1
|
Menting SGP, Redican E, Murphy J, Bucholc M. Primary Care Antibiotic Prescribing and Infection-Related Hospitalisation. Antibiotics (Basel) 2023; 12:1685. [PMID: 38136719 PMCID: PMC10740527 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12121685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2023] [Revised: 11/15/2023] [Accepted: 11/16/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics has been widely recognised as a leading cause of antimicrobial resistance, which in turn has become one of the most significant threats to global health. Given that most antibiotic prescriptions are issued in primary care settings, investigating the associations between primary care prescribing of antibiotics and subsequent infection-related hospitalisations affords a valuable opportunity to understand the long-term health implications of primary care antibiotic intervention. A narrative review of the scientific literature studying associations between primary care antibiotic prescribing and subsequent infection-related hospitalisation was conducted. The Web of Science database was used to retrieve 252 potentially relevant studies, with 23 of these studies included in this review (stratified by patient age and infection type). The majority of studies (n = 18) were published in the United Kingdom, while the remainder were conducted in Germany, Spain, Denmark, New Zealand, and the United States. While some of the reviewed studies demonstrated that appropriate and timely antibiotic prescribing in primary care could help reduce the need for hospitalisation, excessive antibiotic prescribing can lead to antimicrobial resistance, subsequently increasing the risk of infection-related hospitalisation. Few studies reported no association between primary care antibiotic prescriptions and subsequent infection-related hospitalisation. Overall, the disparate results in the extant literature attest to the conflicting factors influencing the decision-making regarding antibiotic prescribing and highlight the necessity of adopting a more patient-focussed perspective in stewardship programmes and the need for increased use of rapid diagnostic testing in primary care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Enya Redican
- School of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine BT52 1SA, UK
| | - Jamie Murphy
- School of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine BT52 1SA, UK
| | - Magda Bucholc
- School of Computing, Engineering and Intelligent Systems, Ulster University, Derry-Londonderry BT48 7JL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Spurling GK, Dooley L, Clark J, Askew DA. Immediate versus delayed versus no antibiotics for respiratory infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 10:CD004417. [PMID: 37791590 PMCID: PMC10548498 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004417.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost and antibacterial resistance. One proposed strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing is to provide prescriptions, but to advise delay in antibiotic use with the expectation that symptoms will resolve first. This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2007, and updated in 2010, 2013 and 2017. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effects on duration and/or severity of clinical outcomes (pain, malaise, fever, cough and rhinorrhoea), antibiotic use, antibiotic resistance and patient satisfaction of advising a delayed prescription of antibiotics in respiratory tract infections. SEARCH METHODS From May 2017 until 20 August 2022, this was a living systematic review with monthly searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 20 August 2022. Due to the abundance of evidence supporting the review's key findings, it ceased being a living systematic review on 21 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials involving participants of all ages with an RTI, where delayed antibiotics were compared to immediate or no antibiotics. We defined a delayed antibiotic as advice to delay the filling of an antibiotic prescription by at least 48 hours. We considered all RTIs regardless of whether antibiotics were recommended or not. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS For this 2022 update, we added one new trial enrolling 448 children (436 analysed) with uncomplicated acute RTIs. Overall, this review includes 12 studies with a total of 3968 participants, of which data from 3750 are available for analysis. These 12 studies involved acute RTIs including acute otitis media (three studies), streptococcal pharyngitis (three studies), cough (two studies), sore throat (one study), common cold (one study) and a variety of RTIs (two studies). Six studies involved only children, two only adults and four included both adults and children. Six studies were conducted in primary care, four in paediatric clinics and two in emergency departments. Studies were well reported and appeared to provide moderate-certainty evidence. Randomisation was not adequately described in two trials. Four trials blinded the outcome assessor, and three included blinding of participants and doctors. We conducted meta-analyses for pain, malaise, fever, adverse effects, antibiotic use and patient satisfaction. Cough (four studies): we found no differences amongst delayed, immediate and no prescribed antibiotics for clinical outcomes in any of the four studies. Sore throat (six studies): for the outcome of fever with sore throat, four of the six studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and two found no difference. For the outcome of pain related to sore throat, two studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and four found no difference. Two studies compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotic for sore throat, and found no difference in clinical outcomes. Acute otitis media (four studies): two studies compared immediate with delayed antibiotics - one found no difference for fever, and the other favoured immediate antibiotics for pain and malaise severity on Day 3. Two studies compared delayed with no antibiotics: one found no difference for pain and fever severity on Day 3, and the other found no difference for the number of children with fever on Day 3. Common cold (two studies): neither study found differences for clinical outcomes between delayed and immediate antibiotic groups. One study found delayed antibiotics were probably favoured over no antibiotics for pain, fever and cough duration (moderate-certainty evidence). ADVERSE EFFECTS there were either no differences for adverse effects or results may have favoured delayed over immediate antibiotics with no significant differences in complication rates (low-certainty evidence). Antibiotic use: delayed antibiotics probably resulted in a reduction in antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics (odds ratio (OR) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.07; 8 studies, 2257 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, a delayed antibiotic was probably more likely to result in reported antibiotic use than no antibiotics (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.75; 5 studies, 1529 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Patient satisfaction: patient satisfaction probably favoured delayed over no antibiotics (OR 1.45, 1.08 to 1.96; 5 studies, 1523 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably no difference in patient satisfaction between delayed and immediate antibiotics (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1927 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies evaluated antibiotic resistance. Reconsultation rates and use of alternative medicines were similar for delayed, immediate and no antibiotic strategies. In one of the four studies reporting use of alternative medicines, less paracetamol was used in the immediate group compared to the delayed group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For many clinical outcomes, there were no differences between prescribing strategies. Symptoms for acute otitis media and sore throat were modestly improved by immediate antibiotics compared with delayed antibiotics. There were no differences in complication rates. Delaying prescribing did not result in significantly different levels of patient satisfaction compared with immediate provision of antibiotics (86% versus 91%; moderate-certainty evidence). However, delay was favoured over no antibiotics (87% versus 82%). Delayed antibiotics achieved lower rates of antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics (30% versus 93%). The strategy of no antibiotics further reduced antibiotic use compared to delaying prescription for antibiotics (13% versus 27%). Delayed antibiotics for people with acute respiratory infection reduced antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics, but was not shown to be different to no antibiotics in terms of symptom control and disease complications. Where clinicians feel it is safe not to prescribe antibiotics immediately for people with RTIs, no antibiotics with advice to return if symptoms do not resolve is likely to result in the least antibiotic use while maintaining similar patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes to delayed antibiotics. Where clinicians are not confident in not prescribing antibiotics, delayed antibiotics may be an acceptable compromise in place of immediate prescribing to significantly reduce unnecessary antibiotic use for RTIs, while maintaining patient safety and satisfaction levels. Further research into antibiotic prescribing strategies for RTIs may best be focused on identifying patient groups at high risk of disease complications, enhancing doctors' communication with patients to maintain satisfaction, ways of increasing doctors' confidence to not prescribe antibiotics for RTIs, and policy measures to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for RTIs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Geoffrey Kp Spurling
- General Practice Clinical Unit, Medical School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Liz Dooley
- Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia
| | - Justin Clark
- Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia
| | - Deborah A Askew
- General Practice Clinical Unit, Medical School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zhong X, Pate A, Yang YT, Fahmi A, Ashcroft DM, Goldacre B, MacKenna B, Mehrkar A, Bacon SCJ, Massey J, Fisher L, Inglesby P, Hand K, van Staa T, Palin V. The impact of COVID-19 on antibiotic prescribing in primary care in England: Evaluation and risk prediction of appropriateness of type and repeat prescribing. J Infect 2023; 87:1-11. [PMID: 37182748 PMCID: PMC10176893 DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2023.05.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2022] [Revised: 03/14/2023] [Accepted: 05/09/2023] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to predict risks of potentially inappropriate antibiotic type and repeat prescribing and assess changes during COVID-19. METHODS With the approval of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY platform to access the TPP SystmOne electronic health record (EHR) system and selected patients prescribed antibiotics from 2019 to 2021. Multinomial logistic regression models predicted patient's probability of receiving inappropriate antibiotic type or repeat antibiotic course for each common infection. RESULTS The population included 9.1 million patients with 29.2 million antibiotic prescriptions. 29.1% of prescriptions were identified as repeat prescribing. Those with same day incident infection coded in the EHR had considerably lower rates of repeat prescribing (18.0%) and 8.6% had potentially inappropriate type. No major changes in the rates of repeat antibiotic prescribing during COVID-19 were found. In the 10 risk prediction models, good levels of calibration and moderate levels of discrimination were found. CONCLUSIONS Our study found no evidence of changes in level of inappropriate or repeat antibiotic prescribing after the start of COVID-19. Repeat antibiotic prescribing was frequent and varied according to regional and patient characteristics. There is a need for treatment guidelines to be developed around antibiotic failure and clinicians provided with individualised patient information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaomin Zhong
- Centre for Health Informatics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, the University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Alexander Pate
- Centre for Health Informatics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, the University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Ya-Ting Yang
- Centre for Health Informatics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, the University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Ali Fahmi
- Centre for Health Informatics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, the University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Darren M Ashcroft
- Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Ben Goldacre
- Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, OX26GG, UK
| | - Brian MacKenna
- Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, OX26GG, UK; NHS England, Wellington House, Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG, UK
| | - Amir Mehrkar
- Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, OX26GG, UK
| | - Sebastian C J Bacon
- Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, OX26GG, UK
| | - Jon Massey
- Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, OX26GG, UK
| | - Louis Fisher
- Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, OX26GG, UK
| | - Peter Inglesby
- Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, OX26GG, UK
| | - Kieran Hand
- Pharmacy Department, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK; NHS England, Wellington House, Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG, UK
| | - Tjeerd van Staa
- Centre for Health Informatics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, the University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
| | - Victoria Palin
- Centre for Health Informatics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, the University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK; Maternal and Fetal Research Centre, Division of Developmental Biology and Medicine, the University of Manchester, St Marys Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gohal SO, Alsubhi IM, Alharbi EA, Alkhalaf HE, Alnefaie BH, Althomali RA, Hasan BA, Alsadi MA, Alamri AH, Alharbi AA, Almanea MY, Almarshood FS, Almoallem SA, Albogami AF, Al-Hawaj F. Lemierre's Syndrome: A Case of Life-Threatening Infection From Family Medicine Practice. Cureus 2021; 13:e20684. [PMID: 35106224 PMCID: PMC8785805 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.20684] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
The use of antibiotic therapy has led to a major transformation in medicine with a substantial reduction in mortality. Due to the adverse effects associated with inappropriate antibiotic use, antibiotic stewardship interventions have been promoted to improve antibiotic prescription. However, delayed antibiotic therapy, when clinically needed, may result in increased morbidity. Here, we report the case of a previously healthy young man with an untreated acute upper respiratory infection for two weeks, who presented with headache and fever. Physical examination suggested meningitis as evident by neck stiffness and positive Kernig sign. Purulent tonsilitis was also noted. Laboratory findings showed leukocytosis and elevated inflammatory markers. The patient underwent a computed tomography scan to rule out space-occupying lesions prior to lumbar puncture. The scan revealed thrombophlebitis of the left internal jugular vein that extended to the dural venous sinuses. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed the intracranial dissemination of the disease. Such findings conferred the diagnosis of Lemierre's syndrome. The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit where he received systemic anticoagulation and prolonged intravenous antibiotics. He developed a good response and was discharged with no residual deficits after six weeks of hospitalization. Lemierre's syndrome is a serious infection that develops after a pharyngeal infection. Considering the high mortality rate of untreated Lemierre's syndrome, physicians should keep a high index of suspicion for this condition when they encounter a patient with upper respiratory tract infection with clinical or radiological findings consistent with internal jugular thrombophlebitis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sultan O Gohal
- College of Medicine, Batterjee Medical College, Jeddah, SAU
| | - Ishtiyaq M Alsubhi
- Department of General Practice, King Salman Specialist Hospital, Hail, SAU
| | - Essa A Alharbi
- College of Medicine, Northern Border University, Arar, SAU
| | | | - Bandar H Alnefaie
- College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, SAU
| | | | - Bayan A Hasan
- College of Medicine, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, BHR
| | - Mada A Alsadi
- College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, SAU
| | - Assaf H Alamri
- College of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, JOR
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Faisal Al-Hawaj
- College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, SAU
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Spurling GK, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, Foxlee R, Farley R. Delayed antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 9:CD004417. [PMID: 28881007 PMCID: PMC6372405 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004417.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 97] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost, and antibacterial resistance. One proposed strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing is to provide prescriptions, but to advise delay in antibiotic use with the expectation that symptoms will resolve first. This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2007, and updated in 2010 and 2013. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effects on clinical outcomes, antibiotic use, antibiotic resistance, and patient satisfaction of advising a delayed prescription of antibiotics in respiratory tract infections. SEARCH METHODS For this 2017 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2017), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialised Register; Ovid MEDLINE (2013 to 25 May 2017); Ovid Embase (2013 to 2017 Week 21); EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1984 to 25 May 2017); Web of Science (2013 to 25 May 2017); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (1 September 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 September 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials involving participants of all ages defined as having an RTI, where delayed antibiotics were compared to immediate antibiotics or no antibiotics. We defined a delayed antibiotic as advice to delay the filling of an antibiotic prescription by at least 48 hours. We considered all RTIs regardless of whether antibiotics were recommended or not. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Three review authors independently extracted and collated data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS For this 2017 update we added one new trial involving 405 participants with uncomplicated acute respiratory infection. Overall, this review included 11 studies with a total of 3555 participants. These 11 studies involved acute respiratory infections including acute otitis media (three studies), streptococcal pharyngitis (three studies), cough (two studies), sore throat (one study), common cold (one study), and a variety of RTIs (one study). Five studies involved only children, two only adults, and four included both adults and children. Six studies were conducted in a primary care setting, three in paediatric clinics, and two in emergency departments.Studies were well reported, and appeared to be of moderate quality. Randomisation was not adequately described in two trials. Four trials blinded the outcomes assessor, and three included blinding of participants and doctors. We conducted meta-analysis for antibiotic use and patient satisfaction.We found no differences among delayed, immediate, and no prescribed antibiotics for clinical outcomes in the three studies that recruited participants with cough. For the outcome of fever with sore throat, three of the five studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and two found no difference. For the outcome of pain related to sore throat, two studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and three found no difference. One study compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotic for sore throat, and found no difference in clinical outcomes.Three studies included participants with acute otitis media. Of the two studies with an immediate antibiotic arm, one study found no difference for fever, and the other study favoured immediate antibiotics for pain and malaise severity on Day 3. One study including participants with acute otitis media compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotics and found no difference for pain and fever on Day 3.Two studies recruited participants with common cold. Neither study found differences for clinical outcomes between delayed and immediate antibiotic groups. One study favoured delayed antibiotics over no antibiotics for pain, fever, and cough duration (moderate quality evidence for all clinical outcomes - GRADE assessment).There were either no differences for adverse effects or results favoured delayed antibiotics over immediate antibiotics (low quality evidence - to GRADE assessment) with no significant differences in complication rates. Delayed antibiotics resulted in a significant reduction in antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics prescription (odds ratio (OR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.05). However, a delayed antibiotic was more likely to result in reported antibiotic use than no antibiotics (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.59 to 4.08) (moderate quality evidence - GRADE assessment).Patient satisfaction favoured delayed over no antibiotics (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.06). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between delayed antibiotics and immediate antibiotics (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10) (moderate quality evidence - GRADE assessment).None of the included studies evaluated antibiotic resistance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For many clinical outcomes, there were no differences between prescribing strategies. Symptoms for acute otitis media and sore throat were modestly improved by immediate antibiotics compared with delayed antibiotics. There were no differences in complication rates. Delaying prescribing did not result in significantly different levels of patient satisfaction compared with immediate provision of antibiotics (86% versus 91%) (moderate quality evidence). However, delay was favoured over no antibiotics (87% versus 82%). Delayed antibiotics achieved lower rates of antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics (31% versus 93%) (moderate quality evidence). The strategy of no antibiotics further reduced antibiotic use compared to delaying prescription for antibiotics (14% versus 28%). Delayed antibiotics for people with acute respiratory infection reduced antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics, but was not shown to be different to no antibiotics in terms of symptom control and disease complications. Where clinicians feel it is safe not to prescribe antibiotics immediately for people with respiratory infections, no antibiotics with advice to return if symptoms do not resolve is likely to result in the least antibiotic use while maintaining similar patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes to delaying prescription of antibiotics. Where clinicians are not confident in using a no antibiotic strategy, a delayed antibiotics strategy may be an acceptable compromise in place of immediate prescribing to significantly reduce unnecessary antibiotic use for RTIs, and thereby reduce antibiotic resistance, while maintaining patient safety and satisfaction levels.Editorial note: As a living systematic review, this review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Geoffrey Kp Spurling
- Discipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 4029
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|