Search

Evidence is limited regarding whether periodontal treatment improves hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) among people with prediabetes and periodontal disease, and it is unknown whether improvement of metabolic status persists >3 mo. In an exploratory post hoc analysis of the multicenter randomized controlled trial "Antibiotika und Parodontitis" (Antibiotics and Periodontitis)-a prospective, stratified, double-blind study-we assessed whether nonsurgical periodontal treatment with or without an adjunctive systemic antibiotic treatment affects HbA1c and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels among periodontitis patients with normal HbA1c (≤5.7%, n = 218), prediabetes (5.7% < HbA1c < 6.5%, n = 101), or unknown diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, n = 8) over a period of 27.5 mo. Nonsurgical periodontal treatment reduced mean pocket probing depth by >1 mm in both groups. In the normal HbA1c group, HbA1c values remained unchanged at 5.0% (95% CI, 4.9% to 6.1%) during the observation period. Among periodontitis patients with prediabetes, HbA1c decreased from 5.9% (95% CI, 5.9% to 6.0%) to 5.4% (95% CI, 5.3% to 5.5%) at 15.5 mo and increased to 5.6% (95% CI, 5.4% to 5.7%) after 27.5 mo. At 27.5 mo, 46% of periodontitis patients with prediabetes had normal HbA1c levels, whereas 47.9% remained unchanged and 6.3% progressed to diabetes. Median hsCRP values were reduced in the normal HbA1c and prediabetes groups from 1.2 and 1.4 mg/L to 0.7 and 0.7 mg/L, respectively. Nonsurgical periodontal treatment may improve blood glucose values among periodontitis patients with prediabetes (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00707369). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this study was to systematically review quantitative and qualitative studies on the public's knowledge and beliefs about antibiotic resistance.Methods: We searched four databases to July 2014, with no language or study design restrictions. Two reviewers independently extracted data. We calculated the median (IQR) of the proportion of participants who agreed with each statement and synthesized qualitative data by identifying emergent themes.Results: Of 3537 articles screened, 54 studies (41 quantitative, 3 mixed methods and 10 qualitative) were included (55 225 participants). Most studied adults (50; 93% studies) and were conducted in Europe (23; 43%), Asia (14; 26%) or North America (12; 22%). Some participants [median 70% (IQR 50%-84%); n = 8 studies] had heard of antibiotic resistance, but most [median 88% (IQR 86%-89%); n = 2 studies] believed it referred to changes in the human body. Many believed excessive antibiotic use [median 70% (IQR 59%-77%); n = 11 studies] and not completing antibiotic courses [median 62% (IQR 47%-77%); n = 8 studies] caused resistance. Most participants nominated reducing antibiotic use [median 74% (IQR 72%-85%); n = 4 studies] and discussing antibiotic resistance with their clinician (84%, n = 1 study) as strategies to reduce resistance. Qualitative data supported these findings and additionally identified that: participants believed they were at low risk from antibiotic resistance participants; largely attributed its development to the actions of others; and strategies to minimize resistance should be primarily aimed at clinicians.Conclusions: The public have an incomplete understanding of antibiotic resistance and misperceptions about it and its causes and do not believe they contribute to its development. These data can be used to inform interventions to change the public's beliefs about how they can contribute to tackling this global issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To systematically review clinicians' knowledge and beliefs about the importance and causes of antibiotic resistance, and strategies to reduce resistance. Methods: Four databases were searched (until July 2014), without restrictions on language, setting or study design. Fixed responses (from surveys) were grouped into categories. The proportion of participants who agreed with each category was expressed as median, percentage and IQR. Qualitative data were coded into emergent themes. Quantitative categories and qualitative themes were grouped into four overarching categories that emerged from the data. Results: There were 57 included studies (38 quantitative, 14 qualitative, 5 mixed methods) of 11593 clinicians. Most clinicians (69%, IQR 63%-72%, n = 5 studies) had heard of antibiotic resistance and 98% (IQR 93%-99%, n = 5 stud-ies) believed it was serious. The proportion who believed it was a problem for their practice (67%, IQR 65%-74%, n = 13 studies) was smaller than the proportion who believed it was a problem globally (89%, IQR 85%-97%, n = 5 studies) or nationally (92%, IQR 88%-95%, n = 21 studies). Most believed excessive antibiotic use (97%, IQR 91%-98%, n = 12 studies) and patient non-adherence (90%, IQR 82%-92%, n = 7 studies) caused resistance. Most knew of strategies to reduce resistance (e.g. clinician education, 90%, IQR 85%-96%, n = 7 studies). Qualitative findings support these data: they attributed responsibility for antibiotic resistance to patients, other countries and healthcare settings; resistance was considered a low priority and a distant consequence of antibiotic prescribing. Conclusions: Clinicians believe antibiotic resistance is a serious problem, but think it is caused by others. This needs to be accommodated in interventions to reduce antibiotic resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]