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).

Body map stories from Colombia: experiences of people affected by leprosy and the influence of peers during diagnosis and treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Almost one third of people affected by leprosy in Colombia suffer from disability, which often results from delayed diagnosis and treatment. We aimed to explore the experience of people affected by leprosy during the process of diagnosis and treatment and if and how this experience was influenced by peers. METHODS: A qualitative study using body map stories was conducted from October 2019 to February 2020 in Colombia. Adult people affected by leprosy were recruited through patient associations in different cities. We conducted three sessions with an average duration of 2-3 h per participant, during which the participants created a painted map of their body and chose symbols to represent their experience, while being engaged in an informal interview. The sessions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically by an interdisciplinary team, consisting of physicians, social workers and a person affected by leprosy. RESULTS: The 17 study participants (11 female) were aged 20 to 70 years. Leprosy-related manifestations ranged from no to advanced disability. Some participants were active members of associations for people affected by leprosy. Three main themes were identified during analysis: (1) A long pathway to diagnosis, (2) Therapy as a double-edged sword and (3) The influence of other people affected by leprosy. The participants described an often years-long process until being diagnosed, which was marked by insecurities, repeated misdiagnosis, and worsening mental and physical health. Delayed diagnosis was related to late health care seeking, but also to inadequate health communication, lack of leprosy-related knowledge and negligence among health care workers. A high desire to cure motivated the participants to take their medication rigorously, despite the high treatment burden. Support from peers, either within the own social environment or provided from associations, contributed to a faster diagnosis and increased therapy adherence. Peers helped to recognize the symptoms, urged patients to seek care, recommended physicians with leprosy-related knowledge and provided a realistic example of both disease severity and curability. CONCLUSION: People affected by leprosy experience a significant burden during the process of diagnosis and treatment. Involving well-trained peers could foster early diagnosis, treatment compliance and prevention of disability.

Development and implementation of a treatment pathway to reduce coronary angiograms - lessons from a failure.

BACKGROUND: The rates of coronary angiograms (CA) and related procedures (percutaneous intervention [PCI]) are significantly higher in Germany than in other Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development (OECD) countries. The current guidelines recommend non-invasive diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD); CA should only have a limited role in choosing the appropriate revascularisation procedure. The aim of the present study was to explore whether improvements in guideline adherence can be achieved through the implementation of regional treatment pathways. We chose four regions of Germany with high utilisation of CAs for the study. Here we report the results of the concomitant qualitative study. METHODS: General practitioners and specialist physicians (cardiologists, hospital-based cardiologists, emergency physicians, radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists) caring for patients with suspected CHD were invited to develop regional treatment pathways. Four academic departments provided support for moderation, provision of materials, etc. The study team observed session discussions and took notes. After the development of the treatment pathways, 45 semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participating physicians. Interviews and field notes were transcribed verbatim and underwent qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Pathway development received little support among the participants. Although consensus documents were produced, the results were unlikely to improve practice. The participants expressed very little commitment to change. Although this attempt clearly failed in all study regions, our experience provides relevant insights into the process of evidence appraisal and implementation. A lack of organisational skills, ignorance of current evidence and guidelines, and a lack of feedback regarding one's own clinical behaviour proved to be insurmountable. CA was still seen as the diagnostic gold standard by most interviewees. CONCLUSIONS: Oversupply and overutilisation can be assumed to be present in study regions but are not immediately perceived by clinicians. The problem is unlikely to be solved by regional collaborative initiatives; optimised resource planning within the health care system combined with appropriate economic incentives might best address these issues.

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.

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.

[How Common are Complementary Medicine Procedures in Bavarian Acute Care Hospitals? Results of A Bavarian-wide Website Screening]. / Wie verbreitet sind komplementärmedizinische Verfahren in bayerischen Krankenhäusern? Eine Vollerhebung für Bayern mittels Website-Screening.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, complementary medicine is used by up to 62% of patients, but type and extent of in-patient complementary care are not known. The objective of this study was, therefore, to conduct a survey on complementary medicine procedures in Bavarian acute care hospitals by screening the websites of all respective facilities in order to cover a broad range of complementary procedures. METHODS: In 2020, an independent and comprehensive website screening of all 389 Bavarian acute hospitals, including all departments, was conducted by two independent raters. Complementary medicine procedures offered were analysed in total as well as separately by specialty. RESULTS: Among all 389 Bavarian acute care hospitals, 82% offered at least one and 66% at least three different complementary procedures on their website. Relaxation techniques (52%), acupuncture (44%), massage (41%), movement-, art-, and music therapy (33%, 30%, and 28%), meditative movement therapies like yoga (30%), and aromatherapy (29%) were offered most frequently. Separated by specialty, complementary procedures were most common in psychiatry/psychosomatics (relaxation techniques 69%, movement and art therapy 60% each) at 87%, and in gynaecology/obstetrics (most common acupuncture 64%, homeopathy 60%, and aromatherapy 41%) at 72%. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of Bavarian acute care hospitals also seem to conduct complementary medicine procedures in therapy, especially for psychological indications and in obstetrics and gynaecology, according to the hospital websites. How often these procedures are used in inpatient or outpatient settings as well as evidence on effectiveness of the applied procedures should be investigated in further studies.

[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.

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. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. 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 (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for 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 WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022.  This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care 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 risk of bias 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 post-exposure 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 LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. MAIN RESULTS: As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers.  We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care 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; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; 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; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care 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 standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance.  Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient.  The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.

Effectiveness of an online education program for asthma patients in general practice: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Asthma education programs (AEPs) have been shown to increase quality of life and reduce emergency treatments and hospital admissions. Despite the proven benefits, only a minority of asthma patients attend such programs. To increase the number of educated patients, an online education program (electronic AEP, eAEP) for asthma patients has been developed. The present study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the eAEP in terms of asthma knowledge, asthma control and emergency treatments in general practice settings. METHODS: This is a cluster randomized controlled trial including 100 patients with bronchial asthma from 20 general practices in Bavaria, Germany. General practices will be randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group will receive access to the eAEP and instructions to complete this program within two weeks. Patients in the control group will receive usual care including a referral to face-to-face AEP (fAEP) by a certified primary care physician or a pulmonologist according to guideline recommendations. Furthermore, patients of both the intervention and control groups will be invited to a follow-up consultation in their general practice after completion of the eAEP and fAEP (three weeks and twelve weeks after study inclusion, respectively) to discuss any open issues. Outcomes for both groups will be assessed at baseline (t0), after two weeks (t1), three months (t2) and six months (t3). The primary outcome is the comparison of asthma knowledge gain between intervention and control groups after completion of the eAEP (two weeks after study inclusion) and fAEP (twelve weeks after study inclusion), respectively. Secondary outcomes include asthma control, frequency of emergency treatments, patient autonomy as well as attitudes towards asthma medication. DISCUSSION: The results of the present trial will provide knowledge about the effectiveness of an online education program for asthma patients compared to usual care in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00028805 . Registered 22 April 2022.

Outcome selection in primary care antimicrobial stewardship research.

Clinical and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) outcomes are highly relevant to pragmatic primary care trials, reflecting aspects, such as persistent symptoms and relapses, or antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance. Sometimes both can be equally important. We present evidence demonstrating the wide range of outcome measures used in previous primary care trials and observe that there are no agreed standards for their design. We describe AMS interventions and outcomes in terms of intervention types and targets, and we make recommendations for future research designs. Specifically, we argue that: (i) where co-primary outcomes are considered appropriate, investigators should pre-specify interpretation of conflicting results; (ii) intervention evaluation should ensure prescriptions from sources outside of the usual provider are included in any AMS effectiveness measure; (iii) where possible, outcomes should include antimicrobial resistance; (iv) in some contexts, it may be necessary to include the antibiotics used within the intervention as part of the outcome; and (v) patient involvement is needed to establish the principles investigators should use when deciding whether the AMS or clinical outcomes should be prioritized.

REDuction of Antibiotic RESistance (REDARES) in urinary tract infections using treatments according to national clinical guidelines: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a multimodal intervention in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a common cause of prescribing antibiotics in family medicine. In Germany, about 40% of UTI-related prescriptions are second-line antibiotics, which contributes to emerging resistance rates. To achieve a change in the prescribing behaviour among family physicians (FPs), this trial aims to implement the guideline recommendations in German family medicine. METHODS/DESIGN: In a randomized controlled trial, a multimodal intervention will be developed and tested in family practices in four regions across Germany. The intervention will consist of three elements: information on guideline recommendations, information on regional resistance and feedback of prescribing behaviour for FPs on a quarterly basis. The effect of the intervention will be compared to usual practice. The primary endpoint is the absolute difference in the mean of prescribing rates of second-line antibiotics among the intervention and the control group after 12 months. To detect a 10% absolute difference in the prescribing rate after one year, with a significance level of 5% and a power of 86%, a sample size of 57 practices per group will be needed. Assuming a dropout rate of 10%, an overall number of 128 practices will be required. The accompanying process evaluation will provide information on feasibility and acceptance of the intervention. DISCUSSION: If proven effective and feasible, the components of the intervention can improve adherence to antibiotic prescribing guidelines and contribute to antimicrobial stewardship in ambulatory care.  Trial registration DRKS, DRKS00020389, Registered 30 January 2020, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00020389 .

Management of urinary tract infections: what do doctors recommend and patients do? An observational study in German primary care.

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) in women are usually managed in primary care with antibiotics. However, many women seem to prefer to handle UTI symptoms with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other remedies. The aim of this study was to compare UTI management as recommended by physicians with the patients' management at home. METHODS: This prospective cohort study in German primary care is based on clinical data from local practices and patient questionnaires. Participating women completed a baseline data sheet in the practice; their urine sample was tested by a dipstick in the practice and cultured by a laboratory. The women reported treatment and symptom-related impairment on an eight-item symptom questionnaire daily for 7 days. Using growth curve models, we analysed the influence of time on the total severity score to examine how symptoms changed across days. We then examined whether symptom severity and symptom course differed between patients who took antibiotics or NSAIDs. RESULTS: A total of 120 women (mean age of 43.3 ± 16.6 years) were enrolled. The urine dipstick was positive for leucocytes in 92%, erythrocytes in 87%, and nitrites in 23%. Physicians prescribed antibiotics for 102 (87%) women and recommended NSAIDs in 14 cases. According to the women's reports, only 60% (72/120) took antibiotics, while the remainder took NSAIDs and other remedies. Symptoms declined from day 0 to day 6, irrespective of whether women decided to take an antibiotic, NSAIDs, none or both, as confirmed by a significant curvilinear time effect (B = 0.06, SE = 0.005, p < .001). The symptom course, however, was moderated by taking antibiotics so that the change in symptom severity was somewhat more pronounced in women taking antibiotics (B = 0.06) than in the remainder (B = 0.04). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of women did not follow their physicians' treatment recommendations, and many used NSAIDs. All women had a good chance of recovery irrespective of whether they decided to take antibiotics. A sensitive listening to patient preferences in the consultation may encourage physicians to recommend and prescribe symptomatic treatment with NSAID more often than antibiotic medicines.

Antiviral treatment for Bell's palsy (idiopathic facial paralysis).

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is uncertain. This review was first published in 2001 and most recently updated in 2015. Since a significant benefit of corticosteroids for the early management of Bell's palsy has been demonstrated, the main focus of this update, as in the previous version, was to determine the effect of adding antivirals to corticosteroid treatment. We undertook this update to integrate additional evidence and to better assess the robustness of findings, taking risk of bias fully into account. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antiviral treatments alone or in combination with any other therapy for Bell's palsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS in July 2019. We reviewed the bibliographies of the identified trials and contacted trial authors to identify additional published or unpublished data. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell's palsy. We excluded trials that followed-up participants for less than three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed trials for relevance, eligibility, and risk of bias, using standard Cochrane procedures. We performed sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high or unclear risk of bias in at least five domains, and reported these data as the primary analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen trials, including 2488 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias in multiple domains. We included four new studies at this update.Incomplete recoveryA combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in people with Bell's palsy compared to corticosteroids alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.74; 3 trials, N = 766; random-effects; low-certainty evidence). We excluded 10 trials that were at high or unclear risk of bias in several domains from this analysis and limited all analyses to studies at lower risk of bias. Recovery rates were better in participants receiving corticosteroids alone than antivirals alone (RR 2.69, 95% CI 0.73 to 10.01; 2 trials, N = 667; random-effects), but the result was imprecise and allowed for the possibility of no effect. The rate of incomplete recovery was lower with antivirals plus corticosteroids than with placebo or no treatment (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.76; 2 trials, N = 658; random-effects). Antivirals alone had no clear effect on incomplete recovery rates compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40; 2 trials, N = 658; fixed-effect). For people with severe Bell's palsy (House-Brackmann score of 5 and 6, or equivalent on other scales), we found that the combination of antivirals and corticosteroids had no clear effect on incomplete recovery at month six compared to corticosteroids alone, although the result was again imprecise (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 trials, N = 98; random-effects).Motor synkinesis or crocodile tearsAntivirals plus corticosteroids reduced the proportion of participants who experienced these long-term sequelae from Bell's palsy compared to placebo plus corticosteroids (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 2 trials, N = 469; fixed-effect; moderate-certainty evidence). Antivirals plus corticosteroids reduced long-term sequelae compared to placebo but there was no clear difference in this outcome with antivirals alone compared to placebo.Adverse events Adverse event data were available in four studies providing data on 1592 participants. None of the four comparisons showed clear differences in adverse events between treatment and comparison arms (very low-certainty evidence); for the comparison of antivirals plus corticosteroids and corticosteroids alone in studies at lower risk of bias, the RR was 1.17 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.69; 2 trials, N = 656; fixed-effect; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in comparison to corticosteroids alone in Bell's palsy of various degrees of severity, or in people with severe Bell's palsy, but the results were very imprecise. Corticosteroids alone were probably more effective than antivirals alone and antivirals plus corticosteroids were more effective than placebo or no treatment. There was no clear benefit from antivirals alone over placebo.The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids probably reduced the late sequelae of Bell's palsy compared with corticosteroids alone. Studies also showed fewer episodes of long-term sequelae in corticosteroid-treated participants than antiviral-treated participants.We found no clear difference in adverse events from the use of antivirals compared with either placebo or corticosteroids, but the evidence is too uncertain for us to draw conclusions.An adequately powered RCT in people with Bell's palsy that compares different antiviral agents may be indicated.

Ethical challenges in primary care: a focus group study with general practitioners, nurses and informal caregivers.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs), nurses and informal caregivers are often jointly involved in healthcare situations in which ethical issues play an important role. OBJECTIVES: To describe ethical problems from the perspective of these three groups and to investigate whether there is a common experience of ethical issues in primary care. METHODS: We conducted six focus groups with general practitioners, nurses and informal caregivers in Germany. We asked the participants to describe at least one experience of ethical problem in detail and documented the findings by an illustration software that visualized and structured the discussion. We used thematic analysis to identify ethical problems and to develop categories of ethical issues. RESULTS: Problems reported barely overlapped. GPs had to do mainly with uncertainty about the scope and limits of their responsibility for patients. Nurses were concerned about bureaucratic and other barriers to professional care and about dual loyalty if they had to consider the conflicting interests of patients and family members. They often felt powerless and unable to act according to their professional standards. Informal caregivers reported problems that resulted from role strain and being both a family member and a caregiver. GPs, nurses and informal caregivers sometimes perceived the other parties as a source of ethical problems. CONCLUSIONS: All parties may benefit from ethics support services, a rarity in German primary care so far. Furthermore, nurses' self-confidence towards GPs, demanding patients and family members has to be strengthened. Informal caregivers, the most vulnerable group, need more attendance and tailored support.

Reducing antibiotic use for uncomplicated urinary tract infection in general practice by treatment with uva-ursi (REGATTA) - a double-blind, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTI) are common in general practice and usually treated with antibiotics. This contributes to increasing resistance rates of uropathogenic bacteria. A previous trial showed a reduction of antibiotic use in women with UTI by initial symptomatic treatment with ibuprofen. However, this treatment strategy is not suitable for all women equally. Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (UU, bearberry extract arbutin) is a potential alternative treatment. This study aims at investigating whether an initial treatment with UU in women with UTI can reduce antibiotic use without significantly increasing the symptom burden or rate of complications. METHODS: This is a double-blind, randomized, and controlled comparative effectiveness trial. Women between 18 and 75 years with suspected UTI and at least two of the symptoms dysuria, urgency, frequency or lower abdominal pain will be assessed for eligibility in general practice and enrolled into the trial. Participants will receive either a defined daily dose of 3 × 2 arbutin 105 mg for 5 days (intervention) or fosfomycin 3 g once (control). Antibiotic therapy will be provided in the intervention group only if needed, i.e. for women with worsening or persistent symptoms. Two co-primary outcomes are the number of all antibiotic courses regardless of the medical indication from day 0-28, and the symptom burden, defined as a weighted sum of the daily total symptom scores from day 0-7. The trial result is considered positive if superiority of initial treatment with UU is demonstrated with reference to the co-primary outcome number of antibiotic courses and non-inferiority of initial treatment with UU with reference to the co-primary outcome symptom burden. DISCUSSION: The trial's aim is to investigate whether initial treatment with UU is a safe and effective alternative treatment strategy in women with UTI. In that case, the results might change the existing treatment strategy in general practice by promoting delayed prescription of antibiotics and a reduction of antibiotic use in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2016-000477-21 . Clinical trials.gov: NCT03151603 (registered: 10 May 2017).

External validation study of a clinical decision aid to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions in women with acute cystitis.

BACKGROUND: Empirical prescribing of antibiotics to women with symptoms of acute cystitis prior to culture results is common, but subsequent culture results are often negative. A clinical decision aid for prescribing decisions in acute cystitis was previously developed that could reduce these unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions but has not been validated. This study sought to validate this decision aid for empirical antibiotic prescribing decisions in a new cohort of women with suspected acute cystitis. METHODS: External validation study of a clinical decision aid in 397 women with symptoms of acute cystitis, involving 230 Canadian family practitioners across Canada between 2009 and 2011. The sensitivity and specificity of the decision aid compared to a gold standard positive urine culture (defined as ≥102 cfu/ml (≥105 CFU/L)) was determined, and compared with physician management, and the earlier development cohort study estimates. Other outcomes assessed were total antibiotic prescriptions, unnecessary antibiotics for negative urine cultures, and recommendations for urine culture testing. Chi-square tests were used for unpaired comparisons, adjusted for physician clustering. McNemar's test was used for paired comparisons. RESULTS: There were 245/397 (61.7%) positive urine cultures. The cystitis aid sensitivity was 202/245 (82.5%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)) = 77.1%, 86.8%), compared to 167/208 (80.3%) in the previous development cohort (p = 0.54), and 239/245 (97.6%) by family physicians in the current study (p < 0.001). Specificity was low for physicians (10/152, 6.6%) compared to the decision aid (54/152, 35.5%; p < 0.001, resulting in more antibiotic prescriptions by physicians (381/397, 96.0%) than would occur with decision aid recommendations (300/397, 75.6%, p < 0.001). Unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions where urine cultures were negative would be reduced an absolute 11.1% with cystitis aid recommendations (98/397, 24.7%) compared to usual physician care (142/397, 35.8%; p = 0.001). Urine cultures would also be reduced (97/397, 24.4% decision aid vs 351/397, 88.4% physicians; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A 3-item clinical decision aid demonstrated reproducible accuracy in two cohorts of women with acute cystitis symptoms. Clinically important reductions in total and unnecessary antibiotic use, as well as urine culture testing, could result with routine clinical use compared to current empirical physician management practices.

Corticosteroids for Bell's palsy (idiopathic facial paralysis).

BACKGROUND: Inflammation and oedema of the facial nerve are implicated in causing Bell's palsy. Corticosteroids have a potent anti-inflammatory action that should minimise nerve damage. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroid therapy in people with Bell's palsy. SEARCH METHODS: On 4 March 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We reviewed the bibliographies of the randomised trials and contacted known experts in the field to identify additional published or unpublished trials. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials and quasi-randomised trials comparing different routes of administration and dosage schemes of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone therapy versus a control group receiving no therapy considered effective for this condition, unless the same therapy was given in a similar way to the experimental group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. The main outcome of interest was incomplete recovery of facial motor function (i.e. residual facial weakness). Secondary outcomes were cosmetically disabling persistent sequelae, development of motor synkinesis or autonomic dysfunction (i.e. hemifacial spasm, crocodile tears) and adverse effects of corticosteroid therapy manifested during follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven trials, with 895 evaluable participants for this review. All provided data suitable for the primary outcome meta-analysis. One of the trials was new since the last version of this Cochrane systematic review. Risk of bias in the older, smaller studies included some unclear- or high-risk assessments, whereas we deemed the larger studies at low risk of bias. Overall, 79/452 (17%) participants allocated to corticosteroids had incomplete recovery of facial motor function six months or more after randomisation; significantly fewer than the 125/447 (28%) in the control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.80, seven trials, n = 895). The number of people who need to be treated with corticosteroids to avoid one incomplete recovery was 10 (95% CI 6 to 20). The reduction in the proportion of participants with cosmetically disabling sequelae six months after randomisation was very similar in the corticosteroid and placebo groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.29, two trials, n = 75, low-quality evidence). However, there was a significant reduction in motor synkinesis during follow-up in participants receiving corticosteroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.91, three trials, n = 485, moderate-quality evidence). Three studies explicitly recorded the absence of adverse effects attributable to corticosteroids. One trial reported that three participants receiving prednisolone had temporary sleep disturbances and two trials gave a detailed account of adverse effects occurring in 93 participants, all non-serious; the combined analysis of data from these three trials found no significant difference in adverse effect rates between people receiving corticosteroids and people receiving placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51, n = 715). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available moderate- to high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials showed significant benefit from treating Bell's palsy with corticosteroids.

Antiviral Agents Added to Corticosteroids for Early Treatment of Adults With Acute Idiopathic Facial Nerve Paralysis (Bell Palsy).

CLINICAL QUESTION: Compared with oral corticosteroids alone, are oral antiviral drugs associated with improved outcomes when combined with oral corticosteroids in patients presenting within 72 hours of the onset of Bell palsy? BOTTOM LINE: Compared with oral corticosteroids alone, the addition of acyclovir, valacyclovir, or famcyclovir to oral corticosteroids for treatment of Bell palsy was associated with a higher proportion of people who recovered at 3- to 12-month follow-up. The quality of evidence is limited by heterogeneity, imprecision of the result estimates, and risk of bias.

Antiviral treatment for Bell's palsy (idiopathic facial paralysis).

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is uncertain. Significant morbidity can be associated with severe cases of Bell's palsy. This review was first published in 2001 and revised several times, most recently in 2009. This version replaces an update of the review in Issue 7 of the Cochrane Library subsequently withdrawn because of an ongoing investigation into the reliability of data from an included study. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antiviral treatments alone or in combination with any other therapy for Bell's palsy. SEARCH METHODS: On 7 October 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, DARE, NHS EED, and HTA. We also reviewed the bibliographies of the identified trials and contacted trial authors and known experts in the field and relevant drug companies to identify additional published or unpublished data. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell's palsy. We excluded trials that had a high risk of bias in several domains. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of authors independently assessed trials for relevance, eligibility, and risk of bias, using standard Cochrane procedures. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials, including 2280 participants, met the inclusion criteria and are included in the final analysis. Some of the trials were small, and a number were at high or unclear risk of bias. Other trials did not meet current best standards in allocation concealment and blinding. Incomplete recoveryWe found a significant benefit from adding antivirals to corticosteroids in comparison with corticosteroids alone for people with Bell's palsy (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.97, n = 1315). For people with severe Bell's palsy (House-Brackmann scores of 5 and 6 or the equivalent in other scales), we found a reduction in the rate of incomplete recovery at month six when antivirals plus corticosteroids were used, compared to corticosteroids alone (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99, n = 478). The outcome for the participants receiving corticosteroids alone was significantly better than for those receiving antivirals alone (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.09 to 7.32, n = 768). The treatment effect of placebo was significantly lower than that of antivirals plus corticosteroids (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.76, n = 658). Antivirals alone produced no benefit compared with placebo (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40, n = 658). Motor synkinesis or crocodile tearsIn two trials comparing antivirals and corticosteroids with corticosteroids and placebo that assessed this outcome, we found a significant difference in long-term sequelae in favour of antivirals plus corticosteroids (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, n = 469). Two trials comparing antivirals alone with corticosteroids alone investigating this outcome showed fewer sequelae with corticosteroids (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.12, n = 472). We found no data on long-term sequelae for other comparisons. Adverse events Adverse event data were available in three studies giving comparison data on 1528 participants. None of the four comparisons (antivirals plus corticosteroids versus corticosteroids plus placebo or no treatment; antivirals versus corticosteroids; antivirals plus corticosteroids versus placebo; antivirals versus placebo) showed significant differences in adverse events between treatment and control arms. We could find no correlation with specific treatment within these results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials showed a benefit from the combination of antivirals with corticosteroids compared to corticosteroids alone for the treatment of Bell's palsy of various degrees of severity. Low-quality evidence showed a benefit of combination therapy compared with corticosteroids alone in severe Bell's palsy. Corticosteroids alone were more effective than antivirals alone and antivirals plus corticosteroids were more effective than placebo or no treatment. There was no benefit from antivirals alone over placebo.Moderate-quality evidence indicated that the combination of antivirals and corticosteroids reduced sequelae of Bell's palsy compared with corticosteroids alone.We found no significant increase in adverse events from the use of antivirals compared with either placebo or corticosteroids, based on low-quality evidence.