Search

Background: Sore throat is a common condition associated with a high rate of antibiotic prescriptions, despite limited evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics. Corticosteroids may improve symptoms of sore throat by reducing inflammation of the upper respiratory tract. This review is an update to our review published in 2012., Objectives: To assess the clinical benefit and safety of corticosteroids in reducing the symptoms of sore throat in adults and children., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2019), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 14 May 2019), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, 2002 to 2015), and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (inception to 2015). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared steroids to either placebo or standard care in adults and children (aged over three years) with sore throat. We excluded studies of hospitalised participants, those with infectious mononucleosis (glandular fever), sore throat following tonsillectomy or intubation, or peritonsillar abscess., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We included one new RCT in this update, for a total of nine trials involving 1319 participants (369 children and 950 adults). In eight trials, participants in both corticosteroid and placebo groups received antibiotics; one trial offered delayed prescription of antibiotics based on clinical assessment. Only two trials reported funding sources (government and a university foundation). In addition to any effect of antibiotics and analgesia, corticosteroids increased the likelihood of complete resolution of pain at 24 hours by 2.40 times (risk ratio (RR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 4.47; P = 0.006; I² = 67%; high-certainty evidence) and at 48 hours by 1.5 times (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.76; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). Five people need to be treated to prevent one person continuing to experience pain at 24 hours. Corticosteroids also reduced the mean time to onset of pain relief and the mean time to complete resolution of pain by 6 and 11.6 hours, respectively, although significant heterogeneity was present (moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 hours, pain (assessed by visual analogue scales) was reduced by an additional 10.6% by corticosteroids (moderate-certainty evidence). No differences were reported in recurrence/relapse rates, days missed from work or school, or adverse events for participants taking corticosteroids compared to placebo. However, the reporting of adverse events was poor, and only two trials included children or reported days missed from work or school. The included studies were assessed as moderate quality evidence, but the small number of included studies has the potential to increase the uncertainty, particularly in terms of applying these results to children., Authors' Conclusions: Oral or intramuscular corticosteroids, in addition to antibiotics, moderately increased the likelihood of both resolution and improvement of pain in participants with sore throat. Given the limited benefit, further research into the harms and benefits of short courses of steroids is needed to permit informed decision-making., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases., Objectives: To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides., Selection Criteria: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event., Main Results: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials., Authors' Conclusions: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

In Australia, the antibiotic resistance crisis may be partly alleviated by reducing antibiotic use in general practice, which has relatively high prescribing rates - antibiotics are mostly prescribed for acute respiratory infections, for which they provide only minor benefits. Current surveillance is inadequate for monitoring community antibiotic resistance rates, prescribing rates by indication, and serious complications of acute respiratory infections (which antibiotic use earlier in the infection may have averted), making target setting difficult. Categories of interventions that may support general practitioners to reduce prescribing antibiotics are: regulatory (eg, changing the default to "no repeats" in electronic prescribing, changing the packaging of antibiotics to facilitate tailored amounts of antibiotics for the right indication and restricting access to prescribing selected antibiotics to conserve them), externally administered (eg, academic detailing and audit and feedback on total antibiotic use for individual GPs), interventions that GPs can individually implement (eg, delayed prescribing, shared decision making, public declarations in the practice about conserving antibiotics, and self-administered audit), supporting GPs' access to near-patient diagnostic testing, and public awareness campaigns. Many unanswered clinical research questions remain, including research into optimal implementation methods. Reducing antibiotic use in Australian general practice will require a range of approaches (with various intervention categories), a sustained effort over many years and a commitment of appropriate resources and support.

Background: Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide health threat. Interventions that reduce antibiotic prescribing by clinicians are expected to reduce antibiotic resistance. Disparate interventions to change antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) have been trialled and meta-analysed, but not yet synthesised in an overview. This overview synthesises evidence from systematic reviews, rather than individual trials., Objectives: To systematically review the existing evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions aimed at influencing clinician antibiotic prescribing behaviour for ARIs in primary care., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index to June 2016. We also searched the reference lists of all included reviews. We ran a pre-publication search in May 2017 and placed additional studies in 'awaiting classification'.We included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any clinician-focussed intervention on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in primary care. Two overview authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool, with disagreements reached by consensus or by discussion with a third overview author. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence in included reviews. The results are presented as a narrative overview., Main Results: We included eight reviews in this overview: five Cochrane Reviews (33 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (11 included trials). Three reviews (all Cochrane Reviews) scored low risk across all the ROBIS domains in Phase 2 and low risk of bias overall. The remaining five reviews scored high risk on Domain 4 of Phase 2 because the 'Risk of bias' assessment had not been specifically considered and discussed in the review Results and Conclusions. The trials included in the reviews varied in both size and risk of bias. Interventions were compared to usual care.Moderate-quality evidence indicated that C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92, 3284 participants, 6 trials), shared decision making (odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.75, 3274 participants, 3 trials; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.84, 4623 participants, 2 trials; risk difference -18.44, 95% CI -27.24 to -9.65, 481,807 participants, 4 trials), and procalcitonin-guided management (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14, 1008 participants, 2 trials) probably reduce antibiotic prescribing in general practice. We found moderate-quality evidence that procalcitonin-guided management probably reduces antibiotic prescribing in emergency departments (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43, 2605 participants, 7 trials). The overall effect of these interventions was small (few achieving greater than 50% reduction in antibiotic prescribing, most about a quarter or less), but likely to be clinically important.Compared to usual care, shared decision making probably makes little or no difference to reconsultation for the same illness (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, 1860 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence), and may make little or no difference to patient satisfaction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, 1110 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). Similarly, CRP testing probably has little or no effect on patient satisfaction (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08, 689 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence) or reconsultation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27, 5132 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence). Procalcitonin-guided management probably results in little or no difference in treatment failure in general practice compared to normal care (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24, 1008 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence), however it probably reduces treatment failure in the emergency department compared to usual care (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95, 2605 participants, 7 trials, moderate-quality evidence).The quality of evidence for interventions focused on clinician educational materials and decision support in reducing antibiotic prescribing in general practice was either low or very low (no pooled result reported) and trial results were highly heterogeneous, therefore we were unable draw conclusions about the effects of these interventions. The use of rapid viral diagnostics in emergency departments may have little or no effect on antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.22, 891 participants, 3 trials, low-quality evidence) and may result in little to no difference in reconsultation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25, 200 participants, 1 trial, low-quality evidence).None of the trials in the included reviews reported on management costs for the treatment of an ARI or any associated complications., Authors' Conclusions: We found evidence that CRP testing, shared decision making, and procalcitonin-guided management reduce antibiotic prescribing for patients with ARIs in primary care. These interventions may therefore reduce overall antibiotic consumption and consequently antibiotic resistance. There do not appear to be negative effects of these interventions on the outcomes of patient satisfaction and reconsultation, although there was limited measurement of these outcomes in the trials. This should be rectified in future trials.We could gather no information about the costs of management, and this along with the paucity of measurements meant that it was difficult to weigh the benefits and costs of implementing these interventions in practice.Most of this research was undertaken in high-income countries, and it may not generalise to other settings. The quality of evidence for the interventions of educational materials and tools for patients and clinicians was either low or very low, which prevented us from drawing any conclusions. High-quality trials are needed to further investigate these interventions.

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.

Background: Childhood acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for primary care consultations and for receiving an antibiotic. Public awareness of antibiotic benefit and harms for these conditions is low. To facilitate informed decision making, ideally in collaboration with their doctor, parents need clear communication about benefits and harms. Decision aids may be able to facilitate this process., Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three decision aids about antibiotic use for common ARIs in children., Methods: Adult parents of children aged 1-16 years (n = 120) were recruited from community settings and then randomised using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive a decision aid (n = 60) or fact sheet (n = 60). Allocation was concealed and used sealed and opaque sequentially numbered envelopes. Participants self-completed questionnaires at baseline and immediately post-intervention. The primary outcome was informed choice (conceptual and numerical knowledge; attitudes towards, and intention to use, antibiotics for a future ARI). Secondary outcomes were decisional conflict, decisional self-efficacy, and material acceptability., Results: After reading the information, significantly more intervention group participants made an informed choice [57%] compared with control group participants [29%] [difference 28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11-45%, p < 0.01], and had higher total knowledge [mean difference (MD) 2.8, 95% CI 2.2-3.5, p < 0.01], conceptual knowledge (MD 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p < 0.01) and numerical knowledge (MD 2.1, 95% CI 1.6-2.5, p < 0.01). Between-group differences in attitudes or intention to use antibiotics were not significant. Most intervention group participants found the information understandable and liked the aids' format and features., Conclusion: The decision aids prepared parents to make an informed choice about antibiotic use more than fact sheets, in a hypothetical situation. Their effect within a consultation needs to be evaluated. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ACTRN12615000843550.

Objective: To compare the current rate of antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) in Australian general practice with the recommendations in the most widely consulted therapeutic guidelines in Australia (Therapeutic Guidelines)., Design and Setting: Comparison of general practice activity data for April 2010 - March 2015 (derived from Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health [BEACH] study) with estimated rates of prescribing recommended by Therapeutic Guidelines., Main Outcome Measures: Antibiotic prescribing rates and estimated guideline-recommended rates per 100 encounters and per full-time equivalent (FTE) GP per year for eight ARIs; number of prescriptions nationally per year., Results: An estimated mean 5.97 million (95% CI, 5.69-6.24 million) ARI cases per year were managed in Australian general practice with at least one antibiotic, equivalent to an estimated 230 cases per FTE GP/year (95% CI, 219-240 cases/FTE/year). Antibiotics are not recommended by the guidelines for acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis (current prescribing rate, 85%) or influenza (11%); they are always recommended for community-acquired pneumonia (current prescribing rate, 72%) and pertussis (71%); and they are recommended for 0.5-8% of cases of acute rhinosinusitis (current prescribing rate, 41%), 20-31% of cases of acute otitis media (89%), and 19-40% cases of acute pharyngitis or tonsillitis (94%). Had GPs adhered to the guidelines, they would have prescribed antibiotics for 0.65-1.36 million ARIs per year nationally, or at 11-23% of the current prescribing rate. Antibiotics were prescribed more frequently than recommended for acute rhinosinusitis, acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis, acute otitis media, and acute pharyngitis/tonsillitis., Conclusions: Antibiotics are prescribed for ARIs at rates 4-9 times as high as those recommended by Therapeutic Guidelines. Our data provide the basis for setting absolute targets for reducing antibiotic prescribing in Australian general practice.

Background: Shared decision making is an important component of patient-centred care. It is a set of communication and evidence-based practice skills that elicits patients' expectations, clarifies any misperceptions and discusses the best available evidence for benefits and harms of treatment. Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for consulting in primary care and obtaining prescriptions for antibiotics. However, antibiotics offer few benefits for ARIs, and their excessive use contributes to antibiotic resistance - an evolving public health crisis. Greater explicit consideration of the benefit-harm trade-off within shared decision making may reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care., Objectives: To assess whether interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making increase or reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to December 2014) and Web of Science (1985 to December 2014). We searched for other published, unpublished or ongoing trials by searching bibliographies of published articles, personal communication with key trial authors and content experts, and by searching trial registries at the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (individual level or cluster-randomised), which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions that promote shared decision making (as the focus or a component of the intervention) about antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. Antibiotic prescribing was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included clinically important adverse endpoints (e.g. re-consultations, hospital admissions, mortality) and process measures (e.g. patient satisfaction). We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and the quality of evidence. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information where available., Main Results: We identified 10 published reports of nine original RCTs (one report was a long-term follow-up of the original trial) in over 1100 primary care doctors and around 492,000 patients.The main risk of bias came from participants in most studies knowing whether they had received the intervention or not, and we downgraded the rating of the quality of evidence because of this.We meta-analysed data using a random-effects model on the primary and key secondary outcomes and formally assessed heterogeneity. Remaining outcomes are presented narratively.There is moderate quality evidence that interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic use for ARIs in primary care (immediately after or within six weeks of the consultation), compared with usual care, from 47% to 29%: risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.68. Reduction in antibiotic prescribing occurred without an increase in patient-initiated re-consultations (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, moderate quality evidence) or a decrease in patient satisfaction with the consultation (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, low quality evidence). There were insufficient data to assess the effects of the intervention on sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing, adverse clinical outcomes (such as hospital admission, incidence of pneumonia and mortality), or measures of patient and caregiver involvement in shared decision making (such as satisfaction with the consultation; regret or conflict with the decision made; or treatment compliance following the decision). No studies assessed antibiotic resistance in colonising or infective organisms., Authors' Conclusions: Interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care in the short term. Effects on longer-term rates of prescribing are uncertain and more evidence is needed to determine how any sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing affects hospital admission, pneumonia and death.

Background: Antibiotics are sometimes used to prevent recurrent sore throat, despite concern about resistance. However, there is conflicting primary evidence regarding their effectiveness., Objectives: To assess the effects of antibiotics in patients with recurrent sore throat., Search Methods: The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Clinicaltrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 25 June 2015., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotics in adults and children suffering from pre-existing recurrent sore throat, defined as three or more sore throats in a year, examining the incidence of sore throat recurrence, with follow-up of at least 12 months post-antibiotic therapy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Multiple attempts to contact the authors of one study yielded no response., Main Results: We identified no trials that met the inclusion criteria for the review. We discarded the majority of the references retrieved from our search following screening of the title and abstract. We formally excluded four studies following review of the full-text report., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of antibiotics for preventing recurrent sore throat. This finding must be balanced against the known adverse effects and cost of antibiotic therapy, when considering antibiotics for this purpose. There is a need for high quality RCTs that compare the effects of antibiotics versus placebo in adults and children with pre-existing recurrent sore throat on the following outcomes: incidence of sore throat recurrence, adverse effects, days off work and absence from school, and the incidence of complications. Future studies should be conducted and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

Background: Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Antibiotic use for AOM varies from 56% in the Netherlands to 95% in the USA, Canada and Australia. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 1997 and previously updated in 1999, 2005, 2009 and 2013., Objectives: To assess the effects of antibiotics for children with AOM., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to April week 3, 2015), OLDMEDLINE (1958 to 1965), EMBASE (January 1990 to April 2015), Current Contents (1966 to April 2015), CINAHL (2008 to April 2015) and LILACS (2008 to April 2015)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1) antimicrobial drugs with placebo and 2) immediate antibiotic treatment with expectant observation (including delayed antibiotic prescribing) in children with AOM., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: For the review of antibiotics against placebo, 13 RCTs (3401 children and 3938 AOM episodes) from high-income countries were eligible and had generally low risk of bias. The combined results of the trials revealed that by 24 hours from the start of treatment, 60% of the children had recovered whether or not they had placebo or antibiotics. Pain was not reduced by antibiotics at 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.01) but almost a third fewer had residual pain at two to three days (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.86; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20). A quarter fewer had pain at four to seven days (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.91; NNTB 16) and two-thirds fewer had pain at 10 to 12 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66; NNTB 7) compared with placebo. Antibiotics did reduce the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; NNTB 11), at six to eight weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; NNTB 16) and the number of children with tympanic membrane perforations (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76; NNTB 33) and halved contralateral otitis episodes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95; NNTB 11) compared with placebo. However, antibiotics neither reduced the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.24) nor the number of children with late AOM recurrences (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10) when compared with placebo. Severe complications were rare and did not differ between children treated with antibiotics and those treated with placebo. Adverse events (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) occurred more often in children taking antibiotics (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 14). Funnel plots do not suggest publication bias. Individual patient data meta-analysis of a subset of included trials found antibiotics to be most beneficial in children aged less than two years with bilateral AOM, or with both AOM and otorrhoea.For the review of immediate antibiotics against expectant observation, five trials (1149 children) from high-income countries were eligible and had low to moderate risk of bias. Four trials (1007 children) reported outcome data that could be used for this review. From these trials, data from 959 children could be extracted for the meta-analysis of pain at three to seven days. No difference in pain was detectable at three to seven days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.12). One trial (247 children) reported data on pain at 11 to 14 days. Immediate antibiotics were not associated with a reduction in the number of children with pain (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10) compared with expectant observation. Additionally, no differences in the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at four weeks, tympanic membrane perforations and AOM recurrence were observed between groups. No serious complications occurred in either the antibiotic or the expectant observation group. Immediate antibiotics were associated with a substantial increased risk of vomiting, diarrhoea or rash compared with expectant observation (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.36; NNTH 9).Results from an individual patient data meta-analysis including data from six high-quality trials (1643 children) that were also included as individual trials in our review showed that antibiotics seem to be most beneficial in children younger than two years of age with bilateral AOM (NNTB 4) and in children with both AOM and otorrhoea (NNTB 3)., Authors' Conclusions: This review reveals that antibiotics have no early effect on pain, a slight effect on pain in the days following and only a modest effect on the number of children with tympanic perforations, contralateral otitis episodes and abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks and at six to eight weeks compared with placebo in children with AOM. In high-income countries, most cases of AOM spontaneously remit without complications. The benefits of antibiotics must be weighed against the possible harms: for every 14 children treated with antibiotics one child experienced an adverse event (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) that would not have occurred if antibiotics were withheld. Therefore clinical management should emphasise advice about adequate analgesia and the limited role for antibiotics. Antibiotics are most useful in children under two years of age with bilateral AOM, or with both AOM and otorrhoea. For most other children with mild disease in high-income countries, an expectant observational approach seems justified.

Background: Bronchiolitis is a serious, potentially life-threatening respiratory illness commonly affecting babies. It is often caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Antibiotics are not recommended for bronchiolitis unless there is concern about complications such as secondary bacterial pneumonia or respiratory failure. Nevertheless, they are often used., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotics for bronchiolitis in children under two years of age compared to placebo or other interventions., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 6), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialised Register, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE (1966 to June 2014), EMBASE (1990 to June 2014) and Current Contents (2001 to June 2014)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotics to placebo in children under two years diagnosed with bronchiolitis, using clinical criteria (including respiratory distress preceded by coryzal symptoms with or without fever). Primary clinical outcomes included time to resolution of signs or symptoms (pulmonary markers included respiratory distress, wheeze, crepitations, oxygen saturation and fever). Secondary outcomes included hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, readmissions, complications or adverse events and radiological findings., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently analysed the search results., Main Results: We included seven studies with a total of 824 participants. The results of these seven included studies were often heterogeneous, which generally precluded meta-analysis, except for deaths, length of supplemental oxygen use and length of hospital admission.In this update, we included two new studies (281 participants), both comparing azithromycin with placebo. They found no significant difference for length of hospital stay, duration of oxygen requirement and readmission. These results were similar to an older study (52 participants) that demonstrated no significant difference comparing ampicillin and placebo for length of illness.One small study (21 participants) with higher risk of bias randomised children with proven RSV infection to clarithromycin or placebo and found a trend towards a reduction in hospital readmission with clarithromycin.The three studies providing adequate data for days of supplementary oxygen showed no difference between antibiotics and placebo (pooled mean difference (MD) (days) -0.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to 0.33). The three studies providing adequate data for length of hospital stay, similarly showed no difference between antibiotics (azithromycin) and placebo (pooled MD (days) -0.58; 95% CI -1.18 to 0.02).Two studies randomised children to intravenous ampicillin, oral erythromycin and control and found no difference for most symptom measures.There were no deaths reported in any of the arms of the seven included studies. No other adverse effects were reported., Authors' Conclusions: This review did not find sufficient evidence to support the use of antibiotics for bronchiolitis, although research may be justified to identify a subgroup of patients who may benefit from antibiotics. Further research may be better focused on determining the reasons that clinicians use antibiotics so readily for bronchiolitis, how to reduce their use and how to reduce clinician anxiety about not using antibiotics.

Background: Acute sinusitis is the inflammation and swelling of the nasal and paranasal mucous membranes and is a common reason for patients to seek primary care consultations. The related impairment of daily functioning and quality of life is attributable to symptoms such as facial pain and nasal congestion., Objectives: To assess the effects of systemic corticosteroids on clinical response rates and to determine adverse effects and relapse rates of systemic corticosteroids compared to placebo or standard clinical care in children and adults with acute sinusitis., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February week 1, 2014) and EMBASE (January 2009 to February 2014)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systemic corticosteroids to placebo or standard clinical care for patients with acute sinusitis., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the trials and extracted data., Main Results: Five RCTs with a total of 1193 adult participants met our inclusion criteria. We judged methodological quality to be moderate in four trials and high in one trial. Acute sinusitis was defined clinically in all trials. However, the three trials performed in ear, nose and throat (ENT) outpatient clinics also used radiological assessment as part of their inclusion criteria. All participants were assigned to either oral corticosteroids (prednisone 24 mg to 80 mg daily or betamethasone 1 mg daily) or the control treatment (placebo in four trials and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in one trial). In four trials antibiotics were prescribed in addition to oral corticosteroids or control treatment, while one trial investigated the effects of oral corticosteroids as a monotherapy.When combining data from the five trials, participants treated with oral corticosteroids were more likely to have short-term resolution or improvement of symptoms than those receiving the control treatment: at days three to seven (risk ratio (RR) 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 1.6; risk difference (RD) 17%, 95% CI 6% to 29%) and at days four to 14 (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.5; RD 14%, 95% CI 1% to 27%). A sensitivity analysis including the four trials with placebo as a control treatment showed similar results but with a lesser effect size: at days three to seven (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.3; RD 11%, 95% CI 4% to 17%) and days four to 14 (RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.2; RD 8%, 95% CI 2% to 13%). Statistical heterogeneity was high for many analyses. Subgroup analyses revealed that corticosteroid monotherapy had no beneficial effects. Furthermore, scenario analysis showed that outcomes missing from the trial reports might have introduced attrition bias (a worst-case scenario showed no statistically significant beneficial effect of oral corticosteroids). No trial reported effects on relapse or recurrence rates. Reported side effects in patients treated with oral corticosteroids were mild (nausea, vomiting, gastric complaints) and did not significantly differ from those receiving placebo., Authors' Conclusions: Oral corticosteroids as a monotherapy appear to be ineffective for adult patients with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis. Current data on the use of oral corticosteroids as an adjunctive therapy to oral antibiotics are limited: almost all trials are performed in secondary care settings and there is a significant risk of bias. This limited evidence suggests that oral corticosteroids in combination with antibiotics may be modestly beneficial for short-term relief of symptoms in acute sinusitis, with a number needed to treat to benefit of seven for resolution or symptom improvement. A large primary care factorial trial is needed to establish whether oral corticosteroids offer additional benefits over antibiotics in acute sinusitis.

Background: Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care. Although it remits spontaneously, primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for it., Objectives: To assess the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat for patients in primary care settings., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 6, MEDLINE (January 1966 to July week 1, 2013) and EMBASE (January 1990 to July 2013)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. We resolved differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted trial authors from three studies for additional information., Main Results: We included 27 trials with 12,835 cases of sore throat. We did not identify any new trials in this 2013 update. 1. Symptoms Throat soreness and fever were reduced by about half by using antibiotics. The greatest difference was seen at day three. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 21. 2. Non-suppurative complications The trend was antibiotics protecting against acute glomerulonephritis but there were too few cases to be sure. Several studies found antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever by more than two-thirds within one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.60). 3. Suppurative complications Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58); acute sinusitis within 14 days (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76); and quinsy within two months (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47) compared to those taking placebo. 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction Antibiotics were more effective against symptoms at day three (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71) if throat swabs were positive for Streptococcus, compared to RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97 if negative. Similarly at week one the RR was 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for positive and 0.73 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.07) for negative Streptococcus swabs., Authors' Conclusions: Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in high-income countries requires treating many with antibiotics for one to benefit. This NNTB may be lower in low-income countries. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by about 16 hours overall.

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.

Background: Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Antibiotic use for AOM varies from 56% in the Netherlands to 95% in the USA, Canada and Australia., Objectives: To assess the effects of antibiotics for children with AOM., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL (2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to October week 4, 2012), OLDMEDLINE (1958 to 1965), EMBASE (January 1990 to November 2012), Current Contents (1966 to November 2012), CINAHL (2008 to November 2012) and LILACS (2008 to November 2012)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1) antimicrobial drugs with placebo and 2) immediate antibiotic treatment with expectant observation (including delayed antibiotic prescribing) in children with AOM., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: For the review of antibiotics against placebo, 12 RCTs (3317 children and 3854 AOM episodes) from high-income countries were eligible. However, one trial did not report patient-relevant outcomes, leaving 11 trials with generally low risk of bias. Pain was not reduced by antibiotics at 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.01) but almost a third fewer had residual pain at two to three days (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.86; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20) and fewer had pain at four to seven days (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.95; NNTB 20). When compared with placebo, antibiotics did not alter the number of abnormal tympanometry findings at either four to six weeks (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01) or at three months (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.24), or the number of AOM recurrences (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10). However, antibiotic treatment did lead to a statistically significant reduction of tympanic membrane perforations (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76; NNTB 33) and halved contralateral AOM episodes (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95; NNTB 11) as compared with placebo. Severe complications were rare and did not differ between children treated with antibiotics and those treated with placebo. Adverse events (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) occurred more often in children taking antibiotics (RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.55; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 14). Funnel plots do not suggest publication bias. Individual patient data meta-analysis of a subset of included trials found antibiotics to be most beneficial in children aged less than two with bilateral AOM, or with both AOM and otorrhoea.For the review of immediate antibiotics against expectant observation, five trials (1149 children) were eligible. Four trials (1007 children) reported outcome data that could be used for this review. From these trials, data from 959 children could be extracted for the meta-analysis on pain at days three to seven. No difference in pain was detectable at three to seven days (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.12). No serious complications occurred in either the antibiotic group or the expectant observation group. Additionally, no difference in tympanic membrane perforations and AOM recurrence was observed. Immediate antibiotic prescribing was associated with a substantial increased risk of vomiting, diarrhoea or rash as compared with expectant observation (RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.24 to 2.36)., Authors' Conclusions: Antibiotic treatment led to a statistically significant reduction of children with AOM experiencing pain at two to seven days compared with placebo but since most children (82%) settle spontaneously, about 20 children must be treated to prevent one suffering from ear pain at two to seven days. Additionally, antibiotic treatment led to a statistically significant reduction of tympanic membrane perforations (NNTB 33) and contralateral AOM episodes (NNTB 11). These benefits must be weighed against the possible harms: for every 14 children treated with antibiotics, one child experienced an adverse event (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) that would not have occurred if antibiotics had been withheld. Antibiotics appear to be most useful in children under two years of age with bilateral AOM, or with both AOM and otorrhoea. For most other children with mild disease, an expectant observational approach seems justified. We have no trials in populations with higher risks of complications.

Background: Sore throat is a common condition associated with a high rate of antibiotic prescriptions, despite limited evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics. Corticosteroids may improve symptoms of sore throat by reducing inflammation of the upper respiratory tract., Objectives: To assess the clinical benefit and safety of corticosteroids for symptoms of sore throat in adults and children., Search Methods: We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2012, Issue 5) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, the Database of Reviews of Effects and the NHS Health Economics Database, MEDLINE (1966 to November Week 4, 2012) and EMBASE (1974 to June 2012)., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials that compared steroids to either placebo or standard care in adults and children (older than three years of age) with sore throat. We excluded studies of hospitalised participants, those with infectious mononucleosis, sore throat following tonsillectomy or intubation, or peritonsillar abscess., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently reviewed and selected trials from searches, assessed and rated study quality, and extracted relevant data., Main Results: We included eight trials involving 743 participants (369 children and 374 adults). All trials gave antibiotics to both placebo and corticosteroid groups; no trials assessed corticosteroids as standalone treatment for sore throat. In addition to any effect of antibiotics and analgesia, corticosteroids increased the likelihood of complete resolution of pain at 24 hours by more than three times (risk ratio (RR) 3.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0 to 5.1, P < 0.001, I(2) statistic 44%) and at 48 hours by 1.7 times. Fewer than four people need to be treated to prevent one person continuing to experience pain at 24 hours. Corticosteroids also reduced the mean time to onset of pain relief and the mean time to complete resolution of pain by 6 and 14 hours, respectively, although significant heterogeneity was present. At 24 hours, pain (assessed by visual analogue scores) was reduced by an additional 14% by corticosteroids. No difference in rates of recurrence, relapse or adverse events were reported for participants taking corticosteroids compared to placebo, although reporting of adverse events was poor., Authors' Conclusions: Oral or intramuscular corticosteroids, in addition to antibiotics, increase the likelihood of both resolution and improvement of pain in participants with sore throat. Further trials assessing corticosteroids in the absence of antibiotics and in children are warranted.

Background: Acute sinusitis is a common reason for patients to seek primary care consultations. The related impairment of daily functioning and quality of life is attributable to symptoms such as facial pain and nasal congestion., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of systemic corticosteroids in relieving symptoms of acute sinusitis., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2011, which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the NHS Health Economics Database, MEDLINE (1966 to June week 2, 2011) and EMBASE (January 2009 to June 2011)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systemic corticosteroids to placebo or standard clinical care for patients with acute sinusitis., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed methodological quality of the trials and extracted data., Main Results: Four RCTs with a total of 1008 adult participants met our inclusion criteria. We judged studies to be of moderate methodological quality. Acute sinusitis was defined clinically in all trials. However, the three trials performed in ear, nose and throat (ENT) outpatient clinics also used radiological assessment as part of their inclusion criteria. All participants received oral antibiotics and were assigned to either oral corticosteroids (prednisone 24 mg to 80 mg daily or betamethasone 1 mg daily) or the control treatment (placebo in three trials and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in one trial). In all trials, participants treated with oral corticosteroids were more likely to have short-term resolution or improvement of symptoms than those receiving the control treatment: at Days 3 to 7, risk ratio (RR) 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8; risk difference (RD) 20% (6% to 34%) and at Days 4 to 10 or 12, RR 1.3, 95% CI (1.0 to 1.7), RD 18% (3% to 33%). An analysis of the three trials with placebo as a control treatment showed similar results but with a lesser effect size: Days 3 to 6: RR 1.2, 95% CI (1.1 to 1.4), RD 12% (5% to 19%) and Days 4 to 10 or 12: RR 1.1, 95% CI (1.0 to 1.2), RD 10% (3% to 16%). Scenario analysis showed that outcomes missing from the trial reports might have introduced attrition bias (a worst-case scenario showed no statistically significant beneficial effect of oral corticosteroids). We did not identify any data on the long-term effects of oral corticosteroids on this condition, such as effects on relapse or recurrence rates. Reported side effects of oral corticosteroids were limited and mild., Authors' Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that oral corticosteroids as an adjunctive therapy to oral antibiotics are effective for short-term relief of symptoms in acute sinusitis. However, data are limited and there is a significant risk of bias. High quality trials assessing the efficacy of systemic corticosteroids both as an adjuvant and a monotherapy in primary care patients with acute sinusitis should be initiated.

Background: Bronchiolitis is a serious, potentially life-threatening respiratory illness commonly affecting babies. It is often caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Antibiotics are not recommended for bronchiolitis unless there is concern about complications such as secondary bacterial pneumonia or respiratory failure. Nevertheless, they are used at rates of 34% to 99% in uncomplicated cases., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotics for bronchiolitis., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2010, issue 4), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialised Register, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2010), EMBASE (1990 to December 2010) and Current Contents (2001 to December 2010)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotics to placebo in children under two years diagnosed with bronchiolitis, using clinical criteria (including respiratory distress preceded by coryzal symptoms with or without fever). Primary clinical outcomes included time to resolution of signs or symptoms (pulmonary markers included respiratory distress, wheeze, crepitations, oxygen saturation and fever). Secondary outcomes included hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, re-admissions, complications or adverse events and radiological findings., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently analysed the search results., Main Results: Five studies (543 participants) met our inclusion criteria. One study randomised 52 children to either ampicillin or placebo and found no significant difference between the two groups for length of illness. A small study (21 children) with higher risk of potential bias randomised children with proven RSV infection to clarithromycin or placebo and found clarithromycin may reduce hospital re-admission (8% antibiotics versus 44% placebo; Fishers exact; P = 0.081). The two studies (267 children) providing adequate data for length of hospital stay showed no difference between antibiotics and control (pooled mean difference 0.34; 95% CI -0.71 to 1.38). Two studies randomised children to intravenous ampicillin, oral erythromycin and control and found no difference for most symptom measures. None of the trials reported deaths., Authors' Conclusions: This review found minimal evidence to support the use of antibiotics for bronchiolitis. Research to identify a possible small subgroup of patients who have complications from bronchiolitis such as respiratory failure and who may benefit from antibiotics is justified.

Acute otitis media (AOM) is diagnosed on the basis of acute onset of pain and fever; a red, bulging tympanic membrane; and middle ear effusion. AOM is managed with analgesia (paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Antibiotic therapy is minimally effective for most patients; it is most effective for children < 2 years with bilateral otitis media and for children with discharging ears. National guidelines recommend antibiotic therapy for Indigenous children with AOM. Evidence for corticosteroids, topical analgesia and xylitol are scant. Otitis media with effusion (OME) is diagnosed as the presence of middle ear effusion (type B tympanogram or immobile tympanic membrane on pneumatic otoscopy) without AOM criteria. Well children with OME with no speech and language delays can be observed for the first 3 months; perform audiological evaluation and refer to an ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialist if they have bilateral hearing impairment > 30 dB or persistent effusion. Children with effusions persisting longer than 3 months can benefit from a 2-4-week course of amoxycillin. Chronic suppurative otitis media is a chronic discharge through a tympanic membrane perforation. It is managed with regular ear cleaning (dry mopping or povidone-iodine [Betadine] washouts) until discharge resolves; topical ear drops (eg, ciprofloxacin); audiological evaluation; and ENT review.

Background: Modest benefits of antibiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections have to be weighed against common adverse reactions, cost and antibacterial resistance. There has been interest in ways to reduce antibiotic prescribing. One strategy is to provide the prescription, but advise delay of more than 48 hours before use, in the hope symptoms resolve first. Advocates suggest this will preserve patient satisfaction. This review asks what effect delayed antibiotics have on clinical outcomes of respiratory infections, antibiotic use and patient satisfaction., Objectives: To evaluate the prescribing strategy of delayed antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections compared to immediate or no antibiotics for clinical outcomes, antibiotic use and patient satisfaction., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1966 to January Week 2, 2007), EMBASE (1990 to Week 2, 2007) and Current Contents - ISI Web of Knowledge (1998 to January 2007)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients of all ages defined as having an acute respiratory infection were included in which delayed antibiotics were compared to antibiotics used immediately or no antibiotics. Outcomes measured included clinical outcomes, antibiotic use and patient satisfaction., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were collected and analysed by three review authors., Main Results: Nine trials were eligible on the basis of design and relevant outcomes. For most clinical outcomes there was no difference between delayed, immediate and no antibiotics. Antibiotics prescribed immediately were more effective than delayed for fever, pain and malaise in some studies of patients with acute otitis media and sore throat but for other studies there was no difference. There was no difference for the common cold and bronchitis. Delaying antibiotic prescriptions reduced antibiotic use, and in three studies, reduced patient satisfaction compared to immediate antibiotics. In the other two studies comparing delayed and immediate antibiotics measuring satisfaction, there was no difference. Two studies also included a 'no antibiotics' arm for bronchitis and sore throat: there was no difference in symptom resolution nor patient satisfaction from antibiotic delay. In one study, but not the other, antibiotic use was significantly decreased with no, rather than delayed, antibiotics., Authors' Conclusions: For most clinical outcomes there is no difference between the strategies. Immediate antibiotics was the strategy most likely to provide the best clinical outcomes in patients with sore throat and otitis media. Delaying or avoiding antibiotics, rather than providing them immediately, reduces antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections. Delay also reduced patient satisfaction in three trials, compared to immediate antibiotics with no difference in two other trials. Delaying antibiotics seems to have little advantage over avoiding them altogether where it is safe to do so.

Background: Sore throat is a very common reason for people to present for medical care. Although it remits spontaneously, primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for it., Objectives: To assess the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2006) and EMBASE (January 1990 to December 2005)., Selection Criteria: Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or suppurative or non-suppurative complications of sore throat., Data Collection and Analysis: Potential studies were screened independently by two authors for inclusion, with differences in opinion resolved by discussion. Data were then independently extracted from studies selected by inclusion by two authors. Researchers from three studies were contacted for additional information., Main Results: There were 27 studies with 2835 cases of sore throat. 1. Non-suppurative complications: There was a trend for antibiotics to protect against acute glomerulonephritis, but there were insufficient cases to be sure. Several studies found antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever by more than two thirds (relative risk (RR) 0.22; 95% CI 0.02 to 2.08). 2. Suppurative complications: Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58); of acute sinusitis (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76); and of quinsy (peritonsillar abscess) compared to those taking placebo (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47). 3., Symptoms: Throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics by about one half. The greatest difference was seen at about 3 to 4 days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). By one week about 90% of treated and untreated patients were symptom-free. The overall number need to treat to prevent one sore throat at day 3 was just under six (95% CI 4.9 to 7.0); at week 1 it was 21 (95% CI 13.2 to 47.9). 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction: Analysis by: age; blind versus unblinded; or use of antipyretics, found no significant differences. Analysis of results of throat swabs showed that antibiotics were more effective against symptoms at day 3, RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.71) if the swabs were positive for Streptococcus, compared to RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.97) if negative. Similarly at week 1, RRs 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for positive, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.07) for negative swabs., Authors' Conclusions: Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can only be achieved by treating many with antibiotics, most of whom will derive no benefit. In emerging economies (where rates of acute rheumatic fever are high, for example), the number needed to treat may be much lower for antibiotics to be considered effective. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by about sixteen hours overall.

Background: The use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections is controversial. Any benefits have to be weighed against common adverse reactions (including rash, abdominal pain, diarrhoea and vomiting), cost and antibacterial resistance. There has been interest in ways to reduce antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections. One is delaying the use of prescribed antibiotics by more than 48 hours for acute upper respiratory tract infections. Such methods have been shown to reduce prescribing. This review asks what effect this practice has on the clinical course of the illness., Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effect of delayed antibiotic use in acute upper respiratory tract infections compared to immediate use of antibiotics, Search Strategy: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2004) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infection Groups' specialised register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to January Week 1 2004), EMBASE (1990 to September 2003) and Current Contents (1998 to 2003). The search was carried out by an expert librarian. Abstracts of identified articles were used to determine which studies were trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials involving patients of all ages defined as having acute otitis media, acute pharyngitis, sore throat, common cold, a viral upper respiratory tract infection, acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis were included in which delayed antibiotics are compared to antibiotics used immediately. Delayed antibiotic use was defined as the use of or advice to use antibiotics more than 48 hours after the initial consultation. 'Immediate antibiotic use' was defined as the immediate use of oral antibiotics given at the initial consultation. Clinical outcomes measured included: the presence or absence of fever, cough, pain, duration and severity of illness, complications of the disease, adverse effects from the antibiotics. Trial quality was assessed independently by two reviewers who were blinded to the author, journal and results of each study., Data Collection and Analysis: Data was collected by two reviewers who were blinded to the author and journal. Data were analysed and reported using RevMan., Main Results: Seven trials were eligible on the basis of design and all reported patient-centred outcomes. Methodological quality of included trials was generally high. There was no difference between immediate and delayed antibiotic groups for symptoms on day one and day seven. For most symptom measures there was no significant difference between the immediate and delayed antibiotic groups. Missing data and marked heterogeneity between study outcomes prevented pooling of results as a meta-analysis. Three studies out of six reporting fever, all involving patients with sore throat, indicated that there was more fever in the delayed antibiotic group. The remaining three studies showed no difference. There was no significant symptom difference for patients with cough or the common cold between the two intervention groups. Pain and malaise severity scores at day three significantly favoured the immediate antibiotic group in children with acute otitis media (Little 2001). In this study by Little 2001 of children with otitis media proxies for other malaise related outcomes were reported, including 'last day of crying' which favoured the immediate antibiotic group by approximately 16 hours (0.69 days; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.07). In the same study, just over half a spoon of paracetamol a day less was used in the immediate antibiotic group (0.59; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93). There was no significant difference between the intervention groups for the adverse outcome of rash. Two studies reported the outcome of vomiting which was reduced in the immediate antibiotic group in children with suspected streptococcal pharyngitis in El-Daher 1991 but there was no difference in children with sore throat in Little 1997. Diarrhoea was reported by three studies of which two showed no difference Little 1997; Arroll 2002a while Little 2001 reported less diarrhoea in the delayed antibiotic group in children with otitis media., Reviewers' Conclusions: When considering treatment options for upper respiratory tract infections, the option of delayed antibiotics has been used in an attempt to reduce the use of antibiotic prescriptions. This review shows that for all symptom scores the evidence varies between trials. Most symptom outcomes show no difference between immediate and delayed antibiotic groups. Three of the six studies, all involving patients with sore throat, indicated that patients in the delayed antibiotic group had significantly more fever that their counterparts in the immediate antibiotic group. The other three showed no difference for the outcome of fever. There is evidence indicating that for children with otitis media, pain and malaise scores are worse in the delayed antibiotic group compared to the immediate antibiotic group. This price must be weighed up against the benefits of reduced antibiotic prescribing. Future randomised controlled trials of delaying antibiotics as an intervention should fully report symptoms as well as changes of prescription rates.

Background: Acute otitis media is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Antibiotic use for acute otitis media varies from 31% in the Netherlands to 98% in the USA and Australia., Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of antibiotics for children with acute otitis media., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE, Index Medicus (pre 1965), Current Contents and reference lists of articles from 1958 to January 2000. The search was updated in 2003., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing antimicrobial drugs with placebo in children with acute otitis media., Data Collection and Analysis: Three reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: Ten trials were eligible based on design, only eight of the trials, with a total of 2,287 children, included patient-relevant outcomes. The methodological quality of the included trials was generally high. All trials were from developed countries. The trials showed no reduction in pain at 24 hours, but a 30% relative reduction (95% confidence interval 19% to 40%) in pain at two to seven days. Since approximately 80% of patients will have settled spontaneously in this time, this means an absolute reduction of 7% or that about 15 children must be treated with antibiotics to prevent one child having some pain after two days. There was no effect of antibiotics on hearing problems of acute otitis media, as measured by subsequent tympanometry. However, audiometry was done in only two studies and incompletely reported. Nor did antibiotics influence other complications or recurrence. There were few serious complications seen in these trials: only one case of mastoiditis occurred in a penicillin treated group., Reviewer's Conclusions: Antibiotics provide a small benefit for acute otitis media in children. As most cases will resolve spontaneously, this benefit must be weighed against the possible adverse reactions. Antibiotic treatment may play an important role in reducing the risk of mastoiditis in populations where it is more common.

Background: Sore throat is a very common reason for people to seek medical care. It is a disease that remits spontaneously, that is, 'cure' is not dependent on treatment. Nonetheless primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for sore throat and other upper respiratory tract infections., Objectives: To assess the benefits of antibiotics in the management of sore throat., Search Strategy: Systematic search of the literature from 1945 to 2003, using electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2003); MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2003); EMBASE (January 1990 to March 2003), and the reference sections of the articles identified. We applied no language restrictions. We used abstracts of identified articles to identify trials., Selection Criteria: Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or suppurative complications (meaning: forming pus) and non-suppurative complications of sore throat., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently screened potential studies for inclusion and resolved differences in opinion by discussion. The reviewers then independently extracted the data from the selected studies. We contacted the authors of three studies to acquire additional information not available in published articles. Potential studies were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion, with differences in opinion resolved by discussion. Data was then independently extracted from studies selected by inclusion by two reviewers. Authors of three studies were contacted to acquire additional information not available in published articles., Main Results: We included twenty-six studies, covering 12,669 cases of sore throat in the review.1. Non-suppurative complications There was a trend for protection against acute glomerulonephritis by antibiotics, but insufficient cases were recorded to be sure of this effect. Several studies found that antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever, to less than one third (odds ratio (OR) = 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.20 to 0.45). 2. Suppurative complications Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media to about one quarter of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43) and reduced the incidence of acute sinusitis to about one half of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.10 to 2.05). The incidence of quinsy was also reduced in relation to placebo group (OR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35). 3. Symptoms Symptoms of headache, throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics to about one half. The greatest time for this to be evident was at about three and a half days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). About 90% of treated and untreated patients were free of symptoms by one week. The overall number needed to treat to prevent one sore throat at day three was about 5.0 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.8); and at one week was 14.2 (95% CI 11.5 to 20.6). 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction Subgroup analysis by age; blind versus unblinded; or use of antipyretics yielded no significant differences. The results of swabs of the throat for Streptococcus influenced the effect of antibiotics. If the swab was positive, antibiotics were more effective (the OR reduced to 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26) than if it was negative (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.12)., Reviewers' Conclusions: Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can be achieved only by treating with antibiotics many who will derive no benefit. In emerging economies where rates of for example acute rheumatic fever are high, the number needed to treat may be much lower. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by a mean of one day about half way through the illness (the time of maximal effect), and by about sixteen hours overall.

Background: Sore throat is a very common reason for people to attend for medical care. Sore throat is a disease that remits spontaneously, that is, 'cure' is not dependant on treatment. Nonetheless primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for sore throat and other upper respiratory tract infections., Objectives: To assess the benefits of antibiotics in the management of sore throat., Search Strategy: Systematic search of the literature from 1945 to 1999, using electronic searches of MEDLINE (using the keywords, "pharyngitis", "sore throat" and "tonsillitis") after 1966, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane collection of hand-searched trials, and the reference sections of the articles identified. Abstracts of identified articles were used to determine which studies were trials., Selection Criteria: Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or complications (suppurative and non-suppurative) of sore throat., Data Collection and Analysis: RevMan 4.0.3, Main Results: A total number of 10,484 cases of sore throat have been studied. 1. Non-suppurative complications There was a trend for protection against acute glomerulonephritis by antibiotics, but insufficient cases were recorded to be sure of this effect. Several studies found benefit from antibiotics for acute rheumatic fever, which reduced this complication to less than one third (OR = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.20-0.45). 2. Suppurative complications Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media to about one quarter of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.11-0.43) and reduced the incidence of acute sinusitis to about one half of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.10-2.05). The incidence of quinsy was also reduced in relation to placebo group (OR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.08-0.43). 3. Symptoms Symptoms of headache, throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics to about one half. The greatest time for this to be evident was at about three and a half days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). About 90% of treated and untreated patients were symptom-free by one week. 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction Subgroup analysis by age; blind vs unblinded; us of antipyretics; or results of swabs for Streptococcus yielded no significant differences., Reviewer's Conclusions: Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can only be achieved by treating many with antibiotics who will derive no benefit. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms, but by a mean of only about half of one day at day 3 (the time of maximal effect), and by about eight hours overall.

Background: Sore throat is a very common reason for people to attend for medical care. It is a disease that remits spontaneously, that is, 'cure' is not dependent on treatment. Nonetheless primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for sore throat and other upper respiratory tract infections., Objectives: To assess the benefits of antibiotics in the management of sore throat., Search Strategy: Systematic search of the literature from 1945 to 1999, using electronic searches of MEDLINE (using the keywords, "pharyngitis", "sore throat" and "tonsillitis") after 1966, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane collection of hand-searched trials, and the reference sections of the articles identified. Abstracts of identified articles were used to determine which studies were trials., Selection Criteria: Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or complications (suppurative and non-suppurative) of sore throat., Data Collection and Analysis: RevMan 4.0.3, Main Results: 25 studies were included in the review. A total number of 11, 452 cases of sore throat have been studied. 1. Non-suppurative complications There was a trend for protection against acute glomerulonephritis by antibiotics, but insufficient cases were recorded to be sure of this effect. Several studies found benefit from antibiotics for acute rheumatic fever, which reduced this complication to less than one third (OR = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.20-0.45). 2. Suppurative complications Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media to about one quarter of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.11-0.43) and reduced the incidence of acute sinusitis to about one half of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.10-2.05). The incidence of quinsy was also reduced in relation to placebo group (OR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.07-0.35). 3. Symptoms Symptoms of headache, throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics to about one half. The greatest time for this to be evident was at about three and a half days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). About 90% of treated and untreated patients were symptom-free by one week. 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction Subgroup analysis by age; blind vs unblinded; or use of antipyretics yielded no significant differences. The results of swabs of the throat for Streptococcus influenced the effect of antibiotics. If the swab was positive, antibiotics were more effective (the OR reduced to 0.16, 95% CI 0.09, 0.26) than if it was negative (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.38,1.1.2)., Reviewer's Conclusions: Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can only be achieved by treating many with antibiotics who will derive no benefit. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms, but by a mean of only one day about half way through the illness (the time of maximal effect), and by about sixteen hours overall.

Background: Acute otitis media is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Antibiotic use for acute otitis media varies from 31% in the Netherlands to 98% in the USA and Australia., Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of antibiotics for children with acute otitis media., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, Index Medicus, Current Contents and reference lists of articles from 1958 to January 1999., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing antimicrobial drugs with placebo in children with acute otitis media., Data Collection and Analysis: Three reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: Nine trials were eligible but only six trials, with a total of 1,962 children, included patient-relevant outcomes. The methodological quality of the included trials was generally high. All trials were from developed countries. The trials showed no reduction in pain at 24 hours, but a 34% relative reduction (95% confidence interval 16% to 48%) in pain at two to seven days. Since approximately 85% of patients will have settled spontaneously in this time, this means an absolute reduction of about 5% or that about 20 children must be treated with antibiotics to prevent one child having some pain after two days. There was no effect of antibiotics on deafness, as measured by subsequent tympanometry, other complications, or recurrence. However, audiometry was done in only two studies and incompletely reported, and there were few serious complications seen in these trials: only one case of mastoiditis occurred (in a penicillin treated group). One semi-randomised trial in Sweden in 1954 reported a rate of 17% in the untreated group versus none in the penicillin treated groups., Reviewer's Conclusions: Antibiotics provide a small benefit for acute otitis media in children. As most cases will resolve spontaneously, this benefit must be weighed against the possible adverse reactions. Antibiotic treatment may play an important role in reducing the risk of mastoiditis in populations where it is more common.

Background: Acute otitis media is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Antibiotic use for acute otitis media varies from 31% in the Netherlands to 98% in the USA and Australia., Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of antibiotics for children with acute otitis media., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, Index Medicus (pre 1965), Current Contents and reference lists of articles from 1958 to January 2000., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing antimicrobial drugs with placebo in children with acute otitis media., Data Collection and Analysis: Three reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: Ten trials were eligible but only seven trials, with a total of 2,202 children, included patient-relevant outcomes. The methodological quality of the included trials was generally high. All trials were from developed countries. The trials showed no reduction in pain at 24 hours, but a 28% relative reduction (95% confidence interval 15% to 38%) in pain at two to seven days. Since approximately 80% of patients will have settled spontaneously in this time, this means an absolute reduction of 5% or that about 17 children must be treated with antibiotics to prevent one child having some pain after two days. There was no effect of antibiotics on hearing problems of acute otitis media, as measured by subsequent tympanometry. However, audiometry was done in only two studies and incompletely reported. Nor did antibiotics influence other complications or recurrence. There were few serious complications seen in these trials: only one case of mastoiditis occurred in a penicillin treated group., Reviewer's Conclusions: Antibiotics provide a small benefit for acute otitis media in children. As most cases will resolve spontaneously, this benefit must be weighed against the possible adverse reactions. Antibiotic treatment may play an important role in reducing the risk of mastoiditis in populations where it is more common. [This abstract has been prepared centrally.]

The research literature provides surprisingly little evidence of benefit for initially treating acute otitis media in children with antibiotics. We show how to calculate the amount of benefit and harm from the evidence, and how this might be applied to change management practice.

Although not explicit, recommendations in the new edition of Therapeutic Guidelines: Antibiotic have taken a lurch towards an evidence basis. What does this mean, and what is the basis of the recommendation that antibiotics be used for sore throat in very limited circumstances?