Duration of severe and moderate symptoms in pharyngitis by cause.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the cause of acute pharyngitis and determine the duration of severe and moderate symptoms based on the aetiology. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SITE: One urban health care centre. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 15 or older with acute pharyngitis were included. INTERVENTIONS: Bacterial identification was carried out in the microbiology lab using MALDI-TOF in two throat samples. Patients received a symptom diary to return after one week. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Number of days with severe symptoms, scoring 5 or more in any of the symptoms included in the symptom diary, and moderate symptoms, scoring 3 or more. RESULTS: Among the 149 patients recruited, beta-haemolytic streptococcus group A (GABHS) was the most common aetiology. Symptoms and signs alone as well as the mean Centor score cannot distinguish between GABHS and other bacterial causes in patients with acute pharyngitis. However, there was a trend indicating that infections caused by Streptococcus dysgalactiae and Streptococcus agalactiae presented more severe symptoms, whereas infections attributed to the Streptococcus anginosus group, Fusobacterium spp., and those where oropharyngeal microbiota was isolated tended to have milder symptoms. S. dysgalactiae infections showed a trend towards longer severe and moderate symptom duration. CONCLUSION: GABHS was the most prevalent, but group C streptococcus caused more severe and prolonged symptoms.

Best methods for urine sample collection for diagnostic accuracy in women with urinary tract infection symptoms: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Most guidelines recommend a midstream urine (MSU) or a midstream clean-catch (MSCC) sample for urinalysis. However, whether this sample is better than others is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the most adequate non-invasive method to collect a urine specimen for diagnosing urinary tract infections (UTI) in symptomatic non-pregnant women. METHODS: This review was conducted according to the Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42021241758). PubMed was searched paired sample studies and controlled trials. Studies comparing MSCC, MSU without cleaning, first-void urine, and random voiding samples were considered. Studies evaluating invasive methods were excluded. The main outcome was diagnostic accuracy of urine cultures. Contamination rates were evaluated. The risk of bias tool for systematic reviews on diagnostic accuracy (QUADAS-2) was assessed. RESULTS: Six studies including 1,010 patients were evaluated. Only two studies used paired samples. No study was considered as having low risk of bias. There was no difference in contamination for MSU specimens collected with or without cleansing and between random void urine collection and MSCC. In one study comparing first-void urine with MSU samples, the contamination rate was lower in the latter, but the gold standard of urine culture was only used for one sampling collection. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review is the first to assess the evidence available from different exclusively non-invasive urine sampling. Despite being widely recommended, our review did not find consistent evidence that asking women to provide midstream samples with or without cleansing is better.

Urine is one type of specimen that can be easily collected from a patient. Urinalysis testing can give the doctor valuable information about the presence of an infection in the urine and the type of microorganism causing this infection. The physician can also use the information from urine testing to diagnose and treat other diseases. The collection of the mid-stream of the urination has always been advocated. However, this recommendation has never been proven with good quality studies, and the results of the studies carried out so far have been controversial. In a systematic review, we recently determined that the use of any specimen during urination is as good as midstream collection when patients are requested to provide a urine sample and in terms of quality even specimens collected without proper cleansing are also comparable to mid-stream collection with cleansing. In the present systematic review, we evaluated the most adequate non-invasive method to collect a urine specimen for diagnosing urinary tract infections in symptomatic non-pregnant women. We identified only six studies comparing different urine sampling techniques and we did not observe any difference regarding the quality of the urine between them.

Effectiveness of antitussives, anticholinergics, and honey versus usual care in adults with uncomplicated acute bronchitis: a multiarm randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the frequent use of symptomatic therapies in cough, evidence of their benefits is lacking. OBJECTIVE: We compared the effectiveness of 3 symptomatic therapies and usual care in acute bronchitis. METHODS: Multicenter, pragmatic, multiarm parallel group, open randomized trial in primary care (ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03738917) was conducted in Catalonia. Patients ≥18 with uncomplicated acute bronchitis, with cough<3 weeks as the main symptom, scoring ≥4 in either daytime or nocturnal cough (7-point Likert scale), were randomized to usual care, dextromethorphan 15 mg t.i.d., ipratropium bromide inhaler 20 µg 2 puffs t.i.d, or 30 mg of honey t.i.d., all taken for up to 14 days. The main outcome measure was the number of days with moderate-to-severe cough. A symptom diary was given. A second visit was scheduled at days 2-3 for assessing evolution, with 2 more visits at days 15 and 29 for clinical assessment, evaluation of adverse effects, re-attendance, and complications. RESULTS: We failed to achieve the sample size scheduled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We finally recruited 194 patients. The median number of days with moderate-to-severe cough (score ≥ 3) in the usual care arm was 5 (interquartile range [IQR], 4, 8.75), 5 in the ipratropium bromide arm (IQR, 3, 8), 5 in the dextromethorphan arm (IQR, 4, 9.75), and 6 in the honey arm (IQR, 3.5, 7). The same results were obtained in the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for the median survival time of each arm with the usual care as the reference group. CONCLUSION: The symptomatic treatment evaluated has shown to be ineffective against cough.

Cough is the most frequent symptom reported by patients with lower respiratory tract infections. Despite being a defense mechanism, cough is unpleasant and negatively affects sleep and overall well-being. Accordingly, many patients with acute cough seek medical help to mitigate symptoms and reduce their duration despite the typically self-limiting nature of the condition. In this randomized clinical trial, we explored the benefit of 3 common symptomatic treatments recommended in some guidelines for relieving this symptom during the course of uncomplicated acute bronchitis, a cough suppressant, an inhaler, and honey intake. Although the total number of patients initially expected could not be achieved due to the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the results of our study demonstrate a lack of efficacy of these products as the number of days of severe-to-moderate cough was similar in the 3 arms and comparable to the group of patients allocated to usual care.

New paradigms on antibiotic recommendations for community-acquired infections in Spain.

Over the last years, the susceptibility activity of the most common microorganisms causing community-acquired infections has significantly changed in Spain. Based on the susceptibility rates of Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae collected from outpatients aged 15 or older with symptoms of respiratory or urinary tract infections in several Microbiology Departments in Catalonia in 2021, penicillin V should be first choice for most respiratory tract infections, amoxicillin and clavulanate for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations and a single dose of fosfomycin or a short-course nitrofurantoin should remain first-line treatments for uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Updated information on antimicrobial resistance for general practitioners is crucial for achieving appropriate empirical management of the most common infections by promoting more rational antibiotic use.

C-Reactive Protein Testing to Guide Antibiotic Prescribing for COPD Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing of C-reactive protein (CRP) may be a way to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics without harming patients who have acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with a diagnosis of COPD in their primary care clinical record who consulted a clinician at 1 of 86 general medical practices in England and Wales for an acute exacerbation of COPD. The patients were assigned to receive usual care guided by CRP point-of-care testing (CRP-guided group) or usual care alone (usual-care group). The primary outcomes were patient-reported use of antibiotics for acute exacerbations of COPD within 4 weeks after randomization (to show superiority) and COPD-related health status at 2 weeks after randomization, as measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, a 10-item scale with scores ranging from 0 (very good COPD health status) to 6 (extremely poor COPD health status) (to show noninferiority). RESULTS: A total of 653 patients underwent randomization. Fewer patients in the CRP-guided group reported antibiotic use than in the usual-care group (57.0% vs. 77.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.47). The adjusted mean difference in the total score on the Clinical COPD Questionnaire at 2 weeks was -0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI, -0.33 to -0.05) in favor of the CRP-guided group. The antibiotic prescribing decisions made by clinicians at the initial consultation were ascertained for all but 1 patient, and antibiotic prescriptions issued over the first 4 weeks of follow-up were ascertained for 96.9% of the patients. A lower percentage of patients in the CRP-guided group than in the usual-care group received an antibiotic prescription at the initial consultation (47.7% vs. 69.7%, for a difference of 22.0 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.45) and during the first 4 weeks of follow-up (59.1% vs. 79.7%, for a difference of 20.6 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.46). Two patients in the usual-care group died within 4 weeks after randomization from causes considered by the investigators to be unrelated to trial participation. CONCLUSIONS: CRP-guided prescribing of antibiotics for exacerbations of COPD in primary care clinics resulted in a lower percentage of patients who reported antibiotic use and who received antibiotic prescriptions from clinicians, with no evidence of harm. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; PACE Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN24346473.).

Are short courses of antibiotic therapy as effective as standard courses for COPD exacerbations? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The best duration of antibiotic treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a short course of antibiotic therapy is as effective as the standard longer treatment for exacerbations of patients with COPD. METHODS: We searched Pubmed/MEDLINE and trials in relevant systematic reviews from the inception up to March 2021, with no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials comparing short-course antibiotic therapy (≤5 days) with standard antibiotic therapy (≥6 days) for exacerbations of patients aged ≥40 with spirometrically-confirmed COPD were included. Three outcomes were considered: end-of-therapy clinical cure, bacterial eradication and adverse events. Statistical analyses included random effects meta-analyses using odds ratios and assessment of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of 1274 citations found, eight were eligible for inclusion, seven of which recruited outpatients. Overall, short-course antibiotic treatments were not significantly different from those of long-course treatments for clinical cure (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 0.91; 1.44) and for bacterial eradication (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.91; 1.48). Adverse events were observed in 379 (21.1%) patients receiving short-term antibiotic regimens, while 412 (22.8%) patients receiving the standard regimens reported adverse events (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62; 1.11). The heterogeneity of the studies was low. CONCLUSION: In relation to clinical and bacteriological efficacy, a short course of antibiotic treatment is equivalent to longer conventional treatment in mainly outpatients with exacerbations of COPD. Moreover, shorter exposure to antibiotics may decrease the risk developing antimicrobial resistance and, hence, might become first-line therapy for the management of ambulatory COPD patients.

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of community pharmacist-led interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics.

AIMS: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effects of community pharmacist-led interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics and identify which interventions are most effective. METHODS: This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42020188552). PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomised) controlled trials. Included interventions were required to target antibiotic use, be set in the community pharmacy context, and be pharmacist-led. Primary outcomes were quality of antibiotic supply and adverse effects while secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the 'Cochrane suggested risk of bias criteria' and narrative synthesis of primary outcomes conducted. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included covering in total 3822 patients (mean age 45.6 years, 61.9% female). Most studies used educational interventions. Three studies reported on primary outcomes, 12 on secondary outcomes and two on both. Three studies reported improvements in quality of dispensing, interventions led to more intensive symptom assessment (up to 30% more advice given) and a reduction of over-the-counter supply up to 53%. Three studies led to higher consumer satisfaction, effects on adherence from nine studies were mixed (risk difference 0.04 [-0.02, 0.10]). All studies had unclear or high risks of bias across at least one domain, with large heterogeneity between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests some positive results from pharmacist-led interventions, but the interventions do not seem sufficiently effective as currently implemented. This review should be interpreted as exploratory research, as more high-quality research is needed.

Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in people with acute respiratory infections in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are by far the most common reason for prescribing an antibiotic in primary care, even though the majority of ARIs are of viral or non-severe bacterial aetiology. It follows that in many cases antibiotic use will not be beneficial to a patient's recovery but may expose them to potential side effects. Furthermore, limiting unnecessary antibiotic use is a key factor in controlling antibiotic resistance. One strategy to reduce antibiotic use in primary care is point-of-care biomarkers. A point-of-care biomarker (test) of inflammation identifies part of the acute phase response to tissue injury regardless of the aetiology (infection, trauma, or inflammation) and may be used as a surrogate marker of infection, potentially assisting the physician in the clinical decision whether to use an antibiotic to treat ARIs. Biomarkers may guide antibiotic prescription by ruling out a serious bacterial infection and help identify patients in whom no benefit from antibiotic treatment can be anticipated. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of point-of-care biomarker tests of inflammation to guide antibiotic treatment in people presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory infections in primary care settings regardless of patient age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2022), Embase (1974 to 14 June 2022), CINAHL (1981 to 14 June 2022), Web of Science (1955 to 14 June 2022), and LILACS (1982 to 14 June 2022). We also searched three trial registries (10 December 2021) for completed and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care patients with ARIs that compared the use of point-of-care biomarkers with standard care. We included trials that randomised individual participants, as well as trials that randomised clusters of patients (cluster-RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data on the following primary outcomes: number of participants given an antibiotic prescription at index consultation and within 28 days follow-up; participant recovery within seven days follow-up; and total mortality within 28 days follow-up. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used random-effects meta-analyses when feasible. We further analysed results with considerable heterogeneity in prespecified subgroups of individual and cluster-RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven new trials in this update, for a total of 13 included trials. Twelve trials (10,218 participants in total, 2335 of which were children) evaluated a C-reactive protein point-of-care test, and one trial (317 adult participants) evaluated a procalcitonin point-of-care test. The studies were conducted in Europe, Russia, and Asia. Overall, the included trials had a low or unclear risk of bias. However all studies were open-labelled, thereby introducing high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests to guide antibiotic prescription likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, from 516 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group to 397 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.86; 12 trials, 10,218 participants; I² = 79%; moderate-certainty evidence).  Overall, use of C-reactive protein tests also reduce the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription within 28 days follow-up (664 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group versus 538 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86; 7 trials, 5091 participants; I² = 29; high-certainty evidence). The prescription of antibiotics as guided by C-reactive protein tests likely does not reduce the number of participants recovered, within seven or 28 days follow-up (567 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the control group versus 584 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (recovery within seven days follow-up: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) (recovery within 28 days follow-up: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of C-reactive protein tests may not increase total mortality within 28 days follow-up, from 1 death per 1000 participants in the control group to 0 deaths per 1000 participants in the intervention group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.92; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain as to whether procalcitonin affects any of the primary or secondary outcomes because there were few participants, thereby limiting the certainty of evidence. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate to high according to GRADE for the primary outcomes for C-reactive protein test, except for mortality, as there were very few deaths, thereby limiting the certainty of the evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests as an adjunct to standard care likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription in primary care patients who present with symptoms of acute respiratory infection. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests likely does not affect recovery rates. It is unlikely that further research will substantially change our conclusion regarding the reduction in number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, although the size of the estimated effect may change.  The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests may not increase mortality within 28 days follow-up, but there were very few events. Studies that recorded deaths and hospital admissions were performed in children from low- and middle-income countries and older adults with comorbidities.  Future studies should focus on children, immunocompromised individuals, and people aged 80 years and above with comorbidities. More studies evaluating procalcitonin and potential new biomarkers as point-of-care tests used in primary care to guide antibiotic prescription are needed.  Furthermore, studies are needed to validate C-reactive protein decision algorithms, with a specific focus on potential age group differences.

Clinical prediction of laboratory-confirmed influenza in adults with influenza-like illness in primary care. A randomized controlled trial secondary analysis in 15 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Clinical findings do not accurately predict laboratory diagnosis of influenza. Early identification of influenza is considered useful for proper management decisions in primary care. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the diagnostic value of the presence and the severity of symptoms for the diagnosis of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection among adults presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI) in primary care. METHODS: Secondary analysis of patients with ILI who participated in a clinical trial from 2015 to 2018 in 15 European countries. Patients rated signs and symptoms as absent, minor, moderate, or major problem. A nasopharyngeal swab was taken for microbiological identification of influenza and other microorganisms. Models were generated considering (i) the presence of individual symptoms and (ii) the severity rating of symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 2,639 patients aged 18 or older were included in the analysis. The mean age was 41.8 ± 14.7 years, and 1,099 were men (42.1%). Influenza was microbiologically confirmed in 1,337 patients (51.1%). The area under the curve (AUC) of the model for the presence of any of seven symptoms for detecting influenza was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.68), whereas the AUC of the symptom severity model, which included eight variables-cough, fever, muscle aches, sweating and/or chills, moderate to severe overall disease, age, abdominal pain, and sore throat-was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.69-0.72). CONCLUSION: Clinical prediction of microbiologically confirmed influenza in adults with ILI is slightly more accurate when based on patient reported symptom severity than when based on the presence or absence of symptoms.

Influenza is usually diagnosed clinically. However, the accuracy of a diagnosis of influenza based on clinical features is limited because symptoms overlap considerably with those caused by other microorganisms. This study examined whether identification of the severity rather than the presence of key signs and symptoms could aid in the diagnosis of influenza, thereby helping clinicians to determine when antiviral agent use is appropriate. The authors used the database of a previous randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of an antiviral carried out in primary care centers in 15 countries in Europe during three epidemic periods from 2015/2016 to 2017/2018. Participants with influenza symptoms were included and they were asked about the presence and severity of different symptoms during the baseline visit with their doctors and a nasopharyngeal swab was taken for microbiological analysis. Overall, only 51% of the patients aged 18 or older had a confirmed influenza infection. Clinical findings are not particularly useful for confirming or excluding the diagnosis of influenza. However, the results of our study recommend considering how intense the different symptoms are, since key symptoms rated as moderate or severe are slightly better for predicting flu rather than the presence or absence of these symptoms.

Improved management of cystitis in primary care following the implementation of a simple multifaceted intervention.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of the implementation of a simple multifaceted intervention aimed at improving management of cystitis in primary care. DESIGN: Quality control before and after study. SITE: Primary care centres in Barcelona city provided by the Catalonian Institute of Health. PARTICIPANTS: The multifaceted intervention consisted of (1) creation of a group with a leader in each of the primary care centres, out of hours services, sexual and reproductive centres, and home visit service, (2) session on management of cystitis in each centre, (3) result feedback for professionals, and (4) provision of infographics for professionals and patients with urinary tract infections. Interventions started in November 2020 and ended in the summer of 2021. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Variation in the prescription of first-line antibiotics, usage of antibiotics, and request for urine cultures before and after this intervention. RESULTS: Training sessions took place in 93% of the centres. The use of first-line therapies cystitis increased by 6.4% after the intervention (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7-7.1%). The use of nitrofurantoin in recurrent cystitis increased, mainly in out of hours service (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.2-12.2%). Urine cultures were more frequently requested after the intervention for recurrent cystitis in both primary care centres and out of hours services, with a 7.2% increase [95% CI, 5.9-8.5%), but also for uncomplicated urinary tract infections (3.1%; 95% CI, 1.8-4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: A low-intensity multifaceted intervention on management of cystitis, with strong institutional support, resulted in a better choice of antibiotic in antibiotic prescribing, but the intervention had less impact on the adequacy of urine cultures.

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups. METHODS: We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group. INTERPRETATION: Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner. FUNDING: European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.

Correlation between disease severity factors and EQ-5D utilities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: Impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is associated with poor health outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to determine health utilities in patients with COPD and to identify the variables with the greatest impact. METHODS: This is a pooled analysis of data from 4 observational studies performed in stable COPD patients. Evaluation of patient HRQoL utilities was performed using the Spanish version of the self-administered EuroQoL 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. EQ-5D utilities were described and compared according to several markers of disease severity. RESULTS: 6198 patients reported a mean (SD) EQ-5D index of 0.67 (0.26). A linear dose response relationship between EQ-5D utility and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) score, forced expiratory volume in one 1 s (% predicted), COPD hospital admissions in the previous year, self-reported daily walking time, Charlson index, body mass index, obstruction, dyspnoea and exacerbation (BODEx) index, COPD assessment test (CAT), hospital anxiety and depression scale was observed (p for trend < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, patients reporting lower utility values were those with more dyspnoea, more comorbidities, using long-term oxygen therapy, with previous hospitalisations due to a COPD exacerbation and higher (worse) CAT score. CONCLUSION: HRQoL measures such as EQ-5D can assist clinicians to understand the impact of respiratory disease on COPD patients.

Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Tract Infections 12 Months After Communication and CRP Training: A Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: C-reactive-protein (CRP) is useful for diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infections (RTIs). A large international trial documented that Internet-based training in CRP point-of-care testing, in enhanced communication skills, or both reduced antibiotic prescribing at 3 months, with risk ratios (RRs) of 0.68, 0.53, 0.38, respectively. We report the longer-term impact in this trial. METHODS: A total of 246 general practices in 6 countries were cluster-randomized to usual care, Internet-based training on CRP point-of-care testing, Internet-based training on enhanced communication skills and interactive booklet, or both interventions combined. The main outcome was antibiotic prescribing for RTIs after 12 months. RESULTS: Of 228 practices providing 3-month data, 74% provided 12-month data, with no demonstrable attrition bias. Between 3 months and 12 months, prescribing for RTIs decreased with usual care (from 58% to 51%), but increased with CRP training (from 35% to 43%) and with both interventions combined (from 32% to 45%); at 12 months, the adjusted RRs compared with usual care were 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.00) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.49-0.93), respectively. Between 3 months and 12 months, the reduction in prescribing with communication training was maintained (41% and 40%, with an RR at 12 months of 0.70 [95% CI, 0.49-0.94]). Although materials were provided for free, clinicians seldom used booklets and rarely used CRP point-of-care testing. Communication training, but not CRP training, remained efficacious for reducing prescribing for lower RTIs (RR = 0.7195% CI, 0.45-0.99, and RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.47-1.06, respectively), whereas both remained efficacious for reducing prescribing for upper RTIs (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.94, and RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.92, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Internet-based training in enhanced communication skills remains effective in the longer term for reducing antibiotic prescribing. The early improvement seen with CRP training wanes, and this training becomes ineffective for lower RTIs, the only current indication for using CRP testing.

Reducing antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections 6 years after a multifaceted intervention.

AIMS: Few studies have evaluated the long-term impact of interventions on antibiotic prescription for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). This study was aimed at evaluating the use of antibiotics prescribed for LRTIs by general practitioners (GP) who underwent a multifaceted intervention carried out 6 years earlier. METHODS: General practitioners who had completed two registrations in 2008 and 2009 were again invited to participate in a third audit-based study in 2015. A multifaceted intervention was held 1-3 months before the second registration. A new group of GPs with no previous training on the rational use of antibiotics were also invited to participate and acted as controls. Multilevel logistic regression was performed considering the prescription of antibiotics as the dependent variable. RESULTS: A total of 121 GPs of the 210 who underwent the intervention (57.6%) and 117 control GPs registered 4333 episodes of LRTIs. On adjustment for covariables, compared with the antibiotic prescription for LRTIs observed just after the intervention, antibiotic prescription slightly increased 6 years later among GPs who had undergone the intervention (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95-1.43), while control GPs prescribed significantly more antibiotics (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.62-3.29). However, withholding antibiotic prescribing with C-reactive protein (CRP) values <10 mg/L was more frequently observed just after the intervention compared 6 years later (12.7% vs 32.2%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing for LRTIs remains low 6 years after an intervention, although GPs are less confident to withhold antibiotic therapy in patients with low CRP levels.

Use of delayed antibiotic prescription in primary care: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: One of several strategies developed to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in situations where the indication is not clear is delayed antibiotic prescription (DAP), defined as an antibiotic prescription issued for the patient to take only in case of feeling worse or not feeling better several days after the visit. We conducted a survey to identify DAP use in Spanish primary care settings. METHODS: We surveyed 23 healthcare centers located in 4 autonomous regions where a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on DAP was underway. The primary variable was use of DAP. Categorical and quantitative variables were analyzed by means of the chi-squared test and non-parametric tests, respectively. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 375 healthcare professionals, 215 of whom responded (57.3% response rate), with 46% of these respondents declaring that they had used DAP in routine practice before the RCT started (66.6% afterwards), mostly (91.5%) for respiratory tract infections (RTIs), followed by urinary infections (45.1%). Regarding DAP use for RTIs, the most frequent conditions were pharyngotonsillitis (88.7%), acute bronchitis (62.7%), mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations (59.9%), sinusitis (51.4%), and acute otitis media (45.1%). Most respondents considered that DAP reduced emergency visits (85.4%), scheduled visits (79%) and inappropriate antibiotic use (73.7%) and most also perceived patients to be generally satisfied with the DAP approach (75.6%). Having participated or not in the DAP RCT (74.1% versus 46.2%; p < 0.001), having previously used or not used DAP (86.8% versus 44.2%; p < 0.001), and being a physician versus being a nurse (81.8% versus 18.2%; p < 0.001) were factors that reflected significantly higher rates of DAP use. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of primary healthcare professionals in Spain do not use DAP. Those who use DAP believe that it reduces primary care visits and inappropriate antibiotic use, while maintaining patient satisfaction. Given the limited use of DAP in our setting, and given that its use is mainly limited to RTIs, DAP has considerable potential in terms of its implementation in routine practice.

Efficacy of high doses of penicillin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of uncomplicated community acquired pneumonia in adults. A non-inferiority controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is treated with penicillin in some northern European countries. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether high-dose penicillin V is as effective as high-dose amoxicillin for the treatment of non-severe CAP. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel, double-blind, controlled, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: 31 primary care centers in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Patients from 18 to 75 years of age with no significant associated comorbidity and with symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection and radiological confirmation of CAP were randomized to receive either penicillin V 1.6 million units, or amoxicillin 1000mg three times per day for 10 days. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome was clinical cure at 14 days, and the primary hypothesis was that penicillin V would be non-inferior to amoxicillin with regard to this outcome, with a margin of 15% for the difference in proportions. EudraCT register 2012-003511-63. RESULTS: A total of 43 subjects (amoxicillin: 28; penicillin: 15) were randomized. Clinical cure was observed in 10 (90.9%) patients assigned to penicillin and in 25 (100%) patients assigned to amoxicillin with a difference of -9.1% (95% CI, -41.3% to 6.4%; p=.951) for non-inferiority. In the intention-to-treat analysis, amoxicillin was found to be 28.6% superior to penicillin (95% CI, 7.3-58.1%; p=.009 for superiority). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was a trend favoring high-dose amoxicillin versus high-dose penicillin in adults with uncomplicated CAP. The main limitation of this trial was the low statistical power due to the low number of patients included.

Long-term effect of a practice-based intervention (HAPPY AUDIT) aimed at reducing antibiotic prescribing in patients with respiratory tract infections.

Objectives: Few studies have evaluated the long-term effects of educational interventions on antibiotic prescription and the results are controversial. This study was aimed at assessing the effect of a multifaceted practice-based intervention carried out 6 years earlier on current antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Methods: The 210 general practitioners (GPs) who completed the first two registrations in 2008 and 2009 were invited to participate in a third registration. The intervention held before the second registration consisted of discussion about the first registration of results, appropriate use of antibiotics for RTIs, patient brochures, a workshop and the provision of rapid tests. As in the previous registrations, GPs were instructed to complete a template for all the patients with RTIs during 15 working days in 2015. A new group of GPs from the same areas was also invited to participate and acted as controls. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed considering the prescription of antibiotics as the dependent variable. Results: A total of 121 GPs included in the 2009 intervention (57.6%) and 117 control GPs registered 22 247 RTIs. On adjustment for covariables, compared with the antibiotic prescription observed just after the intervention, GPs assigned to intervention prescribed slightly more antibiotics 6 years later albeit without statistically significant differences (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.31, P = 0.46), while GPs in the control group prescribed significantly more antibiotics (OR 2.74, 95% CI 2.09-3.59, P < 0.001). Conclusions: This study shows that a single multifaceted intervention continues to reduce antibiotic prescribing 6 years later.

Clinicians' interpretations of point of care urine culture versus laboratory culture results: analysis from the four-country POETIC trial of diagnosis of uncomplicated urinary tract infection in primary care.

Background: Urine culture at the point of care minimises delay between obtaining the sample and agar inoculation in a microbiology laboratory, and quantification and sensitivity results can be available more rapidly in primary care. Objective: To identify the degree to which clinicians' interpretations of a point-of-care-test (POCT) urine culture (Flexicult™ SSI-Urinary Kit) agrees with laboratory culture in women presenting to primary care with symptoms of uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTI). Methods: Primary care clinicians used the Flexicult™-POCT, recorded their findings and took a photograph of the result, which was interpreted by microbiology laboratory technicians. Urine samples were additionally processed in routine care laboratories. Cross tabulations were used to identify important differences in organism identification, quantification and antibiotic susceptibility between these three sources of data. The influence of various laboratory definitions for UTI on culture were assessed. Results: Primary care clinicians identified 202/289 urine samples (69.9%) as positive for UTI using the Flexicult™-POCT, whereas laboratory culture identified 94-190 (32.5-65.7%) as positive, depending on definition thresholds. 82.9% of samples identified positive for E. coli on laboratory culture were also considered positive for E. coli using the Flexicult™ -POCT, and susceptibilities were reasonably concordant. There were major discrepancies between laboratory staff interpretation of Flexicult™ photographs, clinicians' interpretation of the Flexicult™ test, and laboratory culture results. Conclusion: Flexicult™-POCT overestimated the positivity rate of urine samples for UTI when laboratory culture was used as the reference standard. However, it is unclear whether point-of-care or laboratory based urine culture provides the most valid diagnostic information.

Survey of Spanish general practitioners' attitudes toward management of sore throat: an internet-based questionnaire study.

BACKGROUND: The management of sore throat varies widely in Europe. The objective of this study was to gain insight into clinicians' perceptions on the current management of sore throat in Spain. METHODS: Cross-sectional, internet-based questionnaire study answered from July to September 2013. General practitioners (GPs) affiliated with the two largest scientific societies of primary care were invited to participate in the study. Questions were asked about physician knowledge, the use of current national guidelines for sore throat management, and management in two clinical scenarios, depicting a young adult with sore throat and: 1. cough, coriza with or without fever, and 2. fever without cough and coriza. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 1476 GPs (5%) and 12.7% declared using rapid antigen detection tests. Antibiotics were considered by 18.8% of the GPs in the first scenario and by 32% in the second scenario (p < 0.001). The antibiotics most commonly mentioned by GPs were amoxicillin and amoxicillin + clavulanate (52.7 and 31.2%, respectively) whereas penicillin V was only prescribed in 11.9% of the cases. The drugs most commonly considered in both scenarios were analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs. Antitussives, decongestants and expectorants were more commonly prescribed in cases of suspected viral infection (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GPs have misconceptions as to the indications for using rapid antigen detection tests and prescribing drugs in the management of sore throat. These results suggest that guidelines are seldom followed since one in five GPs declared giving antibiotics for patients with a suspected viral infection and the use of second-choice antibiotics seems considerable.