Prednisolone Versus Colchicine for Acute Gout in Primary Care: statistical analysis plan for the pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, and double-blinded COPAGO non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: To date, colchicine and prednisolone are two effective therapies for the treatment of acute gout but have never been compared directly in a randomized clinical trial. In addition, in previous trials of treating acute gout patients with concomitant comorbidities were often excluded due to contraindications to naproxen. STUDY DESIGN: This pragmatic, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized, non-inferiority trial compares prednisolone with colchicine in terms of non-inferiority in patients with acute gout. Patients presenting to their general practitioner with acute gout can be included if the gout attack has occurred within the last 2 days. A total of 60 practices in the vicinity of three university medical centers (Greifswald, Göttingen, and Würzburg) participate in the study. The intervention group receives 30 mg prednisolone for 5 days, while the group of standard care receives low-dose colchicine (day 1: 1.5 mg; days 2-5: 1 mg). The first dose of treatment is provided at day 0 when patients present to the general practitioner due to an acute gout attack. From day 0 to day 6, patients will be asked to complete a study diary on daily basis regarding pain quantification. For safety reasons, potential side effects and the course of systolic blood pressure are also assessed. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PLAN: N = 314 patients have to be recruited to compensate for 10% of dropout and to allow for showing non-inferiority of prednisolone compared to colchicine with a power of 90%. We use permuted block randomization with block sizes of 2, 4, and 6 to avoid imbalanced treatment arms in this multi-center study; patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The absolute level of pain on day 3 (in the last 24 h) is the primary outcome and measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS: 0-10). Using a multiple linear regression model adjusted for age, sex, and pain at baseline, prednisolone is considered non-inferior if the effect estimate including the confidence intervals is lower than a margin of 1 unit on the NRS. Average response to treatment, joint swelling and tenderness, physical function of the joint, and patients' global assessment of treatment success are secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: The trial will provide evidence from a direct comparison of colchicine and prednisolone regarding their efficacy of pain reduction in acute gout patients of primary care and to indicate possible safety signals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05698680 first posted on January 26, 2023 (retrospectively registered).

Associations of Mental Health Issues with Health Literacy and Vaccination Readiness against COVID-19 in Long-Term Care Facilities-A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Vaccinations against COVID-19 are of the utmost importance in long-term care facilities. During the pandemic, mental health issues increased significantly. This cross-sectional analysis aimed to assess the associations of depression and anxiety with health literacy in people in need of care and the association of depression and burnout with vaccination readiness against COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs). Within our cross-sectional study, people in need of care were assessed for symptoms of depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), and health literacy (HLS-EU-Q16). Among HCWs, we assessed symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) and burnout (MBI-HSS), as well as psychological antecedents of vaccination (5C) to measure vaccination readiness against COVID-19. A multivariate regression analysis was performed. Symptoms of a major depression were significantly associated with reduced health literacy (p = 0.010) in people in need of care. Among HCWs, symptoms of depression and burnout reduced vaccination readiness against COVID-19 significantly. In particular, collective responsibility was reduced in HCWs suffering from burnout symptoms (p = 0.001). People in need of care and their HCWs could benefit from intensified target group-specific vaccination counseling. Additionally, more attention should be paid to the protection of mental health in long-term care facilities.

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.

Acute Uncomplicated UTIs in Adults: Rapid Evidence Review.

An acute uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) is a bacterial infection of the lower urinary tract with no sign of systemic illness or pyelonephritis in a noncatheterized, nonpregnant adult with no urologic abnormalities or immunocompromise. In women, a self-diagnosis of a UTI with the presence of typical symptoms (e.g., frequency, urgency, dysuria/burning sensation, nocturia, suprapubic pain), without vaginal discharge, is accurate enough to diagnose an uncomplicated UTI without further testing. Urine culture and susceptibility testing should be reserved for women with recurrent infection, treatment failure, history of resistant isolates, or atypical presentation to make a definitive diagnosis and guide antibiotic selection. First-line antibiotics include nitrofurantoin for five days, fosfomycin in a single dose, trimethoprim for three days, or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for three days. Symptomatic treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and delayed antibiotics may be considered because the risk of complications is low. Increased fluids, intake of cranberry products, and methenamine hippurate can prevent recurrent infections. Antibiotic prophylaxis is also effective in preventing recurrence but has a risk of adverse effects and antimicrobial resistance. Men with lower UTI symptoms should always receive antibiotics, with urine culture and susceptibility results guiding the antibiotic choice. Clinicians should also consider the possibility of urethritis and prostatitis in men with UTI symptoms. First-line antibiotics for men with uncomplicated UTI include trimethoprim, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and nitrofurantoin for seven days. Uncomplicated UTIs in nonfrail women and men 65 years and older with no relevant comorbidities also necessitate a urine culture with susceptibility testing to adjust the antibiotic choice after initial empiric treatment; first-line antibiotics and treatment durations do not differ from those recommended for younger adults.

Exploring general practitioners' decision-making in the management of women with uncomplicated urinary tract infections: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: To be effective, interventions aiming at increasing the appropriateness of antibiotic use in primary care should consider the perspectives of prescribing physicians. AIM: To explore the decision-making of general practitioners (GPs) when managing uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) in women. DESIGN & SETTING: Semi-structured interviews with 22 GPs in Bavaria and Baden-Wurttemberg (southern Germany). METHOD: Verbatim transcripts analysed through inductive qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We generated three main themes: factors facilitating the decision-making, factors complicating the decision-making, and consultation modalities. According to participants, following evidence-based recommendations makes the prescription decision smoother. GPs' and patients' prior experiences and beliefs guides decisions towards certain antibiotics, even if those experiences and beliefs contradict evidence-based recommendations. Patient expectations and demands also conditions antibiotic prescribing, favouring it. Organisational constraints like time pressure, the day of the week (eg, before weekends) and a lower cost of antibiotics for patients than alternative treatments favour the decision to prescribe antibiotics. Diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty complicates decision-making, as does scepticism towards evidence-based recommendations. Discordance within the patient-doctor relationship contributed to this complexity. Regarding consultation modalities, a more in-depth consultation, and shared decision-making were seen as helpful in this process. CONCLUSION: We identified different factors as intervening against or for a straightforward management decision when dealing with women with uUTIs. They reveal the complexity behind the GPs' decision-making. Providing GPs with easy-to-apply guidance while removing economic constraints to allocate sufficient consultation time, and supporting shared decision-making may help GPs appropriately manage uUTIs in women.

Expectations of general practitioners on a practice based research network in Germany- a qualitative study within the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet).

BACKGROUND: Despite general practitioners' (GPs') key role in Germany`s primary health care, clinical research in general practice is scarce. Clinical research is mainly conducted at inpatient facilities, although their results are rarely transferable. German GPs have no extra time or funding for research, as well as limited research training. To support clinical research in German primary health care, practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are developed. As they will be based on an active involvement of GPs, we need more information on GPs` participation-readiness. The aim of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to participation in the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet) from the GPs`perspective before clinical trials will be performed. METHODS: We have performed semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of 20 Bavarian GPs in 2022 under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Transcriptions were analysed according to Kuckartz` qualitative content analysis. The five domains of the CFIR framework served as initial deductive codes. RESULTS: N = 14 interviewees already agreed to participate in BayFoNet, whereas n = 6 interviewees opted not to participate in BayFoNet at the time of data collection. Main facilitators to conduct clinical research within BayFoNet were the motivation to contribute to evidence strength and quality in general practice, professional development and training of practice staff, as well as networking. Barriers for an active participation were bad experiences with previous clinical studies and lack of resources. CONCLUSIONS: PBRNS in Germany have to be promoted and the entire practice team has to be involved at an early stage of development. Professional training of general practice staff and a living network might enhance engagement. Participatory approaches could help to develop acceptable and feasible study designs. Furthermore, PBRNs should support patient recruitment and data collection in general practices and disseminate the results of their research projects regularly to maintain GPs` engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

The Percentage of Antibiotic Resistance in Uncomplicated Community-Acquired Urinary Tract Infections­Findings of the RedAres Project.

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated bacterial urinary tract infections (uUTIs) are commonly seen in outpatient practice. They are usually treated empirically with antibiotics. The pertinent German Clinical Practice Guideline contains recommendations on antibiotic selection, with the additional advice that the local resistance situation should be considered as well. However, up-to-date information on local resistance is often unavailable, because microbiological testing is mainly recommended for complicated UTIs. Resistance rates are often higher in recurrent uUTIs than in single episodes. In this study, we aimed to determine the resistance rates of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in patients with community-acquired uUTIs and to make these data available to the treating physicians. METHODS: In a nationwide cross-sectional study in Germany (DRKS 00019059), we determined the percentages of resistance to antibiotics recommended for uUTIs (first choice: fosfomycin, nitroxoline, mecillinam, nitrofurantoin, trimethoprim; second choice: cefpodoxime, ciprofloxacin, cotrimoxazole, levofloxacin, norfloxacin, ofloxacin) over the period 2019-2021. The data were stratified by single episodes vs. recurrent UTIs (rUTIs). RESULTS: Data from 2390 subjects were analyzed. E. coli was found in 75.4% of the samples with positive urine cultures (1082 out of 1435). The resistance rate of E. coli in single episodes (n = 725) was less than 15% for all antibiotics tested. In rUTIs (n = 357), resistance rates were also less than 15% for the most part; the only exceptions were trimethoprim (21.4%) and cotrimoxazole (19.3%). CONCLUSION: For single episodes of uUTI, all of the antibiotics studied can be recommended, at least as far as their resistance profiles are concerned. For recurrent UTI, all but trimethoprim and cotrimoxazole can be recommended. The second-choice antibiotics examined do not have a more favorable resistance profile than the first-choice antibiotics.

Feasibility, safety and effectiveness of prednisolone and vitamin B1, B6, and B12 in patients with post-COVID-19-syndrome (PreVitaCOV) - protocol of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre trial in primary care (phase IIIb).

BACKGROUND: After infection with SARS-CoV-2 a relevant proportion of patients complains about persisting symptoms, a condition termed Post-COVID-19-syndrome (PC19S). So far, possible treatments are under investigation. Among others, neurotropic vitamins and anti-inflammatory substances are potential options. Thus, the PreVitaCOV trial aims to assess feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of treating patients in primary care with prednisolone and/or vitamin B1, B6 and B12. METHODS: The phase IIIb, multi-centre randomised, double-blind, and placebo-controlled PreVitaCOV trial has a factorial design and is planned as a two-phase approach. The pilot phase assessed feasibility and safety and was transformed into a confirmatory phase to evaluate effectiveness since feasibility was proven. Adult patients with PC19S after a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection at least 12 weeks ago are randomly assigned to 4 parallel treatments: prednisolone 20 mg for five days followed by 5 mg for 23 days (trial drug 1), B vitamins (B1 (100 mg OD), B6 (50 mg OD), and B12 (500 µg OD)) for 28 days (trial drug 2), trial drugs 1 and 2, or placebo. The primary outcome of the pilot phase was defined as the retention rate of the first 100 patients. Values of ≥ 85% were considered as confirmation of feasibility, this criterion was even surpassed by a retention rate of 98%. After transformation, the confirmatory phase proceeds by enrolling 240 additional patients. The primary outcome for the study is the change of symptom severity from baseline to day 28 as assessed by a tailored Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) total score referring to five symptom domains known to be typical for PC19S (fatigue, dyspnoea, cognition, anxiety, depression). The confirmatory trial is considered positive if superiority of any treatment is demonstrated over placebo operationalised by an improvement of at least 3 points on the PROMIS total score (t-score). DISCUSSION: The PreVitaCOV trial may contribute to the understanding of therapeutic approaches in PC19S in a primary care context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2022-001041-20. DRKS: DRKS00029617. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: F001AM02222_1 (registered: 05 Dec 2022).

GPs' Perspective on a Multimodal Intervention to Enhance Guideline-Adherence in Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections: A Qualitative Process Evaluation of the Multicentric RedAres Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial.

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common reasons patients seeking health care and antibiotics to be prescribed in primary care. However, general practitioners' (GPs) guideline adherence is low. The RedAres randomised controlled trial aims to increase guideline adherence by implementing a multimodal intervention consisting of four elements: information on current UTI guidelines (1) and regional resistance data (2); feedback regarding prescribing behaviour (3); and benchmarking compared to peers (4). The RedAres process evaluation assesses GPs' perception of the multimodal intervention and the potential for implementation into routine care. We carried out 19 semi-structured interviews with GPs (intervention arm). All interviews were carried out online and audio recorded. For transcription and analysis, Mayring's qualitative content analysis was used. Overall, GPs considered the interventions helpful for knowledge gain and confirmation when prescribing. Information material and resistance were used for patient communication and teaching purposes. Feedback was considered to enhance reflection by breaking routines of clinical workup. Implementation into routine practice could be enhanced by integrating feedback loops into patient management systems and conveying targeted information via trusted channels or institutions. The process evaluation of RedAres intervention was considered beneficial by GPs. It confirms the convenience of multimodal interventions to enhance guideline adherence.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. MAIN RESULTS: As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Effects of a multimodal intervention in primary care to reduce second line antibiotic prescriptions for urinary tract infections in women: parallel, cluster randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether a multimodal intervention in general practice reduces the proportion of second line antibiotic prescriptions and the overall proportion of antibiotic prescriptions for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women. DESIGN: Parallel, cluster randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: General practices in five regions in Germany. Data were collected between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners from 128 randomly assigned practices. INTERVENTIONS: Multimodal intervention consisting of guideline recommendations for general practitioners and patients, provision of regional data for antibiotic resistance, and quarterly feedback, which included individual first line and second line proportions of antibiotic prescribing, benchmarking with regional or supra-regional practices, and telephone counselling. Participants in the control group received no information on the intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the proportion of second line antibiotics prescribed by general practices, in relation to all antibiotics prescribed, for uncomplicated urinary tract infections after one year between the intervention and control group. General practices were randomly assigned in blocks (1:1), with a block size of four, into the intervention or control group using SAS version 9.4; randomisation was stratified by region. The secondary outcome was the prescription proportion of all antibiotics, relative within all cases (instances of UTI diagnosis), for the treatment of urinary tract infections after one year between the groups. Adverse events were assessed as exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: 110 practices with full datasets identified 10 323 cases during five quarters (ie, 15 months). The mean proportion of second line antibiotics prescribed was 0.19 (standard deviation 0.20) in the intervention group and 0.35 (0.25) in the control group after 12 months. After adjustment for preintervention proportions, the mean difference was -0.13 (95% confidence interval -0.21 to -0.06, P<0.001). The overall proportion of all antibiotic prescriptions for urinary tract infections over 12 months was 0.74 (standard deviation 0.22) in the intervention and 0.80 (0.15) in the control group with a mean difference of -0.08 (95% confidence interval -0.15 to -0.02, P<0.029). No differences were noted in the number of complications (ie, pyelonephritis, admission to hospital, or fever) between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The multimodal intervention in general practice significantly reduced the proportion of second line antibiotics and all antibiotic prescriptions for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00020389.

Prednisolone Versus Colchicine for Acute Gout in Primary Care (COPAGO): protocol for a two-arm multicentre, pragmatic, prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial of prednisolone and colchicine for non-inferiority with a parallel group design.

BACKGROUND: Gout is the most common form of rheumatic disease in which monosodium urate crystals are deposited in the joints followed by acute inflammatory reactions. There are various approved drugs that can be prescribed for pain relief during an acute gout attack. However, to date, no direct comparison of efficacy of colchicine and prednisolone for the treatment of acute gout attacks has been investigated. Furthermore, the majority of previous research studies were not only conducted in tertiary centres but also excluded patients with common comorbidities due to contraindications to naproxen. METHODS: This pragmatic, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized, non-inferiority trial investigates whether prednisolone (intervention) is non-inferior to treatment with colchicine (active control) in patients with acute gout. Adult patients presenting with acute gout to their general practitioners in 60 practices across 3 university sites (Greifswald, Göttingen, and Würzburg) are eligible to participate in the study. Participants in the intervention group receive 30 mg prednisolone for 5 days. Those in the control group receive low-dose colchicine (day 1: 1.5 mg; days 2-5: 1 mg). The primary outcome is the absolute level of the most severe pain on day 3 (in the last 24 h) measured with an 11-item numerical rating scale. Day 0 is the day patients take their study medication for the first time. They are then asked to fill out a study diary the same time each day for pain quantification. Pain scores are used for comparison between the two medications. Secondary outcomes are average response to treatment, swelling, tenderness and physical function of the joint, patients' global assessment of treatment success, use of additional pain medication and non-pharmacological pain therapies. For safety reasons, potential side effects and course of systolic blood pressure are assessed. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of pain reduction and side effects of colchicine and prednisolone in acute gout in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05698680 first posted on January 26, 2023 (retrospectively registered). URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05698680.

Complementary Medicine in Acute Care Hospitals: Questionnaire Survey with Heads of Bavarian Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: The demand for complementary medicine (CM) is well studied in the outpatient sector, but representative data on type and extent of inpatient care using CM are missing. Therefore, our aim was to examine the range of CM treatments offered and the types of indications for using CM in acute care hospitals in the German state of Bavaria. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey by contacting the medical heads of all 388 Bavarian acute care hospitals between November 2020 and April 2021. The questionnaire included a wide range of CM to assessed availability of CM supply, most frequent indications, and medical specialities. Furthermore, we assessed basic information about the hospital and the participating medical staff. RESULTS: A total of 101 (26%) hospitals participated in the survey. At least one CM treatment was offered by 92% of the responding hospitals and 75% offered at least 5 therapy modalities (mean of 10 treatments, range: 0-25). These were most commonly massage therapies (68%), relaxation techniques (63%), phytotherapy (60%), mindfulness-based treatments (53%), art, diet, and exercise therapies (each 48%), aromatherapy (46%), acupuncture, and compresses/poultices (both 42%). The most reported medical conditions for CM treatments (in descending order) were chronic pain, mental disorders, degenerative affections, sleep disorders, fatigue syndrome, functional gastrointestinal disorders, and acute pain. CONCLUSION: According to the Bavarian acute care hospitals that participated in our postal survey, a considerable part offered CM. Further research should include personal interviews and more detailed assessments of indications and attitudes for the use of CM in acute care hospital settings.Die Nachfrage nach Komplementärmedizinischen Verfahren (CM) ist für den ambulanten Sektor gut untersucht, aber es fehlen Daten über Art und Umfang der komplementärmedizinischen Versorgung im stationären Bereich. Unser Ziel war es daher, das CM-Angebot und die medizinischen Indikationen in Akutkrankenhäusern im Bundesland Bayern zu untersuchen.Wir führten eine Querschnittsbefragung durch, bei der die klinischen Leitungen aller 388 bayerischen Akutkrankenhäuser zwischen November 2020 und April 2021 angeschrieben wurden. Der Fragebogen inkludierte ein breites Spektrum an CM-Verfahren und erfasste deren Verfügbarkeit, die häufigsten Indikationen und Anwendungsgebiete. Ergänzend wurden grundlegende Informationen des Krankenhauses und des medizinischen Personals erfragt.Insgesamt nahmen 101 (26%) Krankenhäuser an der Befragung teil. Die meisten Ausfüllenden hatten mindestens zwei Jahrzehnte klinische Berufserfahrung. Mindestens eine CM Behandlung wurde von 92% der teilnehmenden Krankenhäuser angeboten und 75% boten mindestens 5 Therapiemodalitäten an (Mittelwert: 10 Behandlungen; Spanne: 0­25). Dabei handelte es sich am häufigsten um Massagen (68%), Entspannungstechniken (63%), Phytotherapie (60%), achtsamkeitsbasierte Behandlungen (53%), Kunst-, Ernährungs-und Bewegungstherapie (jeweils 48%), Aromatherapie (46%), Akupunktur und Kompressen/Umschläge (jeweils 42%). Die häufigsten genannten Indikationen für CM-Behandlungen waren (in absteigender Reihenfolge) chronische Schmerzen, psychische Störungen, degenerative Erkrankungen, Schlafstörungen, Erschöpfungssyndrom, funktionelle Magen-Darm-Beschwerden und akute Schmerzen.Nach Angaben der bayerischen Akutkrankenhäuser, die an unserer postalischen Umfrage teilgenommen haben, bietet ein erheblicher Teil CM an. Weitere Untersuchungen sollten persönliche Interviews und detailliertere Bewertungen der Indikationen und Einstellungen für den Einsatz von CM in Akutkrankenhäusern umfassen.

Stress experiences of healthcare assistants in family practice at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study.

Background: At the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, healthcare assistants in general practices were confronted with numerous new challenges. The aim of the study was to investigate the stress factors of healthcare assistants in March/April 2020 as well as in the further course of the pandemic in 2020. Methods: From August to December 2020, 6,300 randomly selected healthcare assistants in four German states were invited to participate in the study. We performed a mixed methods design using semi-structured telephone interviews and a cross-sectional survey with quantitative and open questions. The feeling of psychological burden was assessed on a 6-point likert-scale. We defined stress factors and categorized them in patient, non-patient and organizational stress factors. The results of the three data sets were compared within a triangulation protocol. Results: One thousand two hundred seventy-four surveys were analyzed and 28 interviews with 34 healthcare assistants were conducted. Of the participants, 29.5% reported experiences of a very high or high feeling of psychological burden in March/April 2020. Worries about the patients' health and an uncertainty around the new disease were among the patient-related stress factors. Non-patient-related stress factors were problems with the compatibility of work and family, and the fear of infecting relatives with COVID-19. Organizational efforts and dissatisfaction with governmental pandemic management were reported as organizational stress factors. Support from the employer and team cohesion were considered as important resources. Discussion: It is necessary to reduce stress among healthcare assistants by improving their working conditions and to strengthen their resilience to ensure primary healthcare delivery in future health crises.

Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study.

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners often criticise clinical trials for their poor applicability in primary care, which may at least partially explain why their engagement in primary care research remains limited. In order to enhance primary care research, the German government has funded six regional practice based research networks (PBRNs). Within the Bavarian PBRN (BayFoNet), two cluster-randomised pilot trials will be conducted. This paper presents the protocol of the process evaluation accompanying both trials, which aims to explore relevance, feasibility, acceptability and credibility of clinical research in primary care from the perspectives of BayFoNet researchers, general practitioners, and patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BayFoNet will be established by recruiting general practices (GPs) as prospective research collaborators in two cluster randomised pilot trials. Research teams will provide training in good clinical practice, and support practices in patient recruitment, data collection and documentation. Our process evaluation explores barriers and facilitators in the set up of the BayFoNet PBRN and both cluster randomised pilot trials, under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research and the theoretical domains framework. In a mixed-methods concept, we will use qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluate both pilot cluster-randomised trials as well as the BayFoNet itself: focus groups with researchers, semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and questionnaires for patients participating in the pilot cluster-randomised trials at three different time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Department, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (AZ 21-1135). Results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and summaries will be provided to the funders of the study as well as other PBRNs, GP teams and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support: protocol for a SARS-CoV-2 registry.

INTRODUCTION: People in need of care or support are severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We lack valid data of long-term assessments. We present a register study to detect the physical and psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support in Bavaria, Germany. To describe the persons' life conditions comprehensively, we assess the perspectives and needs of the respective care teams too. Results will serve as evidence-based source to manage the pandemic and long-term prevention strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The 'Bavarian ambulatory COVID-19 Monitor' is a multicentre registry including a purposive sample of up to 1000 patient-participants across three study sites in Bavaria. The study group consists of 600 people in need of care with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Control group 1 comprises 200 people in need of care with a negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, while control group 2 comprises 200 people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test but are not in need of care. We assess the clinical course of infection, psychosocial aspects and care needs using validated measures. Follow-up is every 6 months for up to 3 years. Additionally, we assess up to 400 people linked to these patient-participants (caregivers, general practitioners (GPs)) for their health and needs. Main analyses are stratified by level of care I-V (I=minor/V=most severe impairment of independence), inpatient/outpatient care setting, sex and age. We use descriptive and inferential statistics to analyse cross-sectional data and changes over time. In qualitative interviews with 60 stakeholders (people in need of care, caregivers, GPs, politicians), we explore interface problems of different functional logics, of everyday and professional perspectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital LMU Munich (#20-860) and the study sites (Universities of Wurzburg and Erlangen) approved the protocol. We disseminate the results by peer-reviewed publications, international conferences, governmental reports, etc.

[General Practitioners' Experiences with COVID-19: a Survey After the First Wave of the Pandemic in March/April 2020]. / Erfahrungen von HausärztInnen mit COVID-19 und der Pandemie ­ ein Survey nach der ersten Pandemiewelle im März/April 2020.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mar-Apr 2020) posed significant challenges for primary care. The goal of this study was to analyse the burden of the crisis situation as experienced by the general practitioners (GPs) at its beginning and over the course of the pandemic and to identify factors predictive of the sense of being overburdened. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 6300 randomly selected GPs in four federal states of Germany were contacted per post in order to survey changes in health care they provided and their psychological burden in the context of the pandemic between August and October 2020. RESULTS: The response rate was 23%; 46% of the participants were female. At the beginning of the pandemic, 40% of the participants experienced a high or a very high level of being overburdened; later on, it was only 10%. With increasing numbers of COVID patients, the sense of being overburdened increased, as also their perceived capability to care for COVID patients. Predictors of a sense of being overburdened were, among others, a high level of psychological stress, excessive organising efforts, poor capability to care for COVID patients, and scarce supply of protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Despite a sense of being overburdened initially, GPs felt increasingly capable of caring for COVID patients. To help GPs in future crisis situations like this pandemic, organization of care should be simplified to the extent possible so that they can focus on patient care.

Point-of-care laboratory testing in primary care: utilization, limitations and perspectives of general practitioners in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Due to their fast turnaround time and user-friendliness, point-of-care tests (POCTs) possess a great potential in primary care. The purpose of the study was to assess general practitioners' (GPs) perspectives on POCT use in German primary care, including utilization, limitations and requirements. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study among GPs in Germany (federal states of Thuringia, Bremen and Bavaria (Lower Franconia), study period: 04/22-06/2022). RESULTS: From 2,014 GPs reached, 292 participated in our study (response rate: 14.5%). The median number of POCTs used per GP was 7.0 (IQR: 5.0-8.0). Six POCTs are used by the majority of surveyed GPs (> 50%): urine dipstick tests (99%), glucose (urine [91%] and plasma [69%]), SARS-CoV-2 (80%), urine microalbumin (77%), troponin I/T (74%) and prothrombin time / international normalized ratio (65%). The number of utilized POCTs did not differ between GP practice type (p = 0.307) and population size of GP practice location (p = 0.099). The great majority of participating German GPs (93%) rated POCTs as useful diagnostic tools in the GP practice. GPs ranked immediate decisions on patient management and the increase in diagnostic certainty as the most important reasons for performing POCTs. The most frequently reported limitations of POCT use in the GP practice were economic aspects (high costs and inadequate reimbursement), concerns regarding diagnostic accuracy, and difficulties to integrate POCT-testing into practice routines (e.g. time and personnel expenses). CONCLUSION: Although participating German GPs generally perceive POCTs as useful diagnostic tools and numerous POCTs are available, several test-related and contextual factors contribute to the relatively low utilization of POCTs in primary care.

German general practitioners' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and how it affected their patient care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) play a significant role in providing medical care to patients affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Little is known about the impact of the pandemic on patient care from the perspective of GPs. OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into GPs' experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on patient care in Germany. METHODS: From August to December 2020, qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 22 GPs from four randomly selected federal states in Germany. We analysed the data according to Kuckartz's method of content analysis. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: changes in healthcare system, practice routines, patient care, personal life, and improving health crisis preparedness. Communication with authorities and following rapidly changing guidelines were the biggest challenges during the pandemic. Teamwork and collegial exchange in the practice were seen as important sources of support to overcome these barriers. Participants stated that they managed to secure care but expressed concerns about how social distancing might affect the doctor-patient relationship. In their professional and private lives, GPs perceived themselves as role models with a high responsibility for the health of others. Consistent guidance by health authorities and reliable information were raised as necessary for managing patient care in the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Findings show that patient care was successful but GPs' adaptation to unprecedented conditions was limited by poor communication and collaboration with health authorities. Therefore, providing adequate support services by policymakers is essential to strengthen primary care in future health crises.

Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous tools exist to detect potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) in older people, but it remains unclear which tools may be most relevant in which setting. OBJECTIVES: This cross sectional study compares six validated tools in terms of PIM and PPO detection. METHODS: We examined the PIM/PPO prevalence for all tools combined and the sensitivity of each tool. The pairwise agreement between tools was determined using Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: We included 226 patients in need of care (median (IQR age 84 (80-89)). The overall PIM prevalence was 91.6 (95% CI, 87.2-94.9)% and the overall PPO prevalence was 63.7 (57.1-69.9%)%. The detected PIM prevalence ranged from 76.5%, for FORTA-C/D, to 6.6% for anticholinergic drugs (German-ACB). The PPO prevalences for START (63.7%) and FORTA-A (62.8%) were similar. The pairwise agreement between tools was poor to moderate. The sensitivity of PIM detection was highest for FORTA-C/D (55.1%), and increased to 79.2% when distinct items from STOPP were added. CONCLUSION: Using a single screening tool may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect PIMs and PPOs. Further research is required to optimize the composition of PIM and PPO tools in different settings.