Identifying English Practices that Are High Antibiotic Prescribers Accounting for Comorbidities and Other Legitimate Medical Reasons for Variation

Risk of unintended consequences from lower antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care

OBJECTIVES

About 60% of antibiotic prescribing in primary care is for respiratory tract infections (RTIs), some of which is likely unnecessary. There is limited evidence on the association between reduced antibiotic prescribing and adverse events. We aimed to identify associations between practice-level prescribing rates for RTIs in general practice, and patient-level adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We included 1471 English General Practitioner (GP) practices, linked to hospital admissions in England, from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink for 2005 to 2019. Outcomes were hospitalisations, RTI-related re-consultations and additional antibiotic prescriptions, adjusted for practice level case-mix prescribing.

RESULTS

Prescribing rates for practices falling within the lowest and highest prescribing quintiles were 52 and 139 prescriptions per 1000 RTI-related consultations. Patients from practices in the lowest prescribing quintile did not have significantly higher risk of hospitalisation, adjusted odds ratio 0·99 (95% CI 0·96 to 1·02). Re-consultations within 30 days were significantly higher for the lowest prescribing practices, adjusted odds ratio 1·209 (1·206 to 1·212). Additional antibiotic prescriptions and subsequent prescriptions upon re-consultation were significantly lower for the lowest prescribing practices, adjusted odds ratio 0·317 (0·314 to 0·321) and 0·706 (0·699 to 0·712), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results contribute to evidence on the safety of reduced antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in primary care. Results suggest that for the majority of practices, further reductions in RTI-related antibiotic prescribing should be possible without an increase in hospitalisation for pneumonia.

Antibiotic prescribing in remote versus face-to-face consultations for acute respiratory infections in primary care in England: an observational study using target maximum likelihood estimation

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an ongoing increase in the use of remote consultations in general practice in England. Although the evidence is limited, there are concerns that the increase in remote consultations could lead to more antibiotic prescribing.

Methods

In this cohort study, we used patient-level primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink to estimate the association between consultation mode (remote versus face-to-face) and antibiotic prescribing in England for acute respiratory infections (ARI) between April 2021 and March 2022. Eligibility criteria were applied at both practice-level and patient-level. 400 practices in England were sampled at random and then 600,000 patients were randomly sampled from the eligible patients (whose sex was recorded). Consultations for acute respiratory infections were identified. All antibiotic prescriptions were included, with the exception of antituberculosis drugs and antileprotic drugs, as identified through chapter 5.1 of the British National Formulary. The CPRD Aurum data was linked to the COVID-19 ONS infection survey by region. All analyses were done at the individual level. Repeated consultations from the same patient within 7 days were grouped together. We used targeted maximum likelihood estimation, a causal machine learning method with adjustment for infection type and patient-level, clinician-level and practice-level factors.

Findings

There were 45,997 ARI consultations (34,555 unique patients) within the study period, of which 28,127 were remote and 17,870 were face-to-face. For children, 48% of consultations were remote and, for adults, 66% were remote. For children, 42% of remote and 43% of face-to-face consultations led to an antibiotic prescription; the equivalent values for adults were 52% and 42%, respectively. After adjustment with TMLE, adults with a remote consultation had 23% (odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 95% CI: 1.18-1.29) higher chance of being prescribed antibiotics than if they had been seen face-to-face. We found no significant association between consultation mode and antibiotic prescribing in children (OR 1.04 95% CI: 0.98-1.11).

Interpretation

The higher rates of antibiotic prescribing in remote consultations for adults are cause for concern. We see no significant difference in antibiotic prescribing between consultation mode for children. These findings should inform antimicrobial stewardship activities for health-care professionals and policy makers. Future research should examine differences in guideline-compliance between remote and face-to-face consultations to understand the factors driving antibiotic prescribing in different consultation modes.

Funding

None.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of common infections in primary care and the change to antibiotic prescribing in England

BACKGROUND

There is concern that the COVID-19 pandemic altered the management of common infections in primary care. This study aimed to evaluate infection-coded consultation rates and antibiotic use during the pandemic and how any change may have affected clinical outcomes.

METHODS

With the approval of NHS England, a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform analysed routinely collected electronic health data from GP practices in England between January 2019 and December 2021. Infection coded consultations and antibiotic prescriptions were used estimate multiple measures over calendar months, including age-sex adjusted prescribing rates, prescribing by infection and antibiotic type, infection consultation rates, coding quality and rate of same-day antibiotic prescribing for COVID-19 infections. Interrupted time series (ITS) estimated the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on infection-coded consultation rates. The impact of the pandemic on non- COVID-19 infection-related hospitalisations was also estimated.

RESULTS

Records from 24 million patients were included. The rate of infection-related consultations fell for all infections (mean reduction of 39% in 2020 compared to 2019 mean rate), except for UTI which remained stable. Modelling infection-related consultation rates highlighted this with an incidence rate ratio of 0.44 (95% CI 0.36-0.53) for incident consultations and 0.43 (95% CI 0.33-0.54) for prevalent consultations. Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) saw the largest reduction of 0.11 (95% CI 0.07-0.17). Antibiotic prescribing rates fell with a mean reduction of 118.4 items per 1000 patients in 2020, returning to pre-pandemic rates by summer 2021. Prescribing for LRTI decreased 20% and URTI increased 15.9%. Over 60% of antibiotics were issued without an associated same-day infection code, which increased during the pandemic. Infection-related hospitalisations reduced (by 62%), with the largest reduction observed for pneumonia infections (72.9%). Same-day antibiotic prescribing for COVID-19 infection increased from 1 to 10.5% between the second and third national lockdowns and rose again during 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes to consultations and hospital admissions may be driven by reduced transmission of non-COVID-19 infections due to reduced social mixing and lockdowns. Inconsistencies in coding practice emphasises the need for improvement to inform new antibiotic stewardship policies and prevent resistance to novel infections.

Role of locum GPs in antibiotic prescribing and stewardship: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Most antibiotics are prescribed in primary care. Locum or sessional GPs (locums) are perceived as contributing to higher prescribing and may face barriers to engaging with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS).

AIM

To identify how locums' antibiotic prescribing compares with other general practice prescribers, and how they perceive their role in antibiotic prescribing and AMS.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Mixed-methods study in primary care.

METHOD

Data on antibiotic prescribing, diagnoses, and patient and prescriber characteristics were extracted from The Health Improvement Network database. A mixed-effects logistic model was used to compare locums' and other prescribers' antibiotic prescribing for conditions that do not usually benefit from antibiotics. Nineteen semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with locums in England and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Locums accounted for 11% of consultations analysed. They prescribed antibiotics more often than other GPs and nurse prescribers for acute cough, sore throat, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The number of patients receiving antibiotics for these conditions was 4% higher (on absolute scale) when consulting with locums compared with when they consulted with other GPs. Four themes capture the perceived influences on prescribing antibiotics and AMS: antibiotic prescribing as a complex but individual issue, nature and patterns of locum work, relationships between practices and locums, and professional isolation.

CONCLUSION

Locums contribute to higher antibiotic prescribing compared with their peers. They experience challenges but also opportunities for contributing to AMS, which should be better addressed. With an increasing proportion of locums in general practice, they have an important role in antibiotic optimisation and AMS.

Development of an intervention to support the implementation of evidence-based strategies for optimising antibiotic prescribing in general practice

BACKGROUND

Trials show that antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies, including communication skills training, point-of-care C-reactive protein testing (POC-CRPT) and delayed prescriptions, help optimise antibiotic prescribing and use in primary care. However, the use of these strategies in general practice is limited and inconsistent. We aimed to develop an intervention to enhance uptake and implementation of these strategies in primary care.

METHODS

We drew on the Person-Based Approach to develop an implementation intervention in two stages. (1) Planning and design: We defined the problem in behavioural terms drawing on existing literature and conducting primary qualitative research (nine focus groups) in high-prescribing general practices. We identified 'guiding principles' with intervention objectives and key features and developed logic models representing intended mechanisms of action. (2) Developing the intervention: We created prototype intervention materials and discussed and refined these with input from 13 health professionals and 14 citizens in two sets of design workshops. We further refined the intervention materials following think-aloud interviews with 22 health professionals.

RESULTS

Focus groups highlighted uncertainties about how strategies could be used. Health professionals in the workshops suggested having practice champions, brief summaries of each AMS strategy and evidence supporting the AMS strategies, and they and citizens gave examples of helpful communication strategies/phrases. Think-aloud interviews helped clarify and shorten the text and user journey of the intervention materials. The intervention comprised components to support practice-level implementation: antibiotic champions, practice meetings with slides provided, and an 'implementation support' website section, and components to support individual-level uptake: website sections on each AMS strategy (with evidence, instructions, links to electronic resources) and material resources (patient leaflets, POC-CRPT equipment, clinician handouts).

CONCLUSIONS

We used a systematic, user-focussed process of developing a behavioural intervention, illustrating how it can be used in an implementation context. This resulted in a multicomponent intervention to facilitate practice-wide implementation of evidence-based strategies which now requires implementing and evaluating. Focusing on supporting the uptake and implementation of evidence-based strategies to optimise antibiotic use in general practice is critical to further support appropriate antibiotic use and mitigate antimicrobial resistance.

Exploring the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing for common respiratory tract infections in UK primary care

OBJECTIVES

To use illness severity scores to evaluate the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in UK general practice.

METHODS

We describe variations in practice prescribing rates, taking account of illness severity. We used three scores in three studies to measure severity: 'FeverPAIN' in an adult acute sore throat cohort (n=12 829), the '3C score' in an adult acute lower respiratory tract infection cohort (n=28 883) and the STARWAVe score in an acute cough and respiratory infection children's cohort (n=8394). We calculated median ORs to quantify practice-level variation in prescribing rates, adjusted for illness severity.

RESULTS

There was substantial variability in practice prescribing rates (ranges of 0%-97%, 7%-100% and 0%-75% in the three cohorts, respectively). There was evidence that higher prescribing practices saw a higher proportion of unwell patients. At the individual level, patients who were more unwell were more likely to receive a prescription, but prescribing levels for those with low scores were still high. The median OR was 2.5 (95% credible interval=2.2-2.9) in the sore throat data set, 2.9 (95% credible interval=2.6-3.2) in the adult cough data set and 2.1 (95% credible interval=1.8-2.4) in the children's cough data set.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher prescribing practices may see more unwell patients with high illness severity scores, but the differences in scores account for a minority of between-practice prescribing variation. There is likely to be scope for further reductions in antibiotic prescribing among patients with low illness severity scores. Further research is needed to explore the additional factors that account for variation in prescribing levels.

Implementing interventions to reduce antibiotic use: a qualitative study in high-prescribing practices

BACKGROUND

Trials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use.

METHODS

This was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Nine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience - participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as 'clinical tools', perceiving them as useful only in 'rare' instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as 'social tools' - participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities - participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context - various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

High-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful 'clinical tools' in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as 'social tools' to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation.

Infection-related complications after common infection in association with new antibiotic prescribing in primary care: retrospective cohort study using linked electronic health records

OBJECTIVE

Determine the association of incident antibiotic prescribing levels for common infections with infection-related complications and hospitalisations by comparing high with low prescribing general practitioner practices.

DESIGN RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

Retrospective cohort study.

DATA SOURCE

UK primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) and SAIL Databank (SAIL) linked with Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data, including 546 CPRD, 346 CPRD-HES and 338 SAIL-HES practices.

EXPOSURES

Initial general practice visit for one of six common infections and the proportion of antibiotic prescribing in each practice.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of infection-related complications (as recorded in general practice) or infection-related hospital admission within 30 days after consultation for a common infection.

RESULTS

A practice with 10.4% higher antibiotic prescribing (the IQR) was associated with a 5.7% lower rate of infection-related hospital admissions (adjusted analysis, 95% CI 3.3% to 8.0%). The association varied by infection with larger associations in hospital admissions with lower respiratory tract infection (16.1%; 95% CI 12.4% to 19.7%) and urinary tract infection (14.7%; 95% CI 7.6% to 21.1%) and smaller association in hospital admissions for upper respiratory tract infection (6.5%; 95% CI 3.5% to 9.5%) The association of antibiotic prescribing levels and hospital admission was largest in patients aged 18-39 years (8.6%; 95% CI 4.0% to 13.0%) and smallest in the elderly aged 75+ years (0.3%; 95% CI -3.4% to 3.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is an association between lower levels of practice level antibiotic prescribing and higher infection-related hospital admissions. Indiscriminately reducing antibiotic prescribing may lead to harm. Greater focus is needed to optimise antibiotic use by reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and better targeting antibiotics to patients at high risk of infection-related complications.

Patients receiving a high burden of antibiotics in the community in Spain: a cross-sectional study

Some patients in the community receive a high burden of antibiotics. We aimed at describing the characteristics of these patients, antibiotics used, and conditions for which they received antibiotics. We carried out a cross-sectional study. Setting: Thirty Health Primary Care Areas from 12 regions in Spain, covering 5,960,191 inhabitants. Patients having at least 30 packages of antibacterials for systemic use dispensed in 2017 were considered. Main outcome measures: Prevalence of antibiotic use, conditions for which antibiotics were prescribed, clinical characteristics of patients, comorbidities, concomitant treatments, and microbiological isolates. Patient's average age was 70 years; 52% were men; 60% smokers/ex-smokers; 54% obese. Overall, 93% of patients had, at least, one chronic condition, and four comorbidities on average. Most common comorbidities were cardiovascular and/or hypertension (67%), respiratory diseases (62%), neurological/mental conditions (32%), diabetes (23%), and urological diseases (21%); 29% were immunosuppressed, 10% were dead at the time of data collection. Patients received three antibiotic treatments per year, mainly fluoroquinolones (28%), macrolides (21%), penicillins (19%), or cephalosporins (12%). Most frequently treated conditions were lower respiratory tract (infections or prophylaxis) (48%), urinary (27%), and skin/soft tissue infections (11%). Thirty-five percent have been guided by a microbiological diagnosis, being Pseudomonas aeruginosa (30%) and Escherichia coli (16%) the most frequent isolates. In conclusion, high antibiotic consumers in the community were basically elder, with multimorbidity and polymedication. They frequently received broad-spectrum antibiotics for long periods of time. The approach to infections in high consumers should be differentiated from healthy patients receiving antibiotics occasionally.

Social and Contextual Influences on Antibiotic Prescribing and Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Qualitative Study with Clinical Commissioning Group and General Practice Professionals

Antibiotic prescribing in England varies considerably between Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and general practices. We aimed to assess social and contextual factors affecting antibiotic prescribing and engagement with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) initiatives. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 22 CCG professionals and 19 general practice professionals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Social/contextual influences were grouped into the following four categories: (1) Immediate context, i.e., patients' social characteristics (e.g., deprivation and culture), clinical factors, and practice and clinician characteristics (e.g., "struggling" with staff shortage/turnover) were linked to higher prescribing. (2) Wider context, i.e., pressures on the healthcare system, limited resources, and competing priorities were seen to reduce engagement with AMS. (3) Collaborative and whole system approaches, i.e., communication, multidisciplinary networks, leadership, and teamwork facilitated prioritizing AMS, learning, and consistency. (4) Relativity of appropriate prescribing, i.e., "high" or "appropriate" prescribing was perceived as relative, depending on comparators, and disregarding different contexts, but social norms around antibiotic use among professionals and patients seemed to be changing. Further optimization of antibiotic prescribing would benefit from addressing social/contextual factors and addressing wider health inequalities, not only targeting individual clinicians. Tailoring and adapting to local contexts and constraints, ensuring adequate time and resources for AMS, and collaborative, whole system approaches to promote consistency may help promote AMS.

Awareness of Appropriate Antibiotic Use in Primary Care for Influenza-Like Illness: Evidence of Improvement from UK Population-Based Surveys

Influenza-like illnesses (ILI) account for a significant portion of inappropriate antibiotic use. Patient expectations for antibiotics for ILI are likely to play a substantial role in ‘unnecessary’ antibiotic consumption. This study aimed to investigate trends in awareness of appropriate antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Three sequential online surveys of independent representative samples of adults in the United Kingdom investigated expectations for, and consumption of, antibiotics for ILI (May/June 2015 (n = 2064); Oct/Nov 2016 (n = 4000); Mar 2017 (n = 4000)). Respondents were asked whether they thought antibiotics were effective for ILI and about their antibiotic use. Proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each question and interactions with respondent characteristics were tested using logistic regression. Over the three surveys, the proportion of respondents who believed antibiotics would “definitely/probably” help an ILI fell from 37% (95% CI 35–39%) to 28% (95% CI 26–29%). Those who would “definitely/probably” visit a doctor in this situation fell from 48% (95% CI 46–50%) to 36% (95% CI 34–37%), while those who would request antibiotics during a consultation fell from 39% (95% CI 37–41%) to 30% (95% CI 29–32%). The percentage of respondents who found the information we provided about AMR “new/surprising” fell from 34% (95% CI 32–36%) to 28% (95% CI 26–31%). Awareness improved more among black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) than white people, with little other evidence of differences in improvements between subgroups. Whilst a degree of selection bias is unavoidable in online survey samples, the results suggest that awareness of AMR and appropriate antibiotic use has recently significantly improved in the United Kingdom, according to a wide range of indicators.

Guideline Adherence in Antibiotic Prescribing to Patients with Respiratory Diseases in Primary Care: Prevalence and Practice Variation

Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) account for a large part of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care. However, guidelines advise restrictive antibiotic prescribing for RTIs. Only in certain circumstances, depending on, e.g., comorbidity, are antibiotics indicated. Most studies on guideline adherence do not account for this. We aimed to assess guideline adherence for antibiotic prescribing for RTIs as well as its variation between general practices (GPs), accounting for patient characteristics. We used data from electronic health records of GPs in the Netherlands. We selected patients who consulted their GP for acute cough, rhinitis, rhinosinusitis or sore throat in 2014. For each disease episode we assessed whether, according to the GP guideline, there was an indication for antibiotics, using the patient's sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidity and co-medication. We assessed antibiotic prescribing for episodes with no or an unsure indication according to the guidelines. We analysed 248,896 episodes. Diagnoses with high rates of antibiotic prescribing when there was no indication include acute tonsillitis (57%), strep throat (56%), acute bronchitis (51%) and acute sinusitis (48%). Prescribing rates vary greatly between diagnoses and practices. Reduction of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing remains a key target to tackle antimicrobial resistance. Insight into reasons for guideline non-adherence may guide successful implementation of the variety of interventions already available for GPs and patients.

Investigating the mechanism of impact and differential effect of the Quality Premium scheme on antibiotic prescribing in England: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

In 2017, approximately 73% of antibiotics in England were prescribed from primary care practices. It has been estimated that 9%-23% of antibiotic prescriptions between 2013 and 2015 were inappropriate. Reducing antibiotic prescribing in primary care was included as one of the national priorities in a financial incentive scheme in 2015-2016.

AIM

To investigate whether the effects of the Quality Premium (QP), which provided performance-related financial incentives to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), could be explained by practice characteristics that contribute to variations in antibiotic prescribing.

DESIGN & SETTING

Longitudinal monthly prescribing data were analysed for 6251 primary care practices in England from April 2014 to March 2016.

METHOD

Linear generalised estimating equations models were fitted, examining the effect of the 2015-2016 QP on the number of antibiotic items per specific therapeutic group age-sex related prescribing unit (STAR-PU) prescribed, adjusting for seasonality and months since implementation. Consistency of effects after further adjustment for variations in practice characteristics were also examined, including practice workforce, comorbidities prevalence, prescribing rates of non-antibiotic drugs, and deprivation.

RESULTS

Antibiotics prescribed in primary care practices in England reduced by -0.172 items per STAR-PU (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.180 to -0.171) after 2015-2016 QP implementation, with slight increases in the months following April 2015 (+0.014 items per STAR-PU; 95% CI = +0.013 to +0.014). Adjusting the model for practice characteristics, the immediate and month-on-month effects following implementation remained consistent, with slight attenuation in immediate reduction from -0.172 to -0.166 items per STAR-PU. In subgroup analysis, the QP effect was significantly greater among the top 20% prescribing practices (interaction p<0.001). Practices with low workforce and those with higher diabetes prevalence had greater reductions in prescribing following 2015-2016 QP compared with other practices (interaction p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

In high-prescribing practices, those with low workforce and high diabetes prevalence had more reduction following the QP compared with other practices, highlighting the need for targeted support of these practices and appropriate resourcing of primary care.

Fluoroquinolone resistance in Escherichia coli isolates after exposure to non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics: a retrospective case-control study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether prior exposure to non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics increases the risk of fluoroquinolone resistance in Escherichia coli.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data collected retrospectively in a case-control study linking microbiological test results (isolated bacteria and their susceptibility) of urine samples routinely collected from primary, secondary and tertiary care patients in Belgium with information on prior antibiotic use at the patient level up to 1 year previously.

RESULTS

In urine samples from 6125 patients, 7204 E. coli isolates were retrieved [1949 fluoroquinolone-resistant isolates (cases) and 5255 fluoroquinolone-susceptible isolates (controls)]. After adjusting for potential confounders (including fluoroquinolone use) and correcting for multiple testing there were lower odds of fluoroquinolone resistance in E. coli isolates after exposure to cefazolin (OR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.52-0.81; P = 0.00014) and higher odds after exposure to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (OR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.23-1.97; P =0.00020) or nitrofurantoin (OR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.23-1.84; P =0.000083). A sensitivity analysis excluding samples with antibiotic use during the 6 months prior to the sampling date confirmed the higher odds of fluoroquinolone resistance after exposure to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and nitrofurantoin.

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming no residual confounding or other biases, this study suggests that exposure to non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics, i.e. trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and nitrofurantoin, might be causally related to fluoroquinolone resistance in E. coli isolates from urinary samples. Future prospective research is needed to confirm non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics as potential drivers of fluoroquinolone resistance.

Antibiotic choice in UK general practice: rates and drivers of potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescribing

Objectives

To identify the rates of potentially inappropriate antibiotic choice when prescribing for common infections in UK general practices. To examine the predictors of such prescribing and the clustering effects at the practice level.

Methods

The rates of potentially inappropriate antibiotic choice were estimated using 1 151 105 consultations for sinusitis, otitis media and externa, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) and lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and urinary tract infection (UTI), using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Multilevel logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of inappropriate prescribing and to quantify the clustering effect at practice level.

Results

The rates of potentially inappropriate prescriptions were highest for otitis externa (67.3%) and URTI (38.7%) and relatively low for otitis media (3.4%), sinusitis (2.2%), LRTI (1.5%) and UTI in adults (2.3%) and children (0.7%). Amoxicillin was the most commonly prescribed antibiotic for all respiratory tract infections, except URTI. Amoxicillin accounted for 62.3% of prescriptions for otitis externa and 34.5% of prescriptions for URTI, despite not being recommended for these conditions. A small proportion of the variation in the probability of an inappropriate choice was attributed to the clustering effect at practice level (8% for otitis externa and 23% for sinusitis). Patients with comorbidities were more likely to receive a potentially inappropriate antibiotic for URTI, LRTI and UTI in adults. Patients who received any antibiotic in the 12 months before consultation were more likely to receive a potentially inappropriate antibiotic for all conditions except otitis externa.

Conclusions

Antibiotic prescribing did not always align with prescribing guidelines, especially for URTIs and otitis externa. Future interventions might target optimizing amoxicillin use in primary care.

Selection and co-selection of antibiotic resistances among Escherichia coli by antibiotic use in primary care: An ecological analysis

Background

The majority of studies that link antibiotic usage and resistance focus on simple associations between the resistance against a specific antibiotic and the use of that specific antibiotic. However, the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance is more complex. Here we evaluate selection and co-selection by assessing which antibiotics, including those mainly prescribed for respiratory tract infections, are associated with increased resistance to various antibiotics among Escherichia coli isolated from urinary samples.

Methods

Monthly primary care prescribing data were obtained from National Health Service (NHS) Digital. Positive E. coli records from urine samples in English primary care (n = 888,207) between April 2014 and January 2016 were obtained from the Second Generation Surveillance System. Elastic net regularization was used to evaluate associations between prescribing of different antibiotic groups and resistance against amoxicillin, cephalexin, ciprofloxacin, co-amoxiclav and nitrofurantoin at the clinical commissioning group (CCG) level. England is divided into 209 CCGs, with each NHS practice prolonging to one CCG.

Results

Amoxicillin prescribing (measured in DDD/ 1000 inhabitants / day) was positively associated with amoxicillin (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.04) and ciprofloxacin (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04–1.17) resistance. In contrast, nitrofurantoin prescribing was associated with lower levels of resistance to amoxicillin (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84–0.97). CCGs with higher levels of trimethoprim prescribing also had higher levels of ciprofloxacin resistance (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10–1.59).

Conclusion

Amoxicillin, which is mainly (and often unnecessarily) prescribed for respiratory tract infections is associated with increased resistance against various antibiotics among E. coli causing urinary tract infections. Our findings suggest that when predicting the potential impact of interventions on antibiotic resistances it is important to account for use of other antibiotics, including those typically used for other indications.