A randomised controlled trial of management strategies for acute infective conjunctivitis in general practice

Prevalence of Penicillin Resistance Among Streptococcus pneumoniae Isolates in a General Hospital in Southwest Saudi Arabia: A Five-Year Retrospective Study

Background The rise in infections caused by penicillin-resistant strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae has become a global concern. However, the magnitude of this problem in Southwest Saudi Arabia has never been investigated. Therefore, this study aims to determine the prevalence of this bacteria in the region using in vitro data. Materials and methods This study retrospectively studied pneumococcal isolates collected by the Microbiology Laboratory of a general hospital in Al Baha, Saudi Arabia, from January 2013 to December 2017. A minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ≥ 8 mg/L was used as a cutoff concentration to detect the resistant isolates. Results A total of 201 S. pneumoniae isolates were identified using the VITEK® 2 system (bioMérieux SA, Marcy-l'Étoile, France). Most of these isolates (61%) were obtained from respiratory specimens, including sputum, tracheal aspirates, and bronchoalveolar lavage. Eye swabs accounted for 15% of the isolates, blood samples contributed 12%, ear swabs accounted for 7%, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) 3.4%. The resistance of S. pneumoniae during the five years varied from 61% to 76%, with an overall resistance of 70% (141/201). The resistance rate per year was 71% (43/60) in 2013, 76% (35/46) in 2014, 61% (22/36) in 2015, 68% (20/29) in 2016, and 66% (21/30) in 2017. Conclusion The data confirm the presence of penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae in Southwest Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the high resistance suggests a potential concern, emphasizing the need for penicillin control, surveillance, and vaccination to address this growing problem.

Immediate versus delayed versus no antibiotics for respiratory infections

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.

Molecular, Epidemiological and Clinical Assessment of Adenoviral Keratoconjunctivitis in Egypt: Institutional Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the frequency of Human adenovirus (HAdV) and its serotypes in keratoconjunctivitis patients who attended the outpatient clinics of Mansoura Ophthalmic Center, Egypt.

METHODS

Conjunctival secretions and corneal scrapings were collected from patients complaining of clinically diagnosed viral keratoconjunctivitis. The molecular method for HAdV detection was performed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) followed by restriction enzymes (REA) determination of serotypes for hexone gene.

RESULTS

HAdV infection was detected in 38% of samples. There were 4 serotypes of Human adenovirus species D (HAdV-D) isolated (4, 8, 37, 3), where HAdV-D8 was the most dominant. Contact with infected patient, follicular conjunctivitis and subepithelial corneal infiltrates are useful features for clinical diagnosis of adenoviral conjunctivitis.

CONCLUSION

HAdV was significant etiological factor of acute follicular conjunctivitis. Accurate diagnosis of adenoviral conjunctivitis is essential for appropriate management, reducing permanent visual impairment and to limit the transmission of the virus within the community.

Antibiotics versus placebo for acute bacterial conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Acute bacterial conjunctivitis is an infection of the conjunctiva and is one of the most common ocular disorders in primary care. Antibiotics are generally prescribed on the basis that they may speed recovery, reduce persistence, and prevent keratitis. However, many cases of acute bacterial conjunctivitis are self-limited, resolving without antibiotic therapy. This Cochrane Review was first published in The Cochrane Library in 1999, then updated in 2006, 2012, and 2022.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and side effects of antibiotic therapy in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2022, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1950 to May 2022), Embase (January 1980 to May 2022), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases in May 2022.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which any form of antibiotic treatment, with or without steroid, had been compared with placebo/vehicle in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. This included topical and systemic antibiotic treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies. We assessed the full text of all potentially relevant studies and determined the included RCTs, which were further assessed for risk of bias using Cochrane methodology. We performed data extraction in a standardized manner and conducted random-effects meta-analyses using RevMan Web.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 eligible RCTs, 10 of which were newly identified in this update. A total of 8805 participants were randomized. All treatments were topical in the form of drops or ointment. The trials were heterogeneous in terms of their eligibility criteria, the nature of the intervention (antibiotic drug class, which included fluoroquinolones [FQs] and non-FQs; dosage frequency; duration of treatment), the outcomes assessed and the time points of assessment. We judged one trial to be of high risk of bias, four as low risk of bias, and the others as raising some concerns. Based on intention-to-treat (ITT) population, antibiotics likely improved clinical cure (resolution of clinical symptoms or signs) by 26% (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.46; 5 trials, 1474 participants; moderate certainty) as compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed no differences by antibiotic class (P = 0.67) or treatment duration (P = 0.60). In the placebo group, 55.5% (408/735) of participants had spontaneous clinical resolution by days 4 to 9 versus 68.2% (504/739) of participants treated with an antibiotic. Based on modified ITT population, in which participants were analyzed after randomization on the basis of positive microbiological culture, antibiotics likely increased microbiological cure (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 10 trials, 2827 participants) compared with placebo at the end of therapy; there were no subgroup differences by drug class (P = 0.60). No study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic treatment. Patients receiving antibiotics had a lower risk of treatment incompletion than those in the placebo group (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.78; 13 trials, 5573 participants; moderate certainty) and were 27% less likely to have persistent clinical infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.81; 19 trials, 5280 participants; moderate certainty). There was no evidence of serious systemic side effects reported in either the antibiotic or placebo group (very low certainty). When compared with placebo, FQs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90) but not non-FQs (RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.36 to 12.00) may result in fewer participants with ocular side effects. However, the estimated effects were of very low certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this update suggest that the use of topical antibiotics is associated with a modestly improved chance of resolution in comparison to the use of placebo. Since no evidence of serious side effects was reported, use of antibiotics may therefore be considered to achieve better clinical and microbiologic efficacy than placebo. Increasing the proportion of participants with clinical cure or increasing the speed of recovery or both are important for individual return to work or school, allowing people to regain quality of life. Future studies may examine antiseptic treatments with topical antibiotics for reasons of cost and growing antibiotic resistance.

A closed-loop audit of the prescription practice of topical antibiotics for acute infective conjunctivitis

Objective: The implementation of guideline recommendations for antibiotics prescription for the management of patients with acute infective conjunctivitis (AIC) in primary care departments remains below par. Our objective was to assess the impact of clinical audit on adherence to evidence-based indications for prescription of antibiotic eye drops in patients diagnosed with AIC, in the setting of a primary care practice in western Greece. Methods: We conducted a retrospective audit to evaluate the current prescription practice of antibiotics for the management of AIC. Following evidence-based indications for the prescription of antibiotics in AIC through literature search, and in combination with discussion and collaboration with the primary care doctors of our department, we formulated and implemented guidelines for the management of AIC. We then performed a prospective re-audit to assess the management of patients with AIC after local implementation of the guidelines. Results: A total of 158 cases were audited in the first cycle before the introduction of the guidelines, from 15th June 2019 to 7th March 2020, and 26 cases after, from 10th March 2020 to 20th November 2020. The compliance with the guidelines regarding antibiotics prescription was significantly improved from 12.0% to 84.6% between the first and the second cycles of audit. Conclusions: In this study, with the local introduction of guidelines, clinical audit significantly improved the prescription practice of topical antibiotics in patients with AIC in a primary care department. Abbreviations: AIC = acute infective conjunctivitis.

Does This Patient With Acute Infectious Conjunctivitis Have a Bacterial Infection?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Acute infectious conjunctivitis is characterized by ocular redness and discharge, and is a common clinical entity. Evidence-based tools to aid the clinical diagnosis of viral vs bacterial conjunctivitis are lacking and may contribute to overprescribing of topical antibiotics.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative prevalence of viral vs bacterial conjunctivitis in adults and children, and to determine which symptoms or signs are suggestive of a viral vs bacterial etiology.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search (January 1946-March 2022) yielded 1891 articles. Included articles were rated using a quality score based on a modified Rational Clinical Examination grading system. Methodological quality levels 1 through 4 required a microbiological reference standard for diagnosis, whereas quality level 5 (the lowest quality) used a clinical reference standard for diagnosis.

STUDY SELECTION

Consecutive series of patients presenting with acute infectious conjunctivitis and case series of viral or bacterial conjunctivitis alone. Thirty-two studies were included in a meta-analysis to determine prevalence and diagnostic accuracy measures; 27 used a microbiological reference standard for diagnosis and 5 used a clinical reference standard for diagnosis.

RESULTS

In studies involving children (5 studies; 881 patients; mean age, 4.7 years [age range, 1 month-18 years]), the prevalence of bacterial conjunctivitis was higher than viral conjunctivitis (71% vs 16%, respectively, P = .01). In the only study of adults (n = 207 patients; mean age, 25.7 years), the prevalence of viral conjunctivitis was higher than bacterial conjunctivitis (78% vs 16%, respectively, P < .001). For the primary analysis of level 1 (n = 6) and level 2 (n = 5) studies (1725 patients total), the clinical findings that best distinguished a viral etiology for conjunctivitis from a bacterial etiology included pharyngitis (sensitivity range, 0.55-0.58; specificity range, 0.89-0.94; positive likelihood ratio [LR] range, 5.4-9.9), preauricular lymphadenopathy (sensitivity range, 0.17-0.31; specificity range, 0.93-0.94; positive LR range, 2.5-5.6), and contact with another person with red eye (sensitivity, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.14-0.22]; specificity, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.90-0.95]; positive LR, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.6-3.7]). Mucopurulent ocular discharge (sensitivity, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.60-0.87); specificity, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.58-0.73]; positive LR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.7-2.6]) and otitis media (sensitivity, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.20-0.29]; specificity, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.85-0.94]; positive LR, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.5-4.4]) were associated with the presence of bacterial conjunctivitis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this review, bacterial conjunctivitis was more common than viral conjunctivitis in children and viral conjunctivitis was more common than bacterial conjunctivitis in adults, although the prevalence estimates were based on limited evidence. Symptoms and signs associated with a higher likelihood of viral conjunctivitis in adults and children included concomitant pharyngitis, an enlarged preauricular node, and contact with another person with red eye, and signs associated with a higher likelihood of bacterial conjunctivitis included the presence of mucopurulent discharge and otitis media, but no single symptom or sign differentiated the 2 conditions with high certainty.

The Social-environmental Risk Factor for Conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND: Conjunctivitis is one of the most common eye disorders in the worldwide. The incidence of conjunctivitis in Indonesia reached 73% of the population. Conjunctivitis cases in Yogyakarta City have increased from year to year. AIM: This study purposed to identify the social-environmental risk factors that influence the incidence of conjunctivitis in Yogyakarta. METHODS: Design study was an observational analytic method with a case–control research design. The population study was all the patients visited at the Eye Clinic of PKU Muhammadiyah Gamping Hospital and private hospital Yogyakarta in 2019. The total sample is 204 respondents who were divided into case and control. One hundred and four respondents were in a case while 100 were controlled. The case was a conjunctivitis patient treated at the Eye Clinic of PKU Muhammadiyah Gamping Hospital and private hospital Yogyakarta in 2019, while the control was a non-conjunctivitis patient who went to the same two hospitals as the case respondent. Data were collected by direct interviews using a structured questionnaire covering the respondents’ demographics and social-environmental conditions. Then, the data were analyzed using SPSS 15.0 univariate and bivariate using Chi-square. RESULTS: The results of the bivariate analysis showed that age, the distance between the house and the river, the distance between the place and the temporary garbage dump, contacted from a close friend, the windows of the house were always opened every day as risk factors affecting the incidence of conjunctivitis. CONCLUSION: The study’s decision is the social-environmental as a risk factor for conjunctivitis in Yogyakarta.

Public preferences for delayed or immediate antibiotic prescriptions in UK primary care: A choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Delayed (or "backup") antibiotic prescription, where the patient is given a prescription but advised to delay initiating antibiotics, has been shown to be effective in reducing antibiotic use in primary care. However, this strategy is not widely used in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to identify factors influencing preferences among the UK public for delayed prescription, and understand their relative importance, to help increase appropriate use of this prescribing option.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted an online choice experiment in 2 UK general population samples: adults and parents of children under 18 years. Respondents were presented with 12 scenarios in which they, or their child, might need antibiotics for a respiratory tract infection (RTI) and asked to choose either an immediate or a delayed prescription. Scenarios were described by 7 attributes. Data were collected between November 2018 and February 2019. Respondent preferences were modelled using mixed-effects logistic regression. The survey was completed by 802 adults and 801 parents (75% of those who opened the survey). The samples reflected the UK population in age, sex, ethnicity, and country of residence. The most important determinant of respondent choice was symptom severity, especially for cough-related symptoms. In the adult sample, the probability of choosing delayed prescription was 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.56, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough and runny nose compared to 0.30 (0.28 to 0.33, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough with fever, 0.47 (0.44 to 0.50, p < 0.001) for sore throat with swollen glands, and 0.37 (0.34 to 0.39, p < 0.001) for sore throat, swollen glands, and fever. Respondents were less likely to choose delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (odds ratio (OR) 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96, p < 0.001)). Probabilities of choosing delayed prescription were similar for parents considering treatment for a child (44% of choices versus 42% for adults, p = 0.04). However, parents differed from the adult sample in showing a more marked reduction in choice of the delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (OR 0.83 (0.80 to 0.87) versus 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001) and a smaller effect of disruption of usual activities (OR 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) versus 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001). Females were more likely to choose a delayed prescription than males for minor symptoms, particularly minor cough (probability 0.62 (0.58 to 0.66, p < 0.001) for females and 0.45 (0.41 to 0.48, p < 0.001) for males). Older people, those with a good understanding of antibiotics, and those who had not used antibiotics recently showed similar patterns of preferences. Study limitations include its hypothetical nature, which may not reflect real-life behaviour; the absence of a "no prescription" option; and the possibility that study respondents may not represent the views of population groups who are typically underrepresented in online surveys.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that delayed prescription appears to be an acceptable approach to reducing antibiotic consumption. Certain groups appear to be more amenable to delayed prescription, suggesting particular opportunities for increased use of this strategy. Prescribing choices for sore throat may need additional explanation to ensure patient acceptance, and parents in particular may benefit from reassurance about the usual duration of these illnesses.

Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Diagnosis of Ocular Infections

The variety and complexity of ocular infections have increased significantly in the last decade since the publication of Cumitech 13B, Laboratory Diagnosis of Ocular Infections (L. D. Gray, P. H. Gilligan, and W. C. Fowler, Cumitech 13B, Laboratory Diagnosis of Ocular Infections, 2010). The purpose of this practical guidance document is to review, for individuals working in clinical microbiology laboratories, current tools used in the laboratory diagnosis of ocular infections. This document begins by describing the complex, delicate anatomy of the eye, which often leads to limitations in specimen quantity, requiring a close working bond between laboratorians and ophthalmologists to ensure high-quality diagnostic care. Descriptions are provided of common ocular infections in developed nations and neglected ocular infections seen in developing nations. Subsequently, preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic aspects of laboratory diagnosis and antimicrobial susceptibility testing are explored in depth.

Low prevalence of Moraxella catarrhalis in the patients who suffered from conjunctivitis in the southwest of Iran

Objective

Moraxella catarrhalis is a non-motile Gram-negative diplococcus bacterium that contributed to several human infections including conjunctivitis. This study aimed to reveal the prevalence of M. catarrhalis in patients who suffered from conjunctivitis in Ahvaz city, southwest of Iran.

Results

Out of 100 conjunctiva swab specimens, M. catarrhalis was isolated only from one (1%) conjunctivitis cases using the culture method. This strain was isolated from a 34 years old female patient. Also, the results of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were in agreement with the culture method, and the specimen that showed positive culture was also positive for specific gene of M. catarrhalis. The remaining 99 specimens did not show positive results with any of the culture and PCR methods.

Delayed Antibiotic Prescription by General Practitioners in the UK: A Stated-Choice Study

Delayed antibiotic prescription in primary care has been shown to reduce antibiotic consumption, without increasing risk of complications, yet is not widely used in the UK. We sought to quantify the relative importance of factors affecting the decision to give a delayed prescription, using a stated-choice survey among UK general practitioners. Respondents were asked whether they would provide a delayed or immediate prescription in fifteen hypothetical consultations, described by eight attributes. They were also asked if they would prefer not to prescribe antibiotics. The most important determinants of choice between immediate and delayed prescription were symptoms, duration of illness, and the presence of multiple comorbidities. Respondents were more likely to choose a delayed prescription if the patient preferred not to have antibiotics, but consultation length had little effect. When given the option, respondents chose not to prescribe antibiotics in 51% of cases, with delayed prescription chosen in 21%. Clinical features remained important. Patient preference did not affect the decision to give no antibiotics. We suggest that broader dissemination of the clinical evidence supporting use of delayed prescription for specific presentations may help increase appropriate use. Establishing patient preferences regarding antibiotics may help to overcome concerns about patient acceptance. Increasing consultation length appears unlikely to affect the use of delayed prescription.

Clustering of continuous and binary outcomes at the general practice level in individually randomised studies in primary care - a review of 10 years of primary care trials

BACKGROUND

In randomised controlled trials, the assumption of independence of individual observations is fundamental to the design, analysis and interpretation of studies. However, in individually randomised trials in primary care, this assumption may be violated because patients are naturally clustered within primary care practices. Ignoring clustering may lead to a loss of power or, in some cases, type I error.

METHODS

Clustering can be quantified by intra-cluster correlation (ICC), a measure of the similarity between individuals within a cluster with respect to a particular outcome. We reviewed 17 trials undertaken by the Department of Primary Care at the University of Southampton over the last ten years. We calculated the ICC for the primary and secondary outcomes in each trial at the practice level and determined whether ignoring practice-level clustering still gave valid inferences. Where multiple studies collected the same outcome measure, the median ICC was calculated for that outcome.

RESULTS

The median intra-cluster correlation (ICC) for all outcomes was 0.016, with interquartile range 0.00-0.03. The median ICC for symptom severity was 0.02 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.01 to 0.07) and for reconsultation with new or worsening symptoms was 0.01 (IQR 0.00, 0.07). For HADS anxiety the ICC was 0.04 (IQR 0.02, 0.05) and for HADS depression was 0.02 (IQR 0.00, 0.05). The median ICC for EQ. 5D-3 L was 0.01 (IQR 0.01, 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of clustering in individually randomised trials primary care. The non-zero ICC suggests that, depending on study design, clustering may not be ignorable. It is important that this is fully considered at the study design phase.

A Review of the Differential Diagnosis of Acute Infectious Conjunctivitis: Implications for Treatment and Management

The diagnosis of acute infectious conjunctivitis can be difficult. Clinical ambiguity exists between the acute viral and bacterial as well as the allergic forms, which can confound diagnosis. Also, discrimination between viral or bacterial origins of infectious conjunctivitis based on historical, nonspecific, clinical signs and symptoms contributes to a high rate of misdiagnosis and overuse of antibiotic treatment. Therefore, in order to effectively treat acute infectious conjunctivitis, physicians must be aware of the clinical signs and symptoms and available diagnostic tests that can provide a more accurate differential diagnosis.

Lipsticks: The Microbial Cellar: An Original Study

Background

Microbial contamination of cosmetics products is of incredible significance since it will not only cause significant health hazardous but also act as a potential source of infections. Contamination will cause spoilage of the item and when pathogenic they become a genuine threat for its users.

Aim

To evaluate the bacterial contamination in regularly used lipsticks.

Objectives

To identify the pathogenic organism present in the lipsticks. To understand the potential complications of the organisms identified. Comparing the microbial count in used and new lipsticks.

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.

Use of topical ocular antibiotics in young children: a Scandinavian drug utilization study

PURPOSE

Acute infectious conjunctivitis is a common disease. While usually self-limiting, children often receive treatment to be accepted back into nursery, day care or school. We aimed to describe trends in the utilization of topical ocular antibiotics in young children aged 0-4 years in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

METHODS

Using individual-level data from the Danish National Prescription Registry (2000-2015), we provided detailed descriptions of treatment patterns at the individual level, stratified by age (0-1 years, 2-4 years) and antibiotic substance. Aggregate-level data for Danish, Norwegian and Swedish children (0-4 years) were obtained from publicly available data sources (2000-2016).

RESULTS

We identified 107 581 Danish children aged 0-4 years receiving 271 980 treatment episodes. The incidence rate was relatively stable between 2000 and 2010 (on average, 637 and 283/1000 person-years for 0- to 1- and 2- to 4-year-olds, respectively), after which it dropped by 37% until 2015. In the aggregated data, a markedly higher use was seen in Denmark (211/1000 children in 2016) compared with Sweden (42) and Norway (151). The decrease from 2010 onwards was observed in all three countries. Chloramphenicol and fusidic acid were the most commonly used topical ocular antibiotics across Scandinavia. Tobramycin was rarely used in Norway and Sweden (≤1/1000 children in 2016) compared with Denmark (24/1000 children).

CONCLUSION

Considerable variation is seen in the utilization of topical ocular antibiotics among children in Scandinavia, with Denmark having the highest use. Across the Scandinavian countries, however, a decline was noted from 2010 onwards.

Antibiotic resistance among bacterial conjunctival pathogens collected in the Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring in Ocular Microorganisms (ARMOR) surveillance study

The Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring in Ocular Microorganisms (ARMOR) surveillance study evaluates in vitro antibiotic resistance among Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), Streptococcus pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Haemophilus influenzae isolates from ocular infections. Here we report resistance rates and trends among conjunctival-sourced ocular isolates collected across the US from 2009 through 2016. A total of 1198 conjunctival isolates (483 S. aureus, 305 CoNS, 208 H. influenzae, 118 S. pneumoniae, and 84 P. aeruginosa) were collected from patients with presumed bacterial conjunctivitis from 57 sites across 40 states. A large proportion of staphylococci demonstrated resistance to oxacillin and azithromycin, while resistance was low against the majority of antibiotics tested for S. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, and H. influenzae. Multidrug resistance (≥3 antibiotic classes) was found in 30.2% of S. aureus and 39.0% of CoNS isolates, and methicillin resistance more than doubled the rate of multi-drug resistance (methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA], 76.5%; methicillin-resistant CoNS isolates, 72.8%). There was a pattern of increasing mean percent resistance with increasing age by decade of life among S. aureus, MRSA, and CoNS (P≤0.038). Over the eight-year study period, there were small yet significant decreases in resistance rates among S. aureus to azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, tobramycin, trimethoprim, and oxacillin (P≤0.003), and among CoNS and P. aeruginosa (both P<0.05) to ciprofloxacin. These data indicate that antibiotic resistance is high, but did not increase, among conjunctival-sourced isolates collected in the US from 2009 through 2016. For certain antibiotic/pathogen combinations, there was a trend of decreased resistance, including a decrease in oxacillin resistance among S. aureus.

Toxic epidermal necrolysis: the red eye and red herrings in casualty

A 38-year-old woman presented to casualty with bilateral red eyes associated with a recent upper respiratory tract infection. This was initially diagnosed as conjunctivitis, however systemic review revealed an erythematous facial and skin rash, mildly swollen lips and mild swallowing difficulties. The patient was referred for an urgent medical assessment, by which time she was found to have erythema affecting 54% of her body surface area and diagnosed with suspected toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). She rapidly deteriorated over 24 hours with a spreading blistering skin rash and airway compromise requiring urgent intubation and admission to the intensive treatment unit (ITU). Subsequent skin biopsies confirmed the diagnosis of TEN, attributed to recent use of ibuprofen. Treatment included broad-spectrum antibiotics and high-dose corticosteroids. The patient had a prolonged hospital stay and developed severe scarring of the ocular surface. She was discharged home and remains under continuing outpatient follow-up with ophthalmology and dermatology teams.

A Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2018 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Society for Microbiology

The critical nature of the microbiology laboratory in infectious disease diagnosis calls for a close, positive working relationship between the physician/advanced practice provider and the microbiologists who provide enormous value to the healthcare team. This document, developed by experts in laboratory and adult and pediatric clinical medicine, provides information on which tests are valuable and in which contexts, and on tests that add little or no value for diagnostic decisions. This document presents a system-based approach rather than specimen-based approach, and includes bloodstream and cardiovascular system infections, central nervous system infections, ocular infections, soft tissue infections of the head and neck, upper and lower respiratory infections, infections of the gastrointestinal tract, intra-abdominal infections, bone and joint infections, urinary tract infections, genital infections, and other skin and soft tissue infections; or into etiologic agent groups, including arthropod-borne infections, viral syndromes, and blood and tissue parasite infections. Each section contains introductory concepts, a summary of key points, and detailed tables that list suspected agents; the most reliable tests to order; the samples (and volumes) to collect in order of preference; specimen transport devices, procedures, times, and temperatures; and detailed notes on specific issues regarding the test methods, such as when tests are likely to require a specialized laboratory or have prolonged turnaround times. In addition, the pediatric needs of specimen management are also emphasized. There is intentional redundancy among the tables and sections, as many agents and assay choices overlap. The document is intended to serve as a guidance for physicians in choosing tests that will aid them to quickly and accurately diagnose infectious diseases in their patients.

Treating pediatric conjunctivitis without an exam: An evaluation of outcomes and antibiotic usage

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research paper is to compare antibiotic treatment, follow-up rates, and types of follow-up encounters among eVisits, phone calls, and in-person encounters for pediatric conjunctivitis.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients evaluated for conjunctivitis between May 1, 2016 and May 1, 2017, was performed. A total of 101 eVisits, 202 in-person retail clinic visits, and 202 nurse phone calls for conjunctivitis were manually reviewed for outcomes. Exclusion criteria included previous encounter for conjunctivitis in the past 14 days, treatment with an oral antibiotic at the initial encounter, or patient outside Minnesota at the time of encounter. Comparison among the three encounter types with regard to follow-up rates, follow-up encounter type within 14 days of initial evaluation, and prescribing rates was performed.

RESULTS

Patients completing non-face-to-face encounters were significantly more likely to have follow-up care (34.6% and 45.5%) than those who had a face-to-face visit at the retail clinic (7.4%), p ≤ 0.0001. Patients initially evaluated by eVisit were more likely to have follow-up at the retail clinic while patients initially evaluated by phone call were more likely to have follow-up in their primary care office. Treatment rates with antibiotics were significantly higher in phone call encounters (41.6%) than in eVisits (25.7%) or face-to-face encounters (19.8%), p < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-face-to-face visits have significantly higher rates of follow-up when compared to face-to-face encounters. Antibiotic prescribing is greater with phone call triage encounters; however, there was no significant difference in antibiotic prescribing rates between eVisits and face-to-face visits. Follow-up type varied according to site of initial encounter.

Clinical and Microbiological Efficacy of Levofloxacin Administered three Times a Day for the Treatment of Bacterial Conjunctivitis

Purpose

This randomized, investigator-masked study aimed to compare the clinical and microbiological effectiveness of three times daily administration of levofloxacin 0.5% eyedrops with the classic, more frequent dosing in patients with bacterial conjunctivitis.

Methods

A total of 120 patients with symptoms of bacterial conjunctivitis were enrolled. The patients were randomly assigned to receive 0.5% levofloxacin eyedrops three times daily to each eye for 5 days (experimental dosage group), or every 2 hours on days 1 and 2, and then every 4 hours on days 3–5 (up to four times per day) (classic dosage group). Ocular symptoms and signs were assessed on day 1, days 3 to 4, and 7 ± 1 visits. Conjunctival cultures were obtained at baseline and final visits. Clinical outcomes were based on resolution of cardinal signs. Microbial outcomes were based on culture results.

Results

Eighty-six patients (41 experimental dosage, 45 classic dosage) were evaluated. There was no difference between the groups in frequency of patients with clinical outcome resolved (85.4% in experimental vs 93.3% in classic dosage group, p=0.3). The microbial eradication rates did not differ statistically between the groups (92.7% vs 95.6%, respectively, p=0.67).

Conclusions

There was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy or safety between the two methods of drug administration. Analysis of the results of compliance supported our conclusion that the less frequent method of dosing of 0.5% levofloxacin eyedrops was more convenient for patients and resulted in better adherence to the drug-dosing scheme

Delayed antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections

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.

Paediatric Virology: A rapidly increasing educational challenge

The '2nd Workshop on Paediatric Virology', which took place on Saturday the 8th of October 2016 in Athens, Greece, provided an overview on recent views and advances on Paediatric Virology. Emphasis was given to HIV-1 management in Greece, a country under continuous financial crisis, hepatitis B vaccination in Africa, treatment options for hepatitis C virus in childhood, Zika virus in pregnancy and infancy, the burden of influenza on childhood, hand-foot-mouth disease and myocarditis associated with Coxsackie viruses. Other general topics covered included a critical evaluation of Paediatric Accident and Emergency viral infections, multimodality imaging of viral infections in children, surgical approaches of otolaryngologists to complex viral infections, new advances in the diagnosis and treatment of viral conjunctivitis and novel molecular diagnostic methods for HPV in childhood. A brief historical overview of the anti-vaccination movement was also provided, as well as presentations on the educational challenge of Paediatric Virology as a new subspecialty of Paediatrics. This review highlights selected lectures and discussions of the workshop.

Written information for patients (or parents of child patients) to reduce the use of antibiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections in primary care

BACKGROUND

Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are frequently managed in primary care settings. Although many are viral, and there is an increasing problem with antibiotic resistance, antibiotics continue to be prescribed for URTIs. Written patient information may be a simple way to reduce antibiotic use for acute URTIs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess if written information for patients (or parents of child patients) reduces the use of antibiotics for acute URTIs in primary care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, clinical trials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials registry up to July 2016 without language or publication restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients (or parents of child patients) with acute URTIs, that compared written patient information delivered immediately before or during prescribing, with no information. RCTs needed to have measured our primary outcome (antibiotic use) to be included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. We could not meta-analyse included studies due to significant methodological and statistical heterogeneity; we summarised the data narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs met our inclusion criteria, involving a total of 827 participants. Both studies only recruited children with acute URTIs (adults were not involved in either study): 558 children from 61 general practices in England and Wales; and 269 primary care doctors who provided data on 33,792 patient-doctor consultations in Kentucky, USA. The UK study had a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and the US cluster-randomised study had a high risk of bias because the methods to allocate participants to treatment groups was not clear, and there was evidence of baseline imbalance.In both studies, clinicians provided written information to parents of child patients during primary care consultations: one trained general practitioners (GPs) to discuss an eight-page booklet with parents; the other conducted a factorial trial with two comparison groups (written information compared to usual care and written information plus prescribing feedback to clinicians compared to prescribing feedback alone). Doctors in the written information arms received 25 copies of two-page government-sponsored pamphlets to distribute to parents.Compared to usual care, we found moderate quality evidence (one study) that written information significantly reduced the number of antibiotics used by patients (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.80; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 20% (22% versus 42%)) and had no significant effect on reconsultation rates (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.32), or parent satisfaction with consultation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03). Low quality evidence (two studies) demonstrated that written information also reduced antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; ARR 21% (20% versus 41%); and RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.86; 9% ARR (45% versus 54%)). Neither study measured resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or complications for this comparison.Compared to prescribing feedback, we found low quality evidence that written information plus prescribing feedback significantly increased the number of antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.17; absolute risk increase 6% (50% versus 44%)). Neither study measured reconsultation rate, resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, patient satisfaction with consultation or complications for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, moderate quality evidence from one study showed that trained GPs providing written information to parents of children with acute URTIs in primary care can reduce the number of antibiotics used by patients without any negative impact on reconsultation rates or parental satisfaction with consultation. Low quality evidence from two studies shows that, compared to usual care, GPs prescribe fewer antibiotics for acute URTIs but prescribe more antibiotics when written information is provided alongside prescribing feedback (compared to prescribing feedback alone). There was no evidence addressing resolution of patients' symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or frequency of complications.To fill evidence gaps, future studies should consider testing written information on antibiotic use for adults with acute URTIs in high- and low-income settings provided without clinician training and presented in different formats (such as electronic). Future study designs should endeavour to ensure blinded outcome assessors. Study aims should include measurement of the effect of written information on the number of antibiotics used by patients and prescribed by clinicians, patient satisfaction, reconsultation, patients' knowledge about antibiotics, resolution of symptoms, and complications.

[Patient information before bladder wall injection of botulinum toxin A (Botox®): Which essential items? Results of Delphi consensus from GENULF experts]

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative information before bladder wall injection of botulinum toxin A (Botox^®) holds several essential facts to understand and retain by the patients. The aim of this study was a review of essential preoperative information items according to GENULF medical experts.

METHOD

It was a prospective review from December 2015 to April 2016. Three Delphi rounds had been done from the Survey Monkey^® software. The initial questionnaire was composed of items from the patient information sheet edited by the GENULF. Each item had been rated by the medical expert on a numeric scale of importance for patient information. The last round asked to experts to confirm items eventually selected.

RESULTS

A list of 27 items regarded as essentials for patient information had been checked by experts after three Delphi rounds, confirmed by 15/19 experts (75%). Best rated items were "learning self-catheterisation is essential" (mean interest 8,5/9 ; number of rate 8 or 9: 15), "kidney are protected over the long term" (mean interest 8,3/9 ; number of rate 8 or 9: 15), "efficiency is 6 to 9 months long" (mean interest 8,2/9 ; number of rate 8 or 9: 14). Discrepancies were mostly on lack of distinction between neurologic and non-neurologic patients.

CONCLUSION

We identified accurate items considered as essential for preoperative information to patients before bladder wall injection of botulinum toxin A (Botox^®) by a Delphi method recommended by HAS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Delayed/back up antibiotic prescriptions: what do the public think?

OBJECTIVE

To describe the general public's understanding, acceptance and use of delayed antibiotics.

DESIGN

Face to face computer-assisted survey using an Ipsos MORI Capibus survey.

SETTING

Randomly selected households in England using multistage sampling.

RESPONDENTS

A representative sample of 1625 adults aged over 15 years and recruited from household visits in England, using age and gender quotas for each area.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The survey was undertaken in January 2014. Weights based on gender, age, ethnicity, working status, social grade, housing tenure and Government Office Region corrected for selection biases, so that results are broadly representative of the population.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Proportion of respondents; understanding the meaning of the term delayed antibiotic prescription and how the strategy is used in general practice; in favour of, or opposed to clinicians offering them a delayed antibiotic; reporting receipt, use and acceptability of delayed antibiotic prescriptions in the past year.

RESULTS

17% reported fully understanding the meaning of delayed antibiotic prescription and strategy use in general practice;72% were unaware of the term or strategy; 36-39% were in favour of, and 28-30% opposed to clinicians offering them a delayed antibiotic for throat, urine, ear or chest infections. Half of those who were fully aware of the term and practice were in favour of delayed antibiotics. Women, and older respondents, were more strongly opposed to delayed prescribing. Only 4% of all respondents, and 15% of those prescribed an antibiotic, reported being offered a delayed antibiotic in the last year.

CONCLUSIONS

Wider understanding and acceptance of delayed prescribing may facilitate increased uptake. Further research is needed to determine why groups are so strongly in favour or opposed to delayed prescribing.

Patient information leaflets to reduce antibiotic use and reconsultation rates in general practice: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Patients' knowledge and expectations may influence prescription of antibiotics. Therefore, providing evidence-based information on cause of symptoms, self-management and treatment is essential. However, providing information during consultations is challenging. Patient information leaflets could facilitate consultations by increasing patients' knowledge, decrease unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics and decrease reconsultations for similar illnesses. Our objective was to systematically review effectiveness of information leaflets used for informing patients about common infections during consultations in general practice.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating information leaflets on common infections in general practice. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed article quality.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Antibiotic use and reconsultation rates.

RESULTS

Of 2512 unique records, eight studies were eligible (7 randomised, controlled trials, 1 non-randomised study) accounting for 3407 patients. Study quality varied from reasonable to good. Five studies investigated effects of leaflets during consultations for respiratory tract infections; one concerned conjunctivitis, one urinary tract infections and one gastroenteritis and tonsillitis. Three of four studies presented data on antibiotic use and showed significant reductions of prescriptions in leaflet groups with a relative risk (RR) varying from 0.53 (0.40 to 0.69) to 0.96 (0.83 to 1.11). Effects on reconsultation varied widely. One large study showed lower reconsultation rates (RR 0.70 (0.53 to 0.91), two studies showed no effect, and one study showed increased reconsultation rates (RR 1.53 (1.03 to 2.27)). Studies were too heterogenic to perform a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient information leaflets during general practitioners consultations for common infections are promising tools to reduce antibiotic prescriptions. Results on reconsultation rates for similar symptoms vary, with a tendency toward fewer reconsultations when patients are provided with a leaflet. Use of information leaflets in cases of common infections should be encouraged. Their contributing role in multifaceted interventions targeting management of common infections in primary care needs to further exploration.

Acute conjunctivitis

Eye problems account for 1.5% of GP consultations in the UK, with a rate of 50 consultations per 1000 population per year. This equates to a yearly cost of 22 billion to the UK’s economy. It has been shown that 50% of sight loss could be avoided through improved eye care services and early detection of problems. To highlight this point, eye health has been chosen by the RCGP as a clinical priority between 2013 and 2016, with a particular focus on the elderly population and sight loss. Data obtained from GPs has revealed that 10–15% of the eye conditions that present to primary care involve the conjunctiva. Conjunctivitis is a particularly beneficial area about which to be knowledgeable, as it is one of the most common non-traumatic eye complaints and in many cases it is straightforward and self-limiting. This article aims to address what constitutes conjunctivitis, the different types, the clinical findings, and management including when to involve specialist services. It will also look at the differential diagnoses of the presenting symptom of the acute red eye.

A guide to utilization of the microbiology laboratory for diagnosis of infectious diseases: 2013 recommendations by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM)(a)

The critical role of the microbiology laboratory in infectious disease diagnosis calls for a close, positive working relationship between the physician and the microbiologists who provide enormous value to the health care team. This document, developed by both laboratory and clinical experts, provides information on which tests are valuable and in which contexts, and on tests that add little or no value for diagnostic decisions. Sections are divided into anatomic systems, including Bloodstream Infections and Infections of the Cardiovascular System, Central Nervous System Infections, Ocular Infections, Soft Tissue Infections of the Head and Neck, Upper Respiratory Infections, Lower Respiratory Tract infections, Infections of the Gastrointestinal Tract, Intraabdominal Infections, Bone and Joint Infections, Urinary Tract Infections, Genital Infections, and Skin and Soft Tissue Infections; or into etiologic agent groups, including Tickborne Infections, Viral Syndromes, and Blood and Tissue Parasite Infections. Each section contains introductory concepts, a summary of key points, and detailed tables that list suspected agents; the most reliable tests to order; the samples (and volumes) to collect in order of preference; specimen transport devices, procedures, times, and temperatures; and detailed notes on specific issues regarding the test methods, such as when tests are likely to require a specialized laboratory or have prolonged turnaround times. There is redundancy among the tables and sections, as many agents and assay choices overlap. The document is intended to serve as a reference to guide physicians in choosing tests that will aid them to diagnose infectious diseases in their patients.

Delayed antibiotics for respiratory infections

BACKGROUND

Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost and antibacterial resistance. One strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing is to provide prescriptions but to advise delay in the hope symptoms will resolve first. This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2007 and updated in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the use of delayed antibiotics compared to immediate or no antibiotics as a prescribing strategy for ARTIs. We evaluated clinical outcomes including duration and severity measures for pain, malaise, fever, cough and rhinorrhoea in sore throat, acute otitis media, bronchitis (cough) and the common cold. We also evaluated the outcomes of antibiotic use, patient satisfaction, antibiotic resistance and re-consultation rates and use of alternative therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialised Register; Ovid MEDLINE (January 1966 to February Week 3 2013); Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (28 February 2013); EMBASE (1990 to 2013 Week 08); Science Citation Index - Web of Science (2007 to May 2012) and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 28 February 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving participants of all ages defined as having an ARTI, where delayed antibiotics were compared to antibiotics used immediately or no antibiotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted and collected data. Important adverse effects, including adverse effects of antibiotics and complications of disease, were included as secondary outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information where available.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies, with a total of 3157 participants, were included in this review. Heterogeneity of the 10 included studies and their results generally precluded meta-analysis with patient satisfaction being an exception.There was no difference between delayed, immediate and no prescribed antibiotics for the clinical outcomes evaluated in cough and common cold. In patients with acute otitis media (AOM) and sore throat immediate antibiotics were more effective than delayed for fever, pain and malaise in some studies. There were only minor differences in adverse effects with no significant difference in complication rates.Delayed antibiotics resulted in a significant reduction in antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics. A strategy of no antibiotics resulted in least antibiotic use.Patient satisfaction favoured immediate antibiotics over delayed (odds ratio (OR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.76). Delayed and no antibiotics had similar satisfaction rates with both strategies achieving over 80% satisfaction (OR 1.44; 95% CI 0.99 to 2.10).There was no difference in re-consultation rates for immediate and delayed groups.None of the included studies evaluated antibiotic resistance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most clinical outcomes show no difference between strategies. Delay slightly reduces patient satisfaction compared to immediate antibiotics (87% versus 92%) but not compared to none (87% versus 83%). In patients with respiratory infections where clinicians feel it is safe not to prescribe antibiotics immediately, 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.

An investigation of prescription and over-the-counter supply of ophthalmic chloramphenicol in Wales in the 5 years following reclassification

Objectives

The aims of the study were to (i) quantify the sales of over-the-counter (OTC) ophthalmic chloramphenicol from all community pharmacies in Wales and investigate the impact on primary care prescriptions up to 5 years after reclassification and (ii) investigate the temporal relationship between items supplied OTC and on NHS primary care prescriptions.

Methods

Primary care prescription data (2004–2010) and OTC sales data (2005–2010) for ophthalmic chloramphenicol were obtained. The quantity sold OTC was calculated from pharmacy wholesale records and sales data from a large pharmacy multiple. Spearman’s rank correlation for prescription and OTC supplies of ophthalmic chloramphenicol was calculated for data from January 2008 to December 2010.

Key findings

OTC supply of chloramphenicol eye drops and ointment were both highest in 2007–2008 and represented 68% (57 708/84 304) and 48% (22 875/47 192) of the corresponding prescription volume, respectively. There was a steady year-on-year increase in the combined supply of OTC ophthalmic chloramphenicol and that dispensed on prescription from 144 367 items in 2004–2005 to 210 589 in 2007–2008 before stabilising in 2008–2009 and 2009–2010. A significant positive correlation was observed between prescription items and OTC sales of chloramphenicol eye drops and ointment combined (r = 0.7, P &lt; 0.001).

Conclusion

OTC availability increased the total quantity of ophthalmic chloramphenicol supplied in primary care compared to that seen prior to reclassification. Although growth in the sales of ophthalmic chloramphenicol OTC has stabilised and the supply pattern mirrors primary care prescribers, further work is required to investigate whether use is appropriate and whether the publication of updated practice guidance has changed this.

Antibiotics versus placebo for acute bacterial conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Acute bacterial conjunctivitis is an infection of the conjunctiva. Both the palpebral and the bulbar ocular conjunctival surfaces are usually affected and typically become red and inflamed. Antibiotic therapy is widely used for the treatment of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. This Cochrane Review was first published in The Cochrane Library in 1999; updated in 2006 and again in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of antibiotic therapy in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (January 1950 to July 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2012), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 18 July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included double-masked randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which any form of antibiotic treatment had been compared with placebo/vehicle in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. This included topical, systemic and combination (for example, antibiotics and steroids) antibiotic treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (UN and SM) independently checked and reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies. We assessed the full text of all potentially relevant studies. We graded the included RCTs for methodological quality using Cochrane methodology. We performed data extraction in a standardised manner. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using RevMan.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 eligible RCTs which randomised a total of 3673 participants. One further trial, which was published in abstract form in 1990 but has yet to be reported fully, is currently 'awaiting assessment'. Six of the 11 included studies have been included for the first time in this latest (2012) update. The trials were heterogeneous in terms of their inclusion and exclusion criteria, the nature of the intervention, and the outcome measures assessed. We judged two of the trials to be of high quality and graded the remainder as poor quality.Meta-analyses of data on clinical and microbiological remission rates revealed that topical antibiotics were of benefit in improving 'early' (days two to five) clinical (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.61) and microbiological (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.76) remission rates. At the 'late' time point (days six to 10), antibiotics were found to still confer modest benefits in clinical remission (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.33) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.52). By days six to 10, 41% (95% CI 38 to 43) of cases had resolved in those receiving placebo. We found no data on the cost-effectiveness of antibiotics. No serious outcomes were reported in either the active or placebo arms of these trials, suggesting that important sight-threatening complications are an infrequent occurrence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although acute bacterial conjunctivitis is frequently self limiting, the findings from this updated systematic review suggest that the use of antibiotic eye drops is associated with modestly improved rates of clinical and microbiological remission in comparison to the use of placebo. Use of antibiotic eye drops should therefore be considered in order to speed the resolution of symptoms and infection.

Pasteurella canis and Granulicatella adiacens conjunctivitis outbreak resistant to empirical treatment in a child welfare agency

PURPOSE

To investigate pathogens associated with bacterial conjunctivitis resistant to the empirical treatment and their antibiotic resistance in a child welfare agency.

METHODS

Twenty-eight eyes in 14 children with a median age of 3 months with conjunctivitis resistant to the empirical treatment were included in this study. Samples were taken three times from the inferior fornix in both eyes using cotton swabs, cultured onto chocolate and blood agar, and prepared for Gram staining. Antibiograms were evaluated according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute criteria by disc diffusion method.

RESULTS

The conjunctival culture positivity rate was 35.7% in eyes with conjunctivitis resistant to the empirical treatment. The most common isolated bacteria were Pasteurella canis (25%), penicillin-nonsusceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae (7.1%), and Granulicatella adiacens (3.6%). According to culture results, ophthalmic solutions of vancomycin (50 mg/mL) or gentamicin (30 mg/mL) were applied in eyes with positive conjunctival culture. Previously applied multiple treatments were stopped in eyes with negative conjunctival culture. All eyes improved clinically during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Because unusual pathogens may cause a conjunctivitis outbreak, physicians should not insist on empirical treatment. Taking conjunctival culture and antibiotic switching according to antibiogram may be helpful.

Bacterial conjunctivitis

INTRODUCTION

Most cases of conjunctivitis in adults are probably due to viral infection, but children are more likely to develop bacterial conjunctivitis than they are viral forms. The main bacterial pathogens are Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae in adults and children, and Moraxella catarrhalis in children. Contact lens wearers may be more likely to develop gram-negative infections. Bacterial keratitis occurs in up to 30 per 100,000 contact lens wearers.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of empirical treatment in adults and children with suspected bacterial conjunctivitis? What are the effects of treatment in adults and children with bacteriologically confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis? What are the effects of treatment in adults and children with clinically confirmed gonococcal conjunctivitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 44 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: ocular decongestants, oral antibiotics, parenteral antibiotics, saline, topical antibiotics, and warm compresses.

Acute infective conjunctivitis in primary care: who needs antibiotics? An individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute infective conjunctivitis is a common problem in primary care, traditionally managed with topical antibiotics. A number of clinical trials have questioned the benefit of topical antibiotics for patients with acute infective conjunctivitis.

AIM

To determine the benefit of antibiotics for the treatment of acute infective conjunctivitis in primary care and which subgroups benefit most.

DESIGN

An individual patient data meta-analysis.

METHOD

Relevant trials were identified and individual patient data gathered for meta-analysis and subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

Three eligible trials were identified. Individual patient data were available from all primary care trials and data were available for analysis in 622 patients. Eighty per cent (246/308) of patients who received antibiotics and 74% (233/314) of controls were cured at day 7. There was a significant benefit of antibiotics versus control for cure at seven days in all cases combined (risk difference 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.01 to 0.14). Subgroups that showed a significant benefit from antibiotics were patients with purulent discharge (risk difference 0.09, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.17) and patients with mild severity of red eye (risk difference 0.10, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.18), while the type of control used (placebo drops versus nothing) showed a statistically significant interaction (P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Acute conjunctivitis seen in primary care can be thought of as a self-limiting condition, with most patients getting better regardless of antibiotic therapy. Patients with purulent discharge or a mild severity of red eye may have a small benefit from antibiotics. Prescribing practices need to be updated, taking into account these results.

Clinical use of gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution for treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis

Bacterial conjunctivitis is a common infectious disease of the eye, characterized by conjunctival hyperemia, eyelid edema, and purulent discharge. Although the prevalence and incidence are not well reported, bacterial conjunctivitis represents one of the most frequent causes of patient visits to both primary care physicians and ophthalmologists. Most cases of nongonococcal and nonchlamydial bacterial conjunctivitis are self-limiting and may resolve without intervention. There is a place for treatment, however, which allows for a shorter time to clinical and microbiological resolution which may decrease the mild morbidity, decrease health care costs of visits and potential complications, return patients back to school or the work force, and limit the potential spread of this communicable infection. Gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution is a broad spectrum 8-methoxyfluroroquinolone bactericidal antibiotic, with good activity against Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus species, and Gram-negative pathogens. It also has a relatively good resistance profile, making it a more than adequate choice in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis when therapy is warranted.

Practices, patients and (im)perfect data--feasibility of a randomised controlled clinical drug trial in German general practices

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled clinical (drug) trials supply high quality evidence for therapeutic strategies in primary care. Until now, experience with drug trials in German general practice has been sparse. In 2007/2008, the authors conducted an investigator-initiated, non-commercial, double-blind, randomised controlled pilot trial (HWI-01) to assess the clinical equivalence of ibuprofen and ciprofloxacin in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI). Here, we report the feasibility of this trial in German general practices and the implementation of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) standards as defined by the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) in mainly inexperienced general practices.

METHODS

This report is based on the experience of the HWI-01 study conducted in 29 German general practices. Feasibility was defined by 1) successful practice recruitment, 2) sufficient patient recruitment, 3) complete and accurate data collection and 4) appropriate protection of patient safety.

RESULTS

The final practice recruitment rate was 18%. In these practices, 79 of 195 screened UTI patients were enrolled. Recruitment differed strongly between practices (range 0-12, mean 2.8 patients per practice) and was below the recruitment goal of approximately 100 patients. As anticipated, practice nurses became the key figures in the screening und recruitment of patients. Clinical trial demands, in particular for completing symptom questionnaires, documentation of source data and reporting of adverse events, did not agree well with GPs' documentation habits and required support from study nurses. In many cases, GPs and practice staff seemed to be overwhelmed by the amount of information and regulations. No sudden unexpected serious adverse reactions (SUSARs) were observed during the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

To enable drug trials in general practice, it is necessary to adapt the setup of clinical research infrastructure to the needs of GPs and their practice staff. Risk adaption of clinical trial regulations is necessary to facilitate non-commercial comparative effectiveness trials in primary health care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN00470468.

Bacterial conjunctivitis

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the best treatment for bacterial conjunctivitis?

RESULTS

Topical antibiotics expedite recovery from bacterial conjunctivitis. The choice of antibiotic usually does not affect outcome.

IMPLEMENTATION

Recognition of key distinguishing features of bacterial conjunctivitis Pitfalls that can be recognized in the history and physical examinationChoice of antibioticWhen to refer for specialist treatment.

Relative impact of clinical evidence and over-the-counter prescribing on topical antibiotic use for acute infective conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Acute infective conjunctivitis is a common presentation in general practice. In 2005, three placebo-controlled clinical trials showed that use of topical antibiotics had a small effect on time to clinical resolution. In the same year, chloramphenicol eye drops were made available for sale over the counter.

AIM

To compare the relative impact of clinical trial evidence and a change to over-the-counter availability on community use of topical chloramphenicol.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Observational study using mainly routinely collected data for England.

SETTING

National prescribing data for England and local data from general practices in Oxfordshire, England.

METHOD

Data were collated from three sources: GP prescriptions from the Prescription Pricing Authority, wholesale supply to pharmacists from IMS Health, and an audit of delayed prescribing and non-prescribing from electronic consultation records for acute conjunctivitis, in four general practices.

RESULTS

The number of general practice prescriptions for topical chloramphenicol fell from 2.3 million in 2004 to 1.9 million in 2007, a reduction of 15.5%. In contrast, over-the-counter sales by pharmacists have increased steadily. The net effect of these changes has been a 47.8% increase in total chloramphenicol use during 2005-2007, with 1.1 million additional packs being used in 2007 compared to 2004.

CONCLUSION

Making an antibiotic available over the counter increases its use substantially. This is in conflict with the important public health message that antibiotic use needs to be reduced to combat resistance. These findings support the views of the Chief Medical Officer that no more antibiotics should currently be made available over the counter.

Effectiveness, tolerability and safety of azithromycin 1% in DuraSite for acute bacterial conjunctivitis

PURPOSE

Bacterial eye infections are commonly treated with topical antibiotics, despite limited evidence of effectiveness. Azithromycin 1% in DuraSite((R)) is a new formulation of azithromycin in a gel polymer designed for use in acute bacterial conjunctivitis.

METHODS

We conducted systematic searches of the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials, PubMed and Google Scholar to find randomized controlled trials of "azithromycin DuraSite((R))". These searches of published literature were supplemented with searches for unpublished trials and trials in progress.

RESULTS

We found six reports of randomized controlled trials investigating the role of azithromycin 1% in DuraSite((R)) for the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. The quality of these trials was judged to be moderate to high. These trials assessed effectiveness, tolerability and safety outcomes, but we found no trials looking at cost-effectiveness. DuraSite((R)) is a relatively stable formulation and so azithromycin 1% in DuraSite((R)) has a simpler dosing schedule than other available topical antibiotics. It appears to be similar to other topical antibiotics in its effectiveness, but minor side effects are quite common.

CONCLUSION

Acute bacterial conjunctivitis is a relatively mild, typically self-limiting, infection. Antibiotics should seldom be required. If, however, a decision to prescribe antibiotics is made, azithromycin 1% in DuraSite((R)) is likely to be broadly comparable in its effectiveness to most other antibiotics used to treat acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Further research is needed to determine its cost-effectiveness.

Bacterial conjunctivitis

INTRODUCTION

Most cases of conjunctivitis in adults are probably due to viral infection, but children are more likely to develop bacterial conjunctivitis than they are viral forms. The main bacterial pathogens are Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae in adults and children, and Moraxella catarrhalis in children. Contact lens wearers may be more likely to develop gram-negative infections. Bacterial keratitis occurs in up to 30 per 100,000 contact lens wearers.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of empirical treatment in adults and children with suspected bacterial conjunctivitis? What are the effects of treatment in adults and children with bacteriologically confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis? What are the effects of treatment in adults and children with clinically confirmed gonococcal conjunctivitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 40 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: ocular decongestants; oral antibiotics; parenteral antibiotics; saline; topical antibiotics; and warm compresses.

Evidence-based treatment of acute infective conjunctivitis: Breaking the cycle of antibiotic prescribing

OBJECTIVE

To discover the best treatments for acute infective conjunctivitis and to discern whether antibiotics are necessary for the resolution of bacterial conjunctivitis in particular.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched. Findings were limited to full-text articles from core clinical journals in the English language, and are based on level I or level II evidence. Clinical Evidence was also searched, from which moderate-quality results have been cited.

MAIN MESSAGE

Infective conjunctivitis should be managed conservatively, with antibiotics prescribed either after a delayed period if symptoms do not improve within 3 days of onset, or not at all. This approach helps to prevent the medicalization of the condition (reducing consultations for future occurrences) and discourages the unnecessary use of antibiotics, which might delay diagnosis of other serious red eye conditions. Physicians and patients should be educated on the self-limiting nature of the condition to increase compliance with conservative treatment and change the management expectations of parents and schools.

CONCLUSION

Acute infective conjunctivitis is the most common ocular complaint dealt with in family practice; its viral and bacterial etiologies are difficult to distinguish on clinical grounds alone. Evidence suggests that properly educating patients with written information materials is the most effective way to manage this simple ailment and increase patient satisfaction.

Diagnosis of conjunctivitis in primary care: comparison of two different culture procedures

BACKGROUND

In general practice, infectious conjunctivitis is a common and mostly (64%) self-limiting disorder. In case of an aberrant course or severe symptoms, a general practitioner may take a culture. Direct inoculation is considered the reference standard, but usually a swab is sent to a laboratory.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic performance of the swab, transported by surface mail with direct inoculation.

METHODS

19 general practitioners took two samples of the conjunctiva from 88 patients with symptoms suggestive of infectious conjunctivitis by rolling a cotton swab across the conjunctiva of the lower fornix. One swab was used to inoculate three agar plates directly, while the other was sent in a Stuart medium to the laboratory and inoculated at the time of arrival. The numbers of positive cultures of both methods were compared.

RESULTS

A pathogen was found in 31 of 88 samples (35% (95% CI 26 to 46)). Surprisingly, the number of positive cultures was higher for the Stuart medium (27/88) than for direct inoculation (23/88). The difference was 4.5% (90% CI 0 to 12, p = 0.388; one-sided McNemar test for paired proportions). In five of the 19 samples that were positive in both tests, the cultured pathogens were different.

CONCLUSIONS

The Stuart medium detected more bacteria than direct inoculation. The lower 90% CI, testing non-inferiority at p = 0.05, indicates that it is unlikely that the Stuart medium misses any positive cultures compared with direct inoculation.

Microbiological efficacy of 3-day treatment with azithromycin 1.5% eye-drops for purulent bacterial conjunctivitis

PURPOSE

Antibacterial efficacy of topically applied azithromycin 1.5% was compared with tobramycin 0.3% in a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked study for the treatment of purulent bacterial conjunctivitis.

METHODS

A total of 1043 adults and children received either azithromycin twice daily for 3 days (n=524) or tobramycin every 2 hours while awake for 2 days, then four times daily for 5 days (n=519). Conjunctival swabbing was taken at days 0, 3, and 9, using alginate swabs resuspended in a dissolution-transport medium, providing rapid and reproducible results. Cagle's criteria were used to define the pathogenicity level for each isolated bacterium.

RESULTS

In the per-protocol set, the rate of bacteriologic resolution was 85.2% for azithromycin versus 83.8% for tobramycin on day 3, and 92.8% for azithromycin versus 94.6% for tobramycin on day 9. Azithromycin was demonstrated to be noninferior to tobramycin according to the 10% noninferiority margin. Although some bacteria were categorized as resistant to tested antibiotics, eradication was observed (for azithromycin: Acinetobacter, Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas), highlighting the specific pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of the ocular route.

CONCLUSIONS

In total, topical therapy with azithromycin 1.5% administered only twice daily for 3 days effectively eradicates most pathogenic bacteria associated with bacterial conjunctivitis. These microbiologic results are in accordance with the observed clinical outcome. This new anti-infective product has the advantage of a short treatment course which could lead to an improvement in patient compliance.

A multicenter comparison of polymyxin B sulfate/trimethoprim ophthalmic solution and moxifloxacin in the speed of clinical efficacy for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis

PURPOSE

To compare the speed of clinical efficacy for two currently available topical antibiotics: polymyxin B sulfate/trimethoprim (polymyxin/trimethoprim) and 0.5% moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution.

METHODS

Eighty-four eyes of 56 patients younger than 18 years with a clinical diagnosis of bacterial conjunctivitis were enrolled in this multicenter study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1 drop of polymyxin/trimethoprim four times daily for 7 days or 1 drop of 0.5% moxifloxacin three times daily for 7 days. Ocular signs and symptoms were evaluated at baseline and 24 and 48 hours after the start of dosing. Microbiological cultures were collected at baseline and 48 hours. Patients rated ocular symptoms and adverse events on day 7 via telephone interview. Primary efficacy assessment included relief of all signs and symptoms of bacterial conjunctivitis.

RESULTS

All patients but one completed all visits. At the 48-hour visit, complete resolution of ocular signs and symptoms was observed in 81% of the patients treated with moxifloxacin and 44% of the patients treated with polymyxin/trimethoprim (P = .001). No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Moxifloxacin 0.5% administered three times daily is safe and cures bacterial conjunctivitis more effectively and significantly faster than polymyxin/trimethoprim dosed four times daily. The majority of patients were cured and symptom-free by 48 hours. Therefore, moxifloxacin is cost-effective and significantly more efficacious than polymyxin/trimethoprim in the speed by which it reduces the symptoms and disease transmission.