Search

Aims: The development of effective interventions to reduce inappropriate use of antibiotics in the elderly population requires knowledge on who can benefit from such interventions. Thus, we aimed to identify and characterise antibiotic heavy users among elderly patients in general practice with respect to sociodemographic variables. Methods: We conducted a retrospective nationwide register-based study on all Danish elderly citizens (⩾65 years) who redeemed an antibiotic prescription in 2017. Heavy users were defined as the 10% with the highest excess use, that is, their recorded use minus the average use for their sex, age group and comorbidity level as estimated from a linear regression model. Comparative analyses of sociodemographic characteristics (civil status, employment status, urbanity, educational level and country of origin) of heavy users and non-heavy users were performed using logistic regression models. Results: The study population consisted of 251,733 elderly individuals, who in total redeemed 573,265 prescriptions of antibiotics. Heavy users accounted for 68% of all excess use of antibiotics. In multivariable analyses, individuals with an educational level above basic schooling, non-retired, residing in an urban municipality and being born in a country outside Scandinavia all had lower odds of being a heavy user. Widowed, divorced or single individuals had higher odds of being a heavy user compared with married individuals. Relative importance analyses showed that civil status and educational level contributed considerably to the explained variance. Conclusions: This study found an association between sociodemographic characteristics and risk of being a heavy user, indicating that sociodemographic variation exists with regard to antibiotic prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Misconceptions and knowledge gaps about antibiotics contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance. This study aimed to identify and prioritize misconceptions and knowledge gaps about antibiotic use from a healthcare professionals' perspective. A modified Delphi study with a predefined list of statements, two questionnaire rounds, and an expert meeting was conducted. The statements were rated by healthcare professionals from France, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, and Spain, and from general practice, out-of-hour services, nursing homes, and pharmacies. A total of 44 pre-defined statements covered the following themes: (1) antimicrobial resistance in general, (2) use of antibiotics in general, (3) use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections, and (4) use of antibiotics for urinary tract infections. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement between the professionals during the second Delphi round. For 30% of the statements, professionals from the four settings together reached consensus. In each setting individually, at least 50% of the statements reached consensus, indicating that there are still many misconceptions and knowledge gaps that need to be addressed. Six educational tools (leaflets, posters, checklists) were developed to address the knowledge gaps and misconceptions. These can be used by patients and healthcare professionals to improve the use of antibiotics in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Although uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) are often self-limiting, most patients will be prescribed antibiotic treatment. We assessed whether treatment with ibuprofen was non-inferior to pivmecillinam in achieving symptomatic resolution by day 4, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. Methods and findings This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind non-inferiority trial. We recruited patients from 16 sites in a general practice setting in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Non-pregnant women aged 18-60 years presenting with symptoms of uncomplicated UTI were screened for eligibility from 11 April 2013 to 22 April 2016. Patients with informed consent were randomized (1:1 ratio) to treatment with either 600 mg ibuprofen or 200 mg pivmecillinam 3 times a day for 3 days. The patient, treating physician, and study personnel were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who felt cured by day 4, as assessed from a patient diary. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients in need of secondary treatment with antibiotics and cases of pyelonephritis. A total of 383 women were randomly assigned to treatment with either ibuprofen (n = 194, 181 analyzed) or pivmecillinam (n = 189, 178 analyzed). By day 4, 38.7% of the patients in the ibuprofen group felt cured versus 73.6% in the pivmecillinam group. The adjusted risk difference with 90% confidence interval was 35% (27% to 43%) in favor of pivmecillinam, which crossed the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Secondary endpoints were generally in favor of pivmecillinam. After 4 weeks' follow-up, 53% of patients in the ibuprofen group recovered without antibiotic treatment. Seven cases of pyelonephritis occurred, all in the ibuprofen group, giving a number needed to harm of 26 (95% CI 13 to 103). Five of these patients were hospitalized and classified as having serious adverse events; 2 recovered as outpatients. A limitation of the study was the extensive list of exclusion criteria, eliminating almost half of the patients screened. We did not register symptoms in the screening process; hence, we do not know the symptom burden for those who declined to participate. This might make our results less generalizable. Conclusions Ibuprofen was inferior to pivmecillinam for treating uncomplicated UTIs. More than half of the women in the ibuprofen group recovered without antibiotics. However, pyelonephritis occurred in 7 out of 181 women using ibuprofen. Until we can identify those women who will develop complications, we cannot recommend ibuprofen alone as initial treatment to women with uncomplicated UTIs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01849926 EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR), EudraCT Number 2012-002776-14, Author(s): Ingvild Vik 1,2,*, Marianne Bollestad 2,3, Nils Grude 2,4, Anders Bærheim 5, Eivind Damsgaard 6, Thomas Neumark 7, Lars Bjerrum 8, Gloria Cordoba 8, Inge Christoffer Olsen 9, Morten [...]

Background Variation in prescription of antibiotics in primary care can indicate poor clinical practice that contributes to the increase of resistant strains. General Practitioners (GPs), as a professional group, are expected to have a fairly homogeneous prescribing style. In this paper, we describe variation in prescribing style within and across groups of GPs from six countries. Methods Cross-sectional study with the inclusion of 457 GPs and 6394 sore throat patients. We describe variation in prescribing antibiotics for sore throat patients across six countries and assess whether variation in "prescribing style" - understood as a subjective tendency to prescribe - has an important effect on variation in prescription of antibiotics by using the concept of prescribing style as a latent variable in a multivariable model. We report variation as a Median Odds Ratio (MOR) which is the transformation of the random effect variance onto an odds ratio; Thus, MOR = 1 means similar odds or strict homogeneity between GPs' prescribing style, while a MOR higher than 1 denotes heterogeneity in prescribing style. Results In all countries some GPs always prescribed antibiotics to all their patients, while other GPs never did. After adjusting for patient and GP characteristics, prescribing style in the group of GPs from Russia was about three times more heterogeneous than the prescribing style in the group of GPs from Denmark - Median Odds Ratio ( 6.8, 95%CI 3.1;8.8 ) and ( 2.6, 95%CI 2.2;4.4 ) respectively. Conclusion Prescribing style is an important source of variation in prescription of antibiotics within and across countries, even after adjusting for patient and GP characteristics. Interventions aimed at influencing the prescribing style of GPs must encompass context-specific actions at the policy-making level alongside GP-targeted interventions to enable GPs to react more objectively to the external demands that are in place when making the decision of prescribing antibiotics or not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Overdiagnosis and overprescribing is common in current clinical practice of infectious diseases in primary care. On the basis of studies published in the medical literature we identify my means of a non-systematic review a total of 25 myths associated with the diagnosis and treatment and present the literature pertaining to each myth. These myths result in extraneous testing (overdiagnosis) and excessive antimicrobial treatment (overtreatment). Most of these myths are ingrained among general practitioners in our country. Not only should these myths be debunked from our clinical practice, but they should also be reversed, and we encourage our readers to critically appraise their practice when it comes down to the misconceptions treated in this manuscript. We attempt to give guidance to clinicians facing these frequent clinical scenarios., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)