Search

Objective: Antibiotics are prescribed too often in acutely ill children in primary care. We examined whether a Point-of-Care (POC) C-reactive Protein (CRP) test influences the family physicians’ (FP) prescribing rate and adherence to the Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) practice guidelines. Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial. Setting: Primary care, Flanders, Belgium. Intervention: Half of the children with non-severe acute infections (random allocation of practices to perform POC CRP or not) and all children at risk for serious infection were tested with POC CRP. Subjects: Acutely ill children consulting their FP. Main outcome measure: Immediate antibiotic prescribing. Results: 2844 infectious episodes recruited by 133 FPs between 15 February 2013 and 28 February 2014 were analyzed. A mixed logistic regression analysis was performed. Compared to episodes in which CRP was not tested, the mere performing of POC CRP reduced prescribing in case EBM practice guidelines advise to prescribe antibiotics (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.54 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.33-0.90). Normal CRP levels reduced antibiotic prescribing, regardless of whether the advice was to prescribe (aOR 0.24 (95%CI 0.11-0.50) or to withhold (aOR 0.31 (95%CI 0.17-0.57)). Elevated CRP levels did not increase antibiotic prescribing. Conclusion: Normal CRP levels discourage immediate antibiotic prescribing, even when EBM practice guidelines advise differently. Most likely, a normal CRP convinces FPs to withhold antibiotics when guidelines go against their own gut feeling. Future research should focus on whether POC CRP can effectively identify children that benefit from antibiotics more accurately, without increasing the risks of under-prescribing. Key points: What is previously known or believed on this topic •Antibiotics are prescribed too often for non-severe conditions. Point-of-care (POC) C-reactive Protein (CRP) testing without guidance does not reduce immediate antibiotic prescribing in acutely ill children in primary care. What this research adds •FPs clearly consider CRP once available: normal CRP levels discourage immediate antibiotic prescribing, even when EBM practice guidelines advise differently. Most likely, a normal CRP convinces FPs to withhold antibiotics when guidelines go against their own gut feeling. •Future research should focus on whether POC CRP can effectively identify children that benefit from antibiotics more accurately, without increasing the risks of under-prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antibiotics are overprescribed for non-severe acute infections in children in primary care.Aim: To explore two different interventions that may reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for non-severe acute infections.Design and Setting: A cluster randomised, factorial controlled trial in primary care, in Flanders, Belgium.Method: Family physicians (FPs) enrolled children with non-severe acute infections into this study. The participants were allocated to one of four intervention groups according to whether the FPs performed: (1) a point-of-care C-reactive protein test (POC CRP); (2) a brief intervention to elicit parental concern combined with safety net advice (BISNA); (3) both POC CRP and BISNA; or (4) usual care (UC). Guidance on the interpretation of CRP was not provided. The main outcome was the immediate antibiotic prescribing rate. A mixed logistic regression was performed to analyse the data.Results: In this study 2227 non-severe acute infections in children were registered by 131 FPs. In comparison with UC, POC CRP did not influence antibiotic prescribing, (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57 to 1.79). BISNA increased antibiotic prescribing (AOR 2.04, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.50). In combination with POC CRP, this increase disappeared.Conclusion: Systematic POC CRP testing without guidance is not an effective strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing for non-severe acute infections in children in primary care. Eliciting parental concern and providing a safety net without POC CRP testing conversely increased antibiotic prescribing. FPs possibly need more training in handling parental concern without inappropriately prescribing antibiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The histamine skin response is widely used as a standardized positive control in the performance of skin prick testing. As a part of the Aalst Allergy Study, we investigated whether histamine skin reactivity, using histamine 10 mg/mL, was influenced by age, gender, ethnic origin, environmental exposure, specific sensitization patterns, or other factors. The parents of 2021 nonselected children aged 3.4–14.8 years completed a baseline questionnaire and gave written informed consent for skin prick testing with seven common aeroallergens on their child. Sensitized children had significantly larger histamine wheal sizes than nonsensitized children (mean 4.3 vs 4.0 mm, p < 0.05). A significant difference was found in histamine wheal size between nonsensitized versus multiply sensitized children (p < 0.001), but not between mono-sensitized versus multiply sensitized children (p = 0.105). The only other factors associated with significantly larger histamine wheal sizes were a history of eczema and a history suggestive for asthma on the Brief Pediatric Asthma Screen Plus. The histamine wheal was absent in 8.9% of children. In conclusion, sensitization and some other clinical indicators of atopy were associated with a larger histamine skin wheal. Other conditions including gender and environmental exposure did not have an influence on histamine skin reactivity, which strengthens the use of histamine as a reference in skin prick testing in this age group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]