Search

Background: Use of antibiotics is the main driver of antimicrobial resistance which is considered one of the biggest threats to human health. In Denmark, most antibiotics are prescribed in general practice. Acute lower respiratory tract infections, including community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), are among the most frequent indications for antibiotic prescribing. Phenoxymethylpenicillin is established as first-line treatment in general practice in Denmark. However, the treatment duration with phenoxymethylpenicillin is mostly based on traditions. Both 5 and 7 days of treatment is recommended in Danish guidelines, and when asking the general practitioners about what treatment duration, they prescribe the variation is even bigger. Several hospital-based studies have proven short course (≤ 6 days) antibiotic treatment non-inferior to long course (≥ 7 days) treatment of CAP. No evidence exists on the optimal treatment duration for CAP in non-hospitalised patients. This randomised controlled trial aim to investigate the optimal treatment duration with phenoxymethylpenicillin for CAP in adults diagnosed in general practice in Denmark., Methods: This is an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled, five-arm DURATIONS trial. Participants will be recruited from at least 24 general practices in Denmark. Eligible participants are adults, with no pre-existing lung disease, presenting with symptoms of CAP, and in whom the general practitioner finds it relevant to treat with antibiotics. The study will compare treatment with phenoxymethylpenicillin 1.2 MIE q.i.d. in 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 days., Discussion: This study will provide evidence for the optimal antibiotic treatment duration of CAP in general practice and inform future guidelines on CAP in all countries using phenoxymethylpenicillin for the treatment of acute respiratory tract infections in adults. The results of this study might also be used to guide treatment recommendations in other countries using phenoxymethylpenicillin. Moreover, a (potential) reduction in antibiotic use might lower the development of antimicrobial resistance, increase patient treatment adherence, reduce risks of adverse events, and lower the economical exp TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06295120. Registered 28 February 2024.  The Scientific Ethics Committee for the North Denmark Region: N-20230039., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Choice of urine sampling technique in urinary tract infection may impact diagnostic accuracy and thus lead to possible over- or undertreatment. Currently no evidencebased consensus exists regarding correct sampling technique of urine from women with symptoms of urinary tract infection in primary care. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of urine culture from different sampling-techniques in symptomatic non-pregnant women in primary care., Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline and Embase for clinical studies conducted in primary care using a randomized or paired design to compare the result of urine culture obtained with two or more collection techniques in adult, female, non-pregnant patients with symptoms of urinary tract infection. We evaluated quality of the studies and compared accuracy based on dichotomized outcomes., Results: We included seven studies investigating urine sampling technique in 1062 symptomatic patients in primary care. Mid-stream-clean-catch had a positive predictive value of 0.79 to 0.95 and a negative predictive value close to 1 compared to sterile techniques. Two randomized controlled trials found no difference in infection rate between mid-stream-clean-catch, mid-stream-urine and random samples., Conclusions: At present, no evidence suggests that sampling technique affects the accuracy of the microbiological diagnosis in non-pregnant women with symptoms of urinary tract infection in primary care. However, the evidence presented is in-direct and the difference between mid-stream-clean-catch, mid-stream-urine and random samples remains to be investigated in a paired design to verify the present findings.

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.