due to respiratory illness (eg, immune compromise due to serious illness or medication; heart disease; asthma or lung disease; diabetes; mild hepatic impairment; stroke or severe neurological problem; obesity [BMI ≥30 kg/m2]; or age ≥65 years) or at least three self-reported respiratory tract infections in a normal year (ie, any year before the COVID-19 pandemic). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computerised system to: usual care (brief advice about managing illness); gel-based spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); saline spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); or a brief behavioural intervention in which participants were given access to a website promoting physical activity and stress management. The study was partially masked: neither investigators nor medical staff were aware of treatment allocation, and investigators who did the statistical analysis were unaware of treatment allocation. The sprays were relabelled to maintain participant masking. Outcomes were assessed using data from participants' completed monthly surveys and a survey at 6 months. The primary outcome was total number of days of illness due to self-reported respiratory tract illnesses (coughs, colds, sore throat, sinus or ear infections, influenza, or COVID-19) in the previous 6 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned participants who had primary outcome data available. Key secondary outcomes were possible harms, including headache or facial pain, and antibiotic use, assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, 17936080, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Dec 12, 2020, and April 7, 2023, of 19 475 individuals screened for eligibility, 13 799 participants were randomly assigned to usual care (n=3451), gel-based nasal spray (n=3448), saline nasal spray (n=3450), or the digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management (n=3450). 11 612 participants had complete data for the primary outcome and were included in the primary outcome analysis (usual care group, n=2983; gel-based spray group, n=2935; saline spray group, n=2967; behavioural website group, n=2727). Compared with participants in the usual care group, who had a mean of 8·2 (SD 16·1) days of illness, the number of days of illness was significantly lower in the gel-based spray group (mean 6·5 days [SD 12·8]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·82 [99% CI 0·76-0·90]; p<0·0001) and the saline spray group (6·4 days [12·4]; 0·81 [0·74-0·88]; p<0·0001), but not in the group allocated to the behavioural website (7·4 days [14·7]; 0·97 [0·89-1·06]; p=0·46). The most common adverse event was headache or sinus pain in the gel-based group: 123 (4·8%) of 2556 participants in the usual care group; 199 (7·8%) of 2498 participants in the gel-based group (risk ratio 1·61 [95% CI 1·30-1·99]; p<0·0001); 101 (4·5%) of 2377 participants in the saline group (0·81 [0·63-1·05]; p=0·11); and 101 (4·5%) of 2091 participants in the behavioural intervention group (0·95 [0·74-1·22]; p=0·69). Compared with usual care, antibiotic use was lower for all interventions: IRR 0·65 (95% CI 0·50-0·84; p=0·001) for the gel-based spray group; 0·69 (0·45-0·88; p=0·003) for the saline spray group; and 0·74 (0·57-0·94; p=0·02) for the behavioural website group. INTERPRETATION: Advice to use either nasal spray reduced illness duration and both sprays and the behavioural website reduced antibiotic use. Future research should aim to address the impact of the widespread implementation of these simple interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Did aetiology matter in illness duration and complications in patients presenting in primary care with acute respiratory tract infections early in the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational study in nine countries.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable research into COVID-19 sequelae, little is known about differences in illness duration and complications in patients presenting in primary care with symptoms of acute respiratory tract infections (RTI) that are and are not attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether aetiology impacted course of illness and prediction of complications in patients presenting in primary care with symptoms of RTI early in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between April 2020-March 2021 general practitioners from nine European countries recruited consecutively contacting patients with RTI symptoms. At baseline, an oropharyngeal-nasal swab was obtained for aetiology determination using PCR after follow-up of 28 days. Time to self-reported recovery was analysed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Predictors (baseline variables of demographics, patient and disease characteristics) of a complicated course (composite of hospital admission and persisting signs/symptoms at 28 days follow-up) were explored with logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: Of 855 patients with RTI symptoms, 237 (27.7%) tested SARS-CoV-2 positive. The proportion not feeling fully recovered (15.6% vs 18.1%, p = 0.39), reporting being extremely tired (9.7% vs 12.8%, p = 0.21), and not having returned to usual daily activities (18.1% vs 14.4%, p = 0.18) at day 28 were comparable between SARS-CoV-2 positive (n = 237) and negative (n = 618) groups. However, among those feeling fully recovered (SARS-CoV-2 positive: 200 patients, SARS-CoV-2 negative: 506 patients), time to full recovery was significantly longer in SARS-CoV-2 patients (10.6 vs 7.7 days, p < 0.001). We found no evidence that predictors of a complicated course differed between groups (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Early in the pandemic, the proportion of patients not feeling fully recovered by 28 days was similar between SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients presenting in primary care with RTI symptoms, but it took somewhat longer for SARS-CoV-2 patients to feel fully recovered. More research is needed on predictors of a complicated course in RTI.

Our primary care-based observational study found that recovery by 28 days was comparable between SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative RTI patients.Future research is needed to unravel which host- and pathogen-related profiles are associated with higher risk of complications and persisting symptoms among patients presenting in primary care with RTI symptoms.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for hospital admission in COVID-19 patients presenting to primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of prognostic models for COVID-19 that are usable for in-office patient assessment in general practice (GP). OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a risk prediction model for hospital admission with readily available predictors. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study linking GP records from 8 COVID-19 centres and 55 general practices in the Netherlands to hospital admission records. The development cohort spanned March to June 2020, the validation cohort March to June 2021. The primary outcome was hospital admission within 14 days. We used geographic leave-region-out cross-validation in the development cohort and temporal validation in the validation cohort. RESULTS: In the development cohort, 4,806 adult patients with COVID-19 consulted their GP (median age 56, 56% female); in the validation cohort 830 patients did (median age 56, 52% female). In the development and validation cohort respectively, 292 (6.1%) and 126 (15.2%) were admitted to the hospital within 14 days, respectively. A logistic regression model based on sex, smoking, symptoms, vital signs and comorbidities predicted hospital admission with a c-index of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.86) at geographic cross-validation and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.83) at temporal validation, and was reasonably well calibrated (intercept -0.08, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.52, slope 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07 at geographic cross-validation and intercept 0.02, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.24, slope 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00 at temporal validation). CONCLUSION: We derived a risk model using readily available variables at GP assessment to predict hospital admission for COVID-19. It performed accurately across regions and waves. Further validation on cohorts with acquired immunity and newer SARS-CoV-2 variants is recommended.

A general practice prediction model based on signs and symptoms of COVID-19 patients reliably predicted hospitalisation.The model performed well in second-wave data with other dominant variants and changed testing and vaccination policies.In an emerging pandemic, GP data can be leveraged to develop prognostic models for decision support and to predict hospitalisation rates.

Potential impact of a new sepsis prediction model for the primary care setting: early health economic evaluation using an observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential referral rate and cost impact at different cut-off points of a recently developed sepsis prediction model for general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: Prospective observational study with decision tree modelling. SETTING: Four out-of-hours GP services in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 357 acutely ill adult patients assessed during home visits. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the cost per patient from a healthcare perspective in four scenarios based on different cut-off points for referral of the sepsis prediction model. Second, the number of hospital referrals for the different scenarios is estimated. The potential impact of referral of patients with sepsis on mortality and hospital admission was estimated by an expert panel. Using these study data, a decision tree with a time horizon of 1 month was built to estimate the referral rate and cost impact in case the model would be implemented. RESULTS: Referral rates at a low cut-off (score 2 or 3 on a scale from 0 to 6) of the prediction model were higher than observed for patients with sepsis (99% and 91%, respectively, compared with 88% observed). However, referral was also substantially higher for patients who did not need hospital assessment. As a consequence, cost-savings due to referral of patients with sepsis were offset by increased costs due to unnecessary referral for all cut-offs of the prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for referral of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the primary care setting using any cut-off point of the sepsis prediction model is not likely to save costs. The model should only be incorporated in sepsis guidelines for GPs if improvement of care can be demonstrated in an implementation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7026).

Feasibility of tracking invasive Escherichia coli disease among older adults in a community setting: A prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Invasive Escherichia coli disease (IED) encompasses a diverse range of sterile site infections. This study evaluated the feasibility of capturing IED among community-dwelling older adults to inform the implementation of a phase 3 efficacy trial of a novel vaccine against IED (NCT04899336). METHODS: EXPECT-1 (NCT04087681) was a prospective, multinational, observational study conducted in medically stable participants aged ≥ 60 years. At least 50% of participants were selected based on a history of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the previous 10 years. The main outcomes were the incidence of IED and the number of hospitalisations reported by the site vs participant. The length of follow-up was 12 months. In a US-based substudy, a smartphone-based geofencing was evaluated to track hospital entries. RESULTS: In total, 4470 participants were enrolled (median age, 70.0 years); 59.5% (2657/4469) of participants had a history of UTI in the previous 10 years. Four IED events were captured through deployment of different tracking methods: a self-report, a general practitioner (GP) report, and a follow-up call. The incidence rate of IED was 98.6 events per 100,000 person-years. The number of reported hospitalisations was 2529/4470 (56.6%) by the site and 2177/4470 (48.7%) by participants; 13.8% of hospitalisations would have been missed if utilising only site reports. Geofencing detected 72 hospital entries. CONCLUSION: Deployment of multiple tracking methods can optimise detection of IED among community-dwelling older adults. Older adults with a history of UTI could be feasibly targeted for a phase 3 vaccine efficacy trial through a network of GPs.

Predicting illness progression for children with lower respiratory infections in primary care: a prospective cohort and observational study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), fuelling antibiotic resistance, and there are few prognostic tools available to inform management. AIM: To externally validate an existing prognostic model (STARWAVe) to identify children at low risk of illness progression, and if model performance was limited to develop a new internally validated prognostic model. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study with a nested trial in a primary care setting. METHOD: Children aged 6 months to 12 years presenting with uncomplicated LRTI were included in the cohort. Children were randomised to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day for 7 days or placebo, or if not randomised they participated in a parallel observational study to maximise generalisability. Baseline clinical data were used to predict adverse outcome (illness progression requiring hospital assessment). RESULTS: A total of 758 children participated (n = 432 trial, n = 326 observational). For predicting illness progression the STARWAVe prognostic model had moderate performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50 to 0.77), but a new, internally validated model (seven items: baseline severity; respiratory rate; duration of prior illness; oxygen saturation; sputum or a rattly chest; passing urine less often; and diarrhoea) had good discrimination (bootstrapped AUROC 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.92) and calibration. A three-item model (respiratory rate; oxygen saturation; and sputum or a rattly chest) also performed well (AUROC 0.81, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.91), as did a score (ranging from 19 to 102) derived from coefficients of the model (AUROC 0.78, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.88): a score of <70 classified 89% (n = 600/674) of children having a low risk (<5%) of progression of illness. CONCLUSION: A simple three-item prognostic score could be useful as a tool to identify children with LRTI who are at low risk of an adverse outcome and to guide clinical management.

Using microbiological data to improve the use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections: A protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to antibiotics is rising and threatens future antibiotic effectiveness. 'Antibiotic targeting' ensures patients who may benefit from antibiotics receive them, while being safely withheld from those who may not. Point-of-care tests may assist with antibiotic targeting by allowing primary care clinicians to establish if symptomatic patients have a viral, bacterial, combined, or no infection. However, because organisms can be harmlessly carried, it is important to know if the presence of the virus/bacteria is related to the illness for which the patient is being assessed. One way to do this is to look for associations with more severe/prolonged symptoms and test results. Previous research to answer this question for acute respiratory tract infections has given conflicting results with studies has not having enough participants to provide statistical confidence. AIM: To undertake a synthesis of IPD from both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies of respiratory tract infections (RTI) in order to investigate the prognostic value of microbiological data in addition to, or instead of, clinical symptoms and signs. METHODS: A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase will be carried out for studies of acute respiratory infection in primary care settings. The outcomes of interest are duration of disease, severity of disease, repeated consultation with new/worsening illness and complications requiring hospitalisation. Authors of eligible studies will be contacted to provide anonymised individual participant data. The data will be harmonised and aggregated. Multilevel regression analysis will be conducted to determine key outcome measures for different potential pathogens and whether these offer any additional information on prognosis beyond clinical symptoms and signs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023376769.

Clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: An observational study of respiratory tract infection in primary care in the early phase of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs had to distinguish SARS-CoV-2 from other aetiologies in patients presenting with respiratory tract infection (RTI) symptoms on clinical grounds and adapt management accordingly. OBJECTIVES: To test the diagnostic accuracy of GPs' clinical diagnosis of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a period when COVID-19 was a new disease. To describe GPs' management of patients presenting with RTI for whom no confirmed diagnosis was available. To investigate associations between patient and clinical features with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: In April 2020-March 2021, 876 patients (9 countries) were recruited when they contacted their GP with symptoms of an RTI of unknown aetiology. A swab was taken at baseline for later analysis. Aetiology (PCR), diagnostic accuracy of GPs' clinical SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, and patient management were explored. Factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection were determined by logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: GPs suspected SARS-CoV-2 in 53% of patients whereas 27% of patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. True-positive patients (23%) were more intensively managed for follow-up, antiviral prescribing and advice than true-negatives (42%). False negatives (5%) were under-advised, particularly for social distancing and isolation. Older age (OR: 1.02 (1.01-1.03)), male sex (OR: 1.68 (1.16-2.41)), loss of taste/smell (OR: 5.8 (3.7-9)), fever (OR: 1.9 (1.3-2.8)), muscle aches (OR: 2.1 (1.5-3)), and a known risk factor for COVID-19 (travel, health care worker, contact with proven case; OR: 2.7 (1.8-4)) were predictive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Absence of loss of taste/smell, fever, muscle aches and a known risk factor for COVID-19 correctly excluded SARS-CoV-2 in 92.3% of patients, whereas presence of 3, or 4 of these variables correctly classified SARS-CoV-2 in 57.7% and 87.1%. CONCLUSION: Correct clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, without POC-testing available, appeared to be complicated.

Antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection in children presenting in primary care: ARTIC-PC RCT.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat. Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections, but there is little randomised evidence to support the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating these infections, either overall or relating to key clinical subgroups in which antibiotic prescribing is common (chest signs; fever; physician rating of unwell; sputum/rattly chest; shortness of breath). Objectives: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children both overall and in clinical subgroups. Design: Placebo-controlled trial with qualitative, observational and cost-effectiveness studies. Setting: UK general practices. Participants: Children aged 1-12 years with acute uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the duration in days of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary). Secondary outcomes were symptom severity on days 2-4 (0 = no problem to 6 = as bad as it could be); symptom duration until very little/no problem; reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms; complications; side effects; and resource use. Methods: Children were randomised to receive 50 mg/kg/day of oral amoxicillin in divided doses for 7 days, or placebo using pre-prepared packs, using computer-generated random numbers by an independent statistician. Children who were not randomised could participate in a parallel observational study. Semistructured telephone interviews explored the views of 16 parents and 14 clinicians, and the data were analysed using thematic analysis. Throat swabs were analysed using multiplex polymerase chain reaction. Results: A total of 432 children were randomised (antibiotics, n = 221; placebo, n = 211). The primary analysis imputed missing data for 115 children. The duration of moderately bad symptoms was similar in the antibiotic and placebo groups overall (median of 5 and 6 days, respectively; hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.42), with similar results for subgroups, and when including antibiotic prescription data from the 326 children in the observational study. Reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms (29.7% and 38.2%, respectively; risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.05), illness progression requiring hospital assessment or admission (2.4% vs. 2.0%) and side effects (38% vs. 34%) were similar in the two groups. Complete-case (n = 317) and per-protocol (n = 185) analyses were similar, and the presence of bacteria did not mediate antibiotic effectiveness. NHS costs per child were slightly higher (antibiotics, £29; placebo, £26), with no difference in non-NHS costs (antibiotics, £33; placebo, £33). A model predicting complications (with seven variables: baseline severity, difference in respiratory rate from normal for age, duration of prior illness, oxygen saturation, sputum/rattly chest, passing urine less often, and diarrhoea) had good discrimination (bootstrapped area under the receiver operator curve 0.83) and calibration. Parents found it difficult to interpret symptoms and signs, used the sounds of the child's cough to judge the severity of illness, and commonly consulted to receive a clinical examination and reassurance. Parents acknowledged that antibiotics should be used only when 'necessary', and clinicians noted a reduction in parents' expectations for antibiotics. Limitations: The study was underpowered to detect small benefits in key subgroups. Conclusion: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective or to reduce health or societal costs. Parents need better access to information, as well as clear communication about the self-management of their child's illness and safety-netting. Future work: The data can be incorporated in the Cochrane review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN79914298. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Children are commonly prescribed antibiotics for chest infections, but such infections are becoming resistant to antibiotics, and it is not clear if antibiotics work in treating them. A total of 432 children who saw their general practitioner with a chest infection were given either an antibiotic (amoxicillin) or a placebo (no antibiotic) for 7 days. Symptom diaries documented the infection's duration and its side effects. Children not in the placebo study were able to participate in another study that documented the same outcomes (an 'observational study'). We interviewed parents, doctors and nurses about their observations and concerns. Our patient and public involvement and engagement work with parents indicated that a 3-day symptom reduction was required to justify giving antibiotics. After seeing the doctor, parents whose children received antibiotics rated infective symptoms as moderately bad or worse for 5 days, and parents whose children received the placebo rated these for 6 days. Side effects and complications were similar in the two groups. Findings were similar when including the results of the observational study, and for children in whose chest the doctor could hear wheeze or rattles; who had fever; who were rated by the doctor as more unwell, who were short of breath, or who had had bacteria detected in the throat. The costs to the NHS per child were similar (antibiotics, £29; placebo, £26), and the wider costs to society were the same (antibiotics, £33; placebo, £33). Parents found it difficult to interpret their child's symptoms, and commonly used the sound of the cough to judge severity. Parents commonly consulted to receive an examination and reassurance, and accepted that antibiotics should be used only when 'necessary'. Clinicians noted a reduction in parents' expectations for antibiotics. Amoxicillin for chest infections in children is unlikely to be effective. General practitioners should support parents to self-manage at home and give clear communication about when and how to seek medical help if they continue to be concerned.

Determining the clinical and cost-effectiveness of nasal sprays and a physical activity and stress management intervention to reduce respiratory tract infections in primary care: A protocol for the 'Immune Defence' randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most adults in the UK experience at least one viral respiratory tract infection (RTI) per year. Individuals with comorbidities and those with recurrent RTIs are at higher risk of infections. This can lead to more severe illness, worse quality of life and more days off work. There is promising evidence that using common nasal sprays or improving immune function through increasing physical activity and managing stress, may reduce the incidence and severity of RTIs. METHODS AND DESIGN: Immune Defence is an open, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Up to 15000 adults from UK general practices, with a comorbidity or risk factor for infection and/or recurrent infections (3 or more infections per year) will be randomly allocated to i) a gel-based nasal spray designed to inhibit viral respiratory infections; ii) a saline nasal spray, iii) a digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management, or iv) usual care with brief advice for managing infections, for 12 months. Participants will complete monthly questionnaires online. The primary outcome is the total number of days of illness due to RTIs over 6 months. Key secondary outcomes include: days with symptoms moderately bad or worse; days where work/normal activities were impaired; incidence of RTI; incidence of COVID-19; health service contacts; antibiotic usage; beliefs about antibiotics; intention to consult; number of days of illness in total due to respiratory tract infections over 12 months. Economic evaluation from an NHS perspective will compare the interventions, expressed as incremental cost effectiveness ratios. A nested mixed methods process evaluation will examine uptake and engagement with the interventions and trial procedures. TRIAL STATUS: Recruitment commenced in December 2020 and the last participant is expected to complete the trial in April 2024. DISCUSSION: Common nasal sprays and digital interventions to promote physical activity and stress management are low cost, accessible interventions applicable to primary care. If effective, they have the potential to reduce the individual and societal impact of RTIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered with ISRCTN registry (17936080) on 30/10/2020. SPONSOR: This RCT is sponsored by University of Southampton. The sponsors had no role in the study design, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Best practice guidance for antibiotic audit and feedback interventions in primary care: a modified Delphi study from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial resistance: Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN).

BACKGROUND: Primary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A&F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement. RESULTS: The final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5). CONCLUSION: We report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A&F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Best management of patients with an acute sore throat - a critical analysis of current evidence and a consensus of experts from different countries and traditions.

BACKGROUND: There is a very large body of publications discussing the management of patients with an acute sore throat. Advocates for a restrictive antibiotic policy and advocates for a more liberal use of antibiotics emphasise different and valid arguments and to date have not been able to unite in a consensus. Contradicting guidelines based on the same body of knowledge is not logical, may cause confusion and cause unwanted variation in clinical management. METHODS: In multiple video meetings and email correspondence from March to November 2022 and finally in a workshop at the annual meeting for the North American Primary Care Group in November 2022, experts from different countries representing different traditions agreed on how the current evidence should be interpreted. RESULTS: This critical analysis identifies that the problem can be resolved by introducing a new triage scheme considering both the acute risk for suppurative complications and sepsis as well as the long-term risk of developing rheumatic fever. CONCLUSIONS: The new triage scheme may solve the long-standing problem of advocating for a restrictive use of antibiotics while also satisfying concerns that critically ill patients might be missed with severe consequences. We acknowledge that the perspective of this problem is vastly different between high- and low-income countries. Furthermore, we discuss the new trend which allows nurses and pharmacists to independently manage these patients and the increased need for safety netting required for such management.

Antibiotic effectiveness for children with lower respiratory infections: prospective cohort and trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with chest infections but there is little randomised evidence and trials commonly recruit selected populations, which undermines their applicability. AIM: To document the effectiveness of antibiotics for chest infections in children. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective cohort study with nested trial in primary care. METHOD: Children aged 1-12 years presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections were included in the cohort. Children were either randomised to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day for 7 days or placebo, or participated in a parallel observational study, where propensity scores controlled for confounding by indication. The outcomes were duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (primary outcome) and illness progression requiring hospital assessment. RESULTS: A total of 764 children participated (438 trial, 326 observational), and children were more unwell than in previous cohorts (more sputum, fever, shortness of breath). Children had been unwell for a median of 5-6 days, and symptoms rated moderately bad or worse lasted another 6 days when no antibiotics were given.With antibiotics there was a non-significant reduction of approximately 1 day in duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse for the whole cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 1.41), similar to the trial alone (HR 1.13, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.43). The effect of antibiotic treatment on secondary outcomes was also non-significant. CONCLUSION: Antibiotics for uncomplicated chest infections, even in a sample of more unwell children, are unlikely to be clinically very effective.

Effect of a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing for suspected urinary tract infections in frail older adults (ImpresU): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in four European countries.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether antibiotic prescribing for suspected urinary tract infections in frail older adults can be reduced through a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel, cluster randomised controlled trial, with a five month baseline period and a seven month follow-up period. SETTING: 38 clusters consisting of one or more general practices (n=43) and older adult care organisations (n=43) in Poland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, from September 2019 to June 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 1041 frail older adults aged 70 or older (Poland 325, the Netherlands 233, Norway 276, Sweden 207), contributing 411 person years to the follow-up period. INTERVENTION: Healthcare professionals received a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention consisting of a decision tool for appropriate antibiotic use, supported by a toolbox with educational materials. A participatory-action-research approach was used for implementation, with sessions for education, evaluation, and local tailoring of the intervention. The control group provided care as usual. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of antibiotic prescriptions for suspected urinary tract infections per person year. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of complications, all cause hospital referrals, all cause hospital admissions, all cause mortality within 21 days after suspected urinary tract infections, and all cause mortality. RESULTS: The numbers of antibiotic prescriptions for suspected urinary tract infections in the follow-up period were 54 prescriptions in 202 person years (0.27 per person year) in the intervention group and 121 prescriptions in 209 person years (0.58 per person year) in the usual care group. Participants in the intervention group had a lower rate of receiving an antibiotic prescription for a suspected urinary tract infection compared with participants in the usual care group, with a rate ratio of 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.68). No differences between intervention and control group were observed in the incidence of complications (<0.01 v 0.05 per person year), hospital referrals (<0.01 v 0.05), admissions to hospital (0.01 v 0.05), and mortality (0 v 0.01) within 21 days after suspected urinary tract infections, nor in all cause mortality (0.26 v 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention safely reduced antibiotic prescribing for suspected urinary tract infections in frail older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03970356.

Cost-effectiveness of adding oseltamivir to primary care for influenza-like-illness: economic evaluation alongside the randomised controlled ALIC4E trial in 15 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Oseltamivir is usually not often prescribed (or reimbursed) for non-high-risk patients consulting for influenza-like-illness (ILI) in primary care in Europe. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in adults/adolescents (13 years +) and children with ILI during seasonal influenza epidemics, using data collected in an open-label, multi-season, randomised controlled trial of oseltamivir in 15 European countries. METHODS: Direct and indirect cost estimates were based on patient reported resource use and official country-specific unit costs. Health-Related Quality of Life was assessed by EQ-5D questionnaires. Costs and quality adjusted life-years (QALY) were bootstrapped (N = 10,000) to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), from both the healthcare payers' and the societal perspectives, with uncertainty expressed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value for perfect information (EVPI) analysis. Additionally, scenario (self-reported spending), comorbidities subgroup and country-specific analyses were performed. RESULTS: The healthcare payers' expected ICERs of oseltamivir were €22,459 per QALY gained in adults/adolescents and €13,001 in children. From the societal perspective, oseltamivir was cost-saving in adults/adolescents, but the ICER is €8,344 in children. Large uncertainties were observed in subgroups with comorbidities, especially for children. The expected ICERs and extent of decision uncertainty varied between countries (EVPI ranged €1-€35 per patient). CONCLUSION: Adding oseltamivir to primary usual care in Europe is likely to be cost-effective for treating adults/adolescents and children with ILI from the healthcare payers' perspective (if willingness-to-pay per QALY gained > €22,459) and cost-saving in adults/adolescents from a societal perspective.

Regional and national antimicrobial stewardship activities: a survey from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN).

Background: Antibiotic overuse and misuse in primary care are common, highlighting the importance of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) efforts in this setting. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions can improve professional practice and performance in some settings. Objectives and methods: To leverage the expertise from international members of the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance - Primary care Antibiotic Audit and feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN). Network members all have experience of designing and delivering A&F interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care settings. We aim to introduce the network and explore ongoing A&F activities in member regions. An online survey was administered to all network members to collect regional information. Results: Fifteen respondents from 11 countries provided information on A&F activities in their country, and national/regional antibiotic stewardship programmes or policies. Most countries use electronic medical records as the primary data source, antibiotic appropriateness as the main outcome of feedback, and target GPs as the prescribers of interest. Funding sources varied across countries, which could influence the frequency and quality of A&F interventions. Nine out of 11 countries reported having a national antibiotic stewardship programme or policy, which aim to provide systematic support to ongoing AMS efforts and aid sustainability. Conclusions: The survey identified gaps and opportunities for AMS efforts that include A&F across member countries in Europe, Canada and Australia. JPIAMR-PAAN will continue to leverage its members to produce best practice resources and toolkits for antibiotic A&F interventions in primary care settings and identify research priorities.

Methenamine hippurate to prevent recurrent urinary tract infections in older women: protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled trial (ImpresU).

INTRODUCTION: Methenamine hippurate is a urinary antiseptic used as preventive treatment for recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in some Scandinavian countries. However, the scientific evidence for the preventive effect and safety for longer-term use is limited. The aim of this study is to assess whether methenamine hippurate can reduce the incidence of UTIs in older women with recurrent UTIs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ImpresU consortium is a collaboration between Norway, Sweden, Poland and the Netherlands. The study is a randomised, controlled, triple-blind phase IV clinical trial. Women ≥70 years with recurrent UTIs are screened for eligibility in a general practice setting. We aim to include 400 women in total, with 100 recruited from each collaborating country. The participants are randomised to treatment with methenamine hippurate 1 g or placebo tablets two times per day for a treatment period of 6 months, followed by a drug-free follow-up period of 6 months. The primary outcome is number of antibiotic treatments for UTIs during the treatment period. The secondary outcomes include number of antibiotic treatments for UTIs during the follow-up period and self-reported symptom of severity and duration of UTI episodes. Differences in complications between the treatment groups are measured as safety outcomes. We also aim to investigate whether strain characteristics or phylogenetic subgroups of Escherichia coli present in the urine culture at inclusion have a modifying effect on the outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approvals are obtained in all participating countries. The results will be communicated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04077580); EudraCT: 2018-002235-15.

Antibiotic consumption and time to recovery from uncomplicated urinary tract infection: secondary analysis of observational data from a point-of-care test trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials provide high-quality evidence on the effects of prescribing antibiotics for urinary tract infection (UTI) but may not reflect the effects in those who consume antibiotics. Moreover, they mostly compare different antibiotic types or regimens but rarely include a 'no antibiotic' group. AIM: To estimate the effect of antibiotic consumption, rather than prescription, on time to recovery in females with uncomplicated UTI. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of 14-day observational data from a point-of-care test trial for UTI in primary care in England, the Netherlands, Spain, and Wales, which ran from 2012 to 2014. Clinicians treated patients using their own judgement, providing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic. METHOD: UTI-symptomatic females who either consumed or did not consume antibiotics during a 14-day follow-up were included. Antibiotic consumption was standardised across participants and grouped into either ≤3 or >3 standardised antibiotic days. To account for confounders, a robust propensity score matching analysis was conducted. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were employed to estimate time to recovery and hazard ratios, respectively. RESULTS: A total of n = 333 females who consumed antibiotics and n = 80 females who did not consume antibiotics were identified and included in the study. The adjusted median time to recovery was 2 days longer among patients who did not consume antibiotics (9 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7 to 12) compared with those who did (7 days, 95% CI = 7 to 8). No difference was found between those who consumed ≤3 (7 days, 95% CI = 7 to 8) compared with >3 standardised antibiotic days (7 days, 95% CI = 6 to 9). CONCLUSION: Consuming antibiotics was associated with a reduction in self-reported time to recovery, but more antibiotics exposure was not associated with faster recovery in this study.

Cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing in comparison with usual care to reduce antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections in nursing homes: a cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: C-reactive protein point-of-care testing (CRP POCT) is a promising diagnostic tool to guide antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in nursing home residents. This study aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment (ROI) of CRP POCT compared with usual care for nursing home residents with suspected LRTI from a healthcare perspective. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: 11 Dutch nursing homes. PARTICIPANTS: 241 nursing home residents with a newly suspected LRTI. INTERVENTION: Nursing home access to CRP POCT (POCT-guided care) was compared with usual care without CRP POCT (usual care). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure for the cost-effectiveness analysis was antibiotic prescribing at initial consultation, and the secondary outcome was full recovery at 3 weeks. ROI analyses included intervention costs, and benefits related to antibiotic prescribing. Three ROI metrics were calculated: Net Benefits, Benefit-Cost-Ratio and Return-On-Investment. RESULTS: In POCT-guided care, total costs were on average €32 higher per patient, the proportion of avoided antibiotic prescribing was higher (0.47 vs 0.18; 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.42) and the proportion of fully recovered patients statistically non-significantly lower (0.86 vs 0.91; -0.05, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.05) compared with usual care. On average, an avoided antibiotic prescription was associated with an investment of €137 in POCT-guided care compared with usual care. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were relatively robust. Taking the ROI metrics together, the probability of financial return was 0.65. CONCLUSION: POCT-guided care effectively reduces antibiotic prescribing compared with usual care without significant effects on recovery rates, but requires an investment. Future studies should take into account potential beneficial effects of POCT-guided care on costs and health outcomes related to antibiotic resistance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL5054.