Search

Lay Summary Influenza is usually diagnosed clinically. However, the accuracy of a diagnosis of influenza based on clinical features is limited because symptoms overlap considerably with those caused by other microorganisms. This study examined whether identification of the severity rather than the presence of key signs and symptoms could aid in the diagnosis of influenza, thereby helping clinicians to determine when antiviral agent use is appropriate. The authors used the database of a previous randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of an antiviral carried out in primary care centers in 15 countries in Europe during three epidemic periods from 2015/2016 to 2017/2018. Participants with influenza symptoms were included and they were asked about the presence and severity of different symptoms during the baseline visit with their doctors and a nasopharyngeal swab was taken for microbiological analysis. Overall, only 51% of the patients aged 18 or older had a confirmed influenza infection. Clinical findings are not particularly useful for confirming or excluding the diagnosis of influenza. However, the results of our study recommend considering how intense the different symptoms are, since key symptoms rated as moderate or severe are slightly better for predicting flu rather than the presence or absence of these symptoms. Background Clinical findings do not accurately predict laboratory diagnosis of influenza. Early identification of influenza is considered useful for proper management decisions in primary care. Objective We evaluated the diagnostic value of the presence and the severity of symptoms for the diagnosis of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection among adults presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI) in primary care. Methods Secondary analysis of patients with ILI who participated in a clinical trial from 2015 to 2018 in 15 European countries. Patients rated signs and symptoms as absent, minor, moderate, or major problem. A nasopharyngeal swab was taken for microbiological identification of influenza and other microorganisms. Models were generated considering (i) the presence of individual symptoms and (ii) the severity rating of symptoms. Results A total of 2,639 patients aged 18 or older were included in the analysis. The mean age was 41.8 +/- 14.7 years, and 1,099 were men (42.1%). Influenza was microbiologically confirmed in 1,337 patients (51.1%). The area under the curve (AUC) of the model for the presence of any of seven symptoms for detecting influenza was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.68), whereas the AUC of the symptom severity model, which included eight variables-cough, fever, muscle aches, sweating and/or chills, moderate to severe overall disease, age, abdominal pain, and sore throat-was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.69-0.72). Conclusion Clinical prediction of microbiologically confirmed influenza in adults with ILI is slightly more accurate when based on patient reported symptom severity than when based on the presence or absence of symptoms.

Background Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups. Methods We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921. Findings Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20–1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74–1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30–1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00–5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group. Interpretation Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2–3 days sooner. Funding European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.

Background: Lower urogenital tract Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) infection is the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection in Europe, especially among young people with multiple partners. Often asymptomatic, its spread and severity are due to delayed diagnosis, highlighting the need for early detection.Objective: Implementation and evaluation of a complex intervention targeting GPs in the Alpes-Maritimes (06) promoting opportunistic screening of Ct infection in young patients.Method: Academic detailing visits provided 105 randomized GPs with tools and patient self-testing kits to include 10 patients over a 6-month period followed by a quantitative (prescribed screenings / reimbursed screenings among visited GPs and all GPs in the Alpes-Maritimes compared to the previous year) and a qualitative assessment (post-interventional interviews with GPs and trainers).Results: In the context of a global increase in screening between the 2013 and 2014 seasons (+15%), the intervention resulted in a significantly higher rate (73%), p = 0.02. Screening was performed in 73 (48%) patients and 12 were PCR-positive. Qualitative analysis of post-interventional interviews with GPs and a focus group of AD visitors highlighted facilitating factors and obstacles to screening. Conclusion: Our intervention, appreciated by the visited GPs, demonstrates its potential impact and feasibility in primary care. GPs used facilitating factors to overcome the identified obstacles. To sustain this intervention, evaluated tools will be available on line to help GPs promote Ct screening as well as for sexual health training targeting GPs.

Background Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, particularly for respiratory tract infections (RTI) in ambulatory care, has become a worldwide public health threat due to resulting antibiotic resistance. In spite of various interventions and campaigns, wide variations in antibiotic use persist between European countries. Cultural determinants are often referred to as a potential cause, but are rarely defined. To our knowledge, so far no systematic literature review has focused on cultural determinants of antibiotic use. The aim of this study was to identify cultural determinants, on a country-specific level in ambulatory care in Europe, and to describe the influence of culture on antibiotic use, using a framework of cultural dimensions. Method A computer-based systematic literature review was conducted by two research teams, in France and in Norway. Eligible publications included studies exploring antibiotic use in primary care in at least two European countries based on primary study results, featuring a description of cultural determinants, and published between 1997 and 2015. Quality assessment was conducted independently by two researchers, one in each team, using appropriate checklists according to study design. Each included paper was characterized according to method, countries involved, sampling and main results, and cultural determinants mentioned in each selected paper were extracted, described and categorized. Finally, the influence of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions associated with antibiotic consumption within a primary care setting was described. Results Among 24 eligible papers, 11 were rejected according to exclusion criteria. Overall, 13 papers meeting the quality assessment criteria were included, of which 11 used quantitative methods and two qualitative or mixed methods. The study participants were patients (nine studies) and general practitioners (two studies). This literature review identified various cultural determinants either patient-related (illness perception/behaviour, health-seeking behaviour, previous experience, antibiotic awareness, drug perception, diagnosis labelling, work ethos, perception of practitioner) or practitioner-related (RTI management, initial training, antibiotic awareness, legal issues, practice context) or both (antibiotic awareness). Discussion and Conclusion Cultural factors should be considered as exerting an ubiquitous influence on all the consecutive stages of the disease process and seem closely linked to education. Interactions between determinant categories, cultural dimensions and antibiotic use in primary care are multiple, complex and require further investigation within overlapping disciplines. The context of European projects seems particularly relevant.