Search

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., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Infectious disease (ID) pandemics pose a considerable global threat and can disproportionately affect vulnerable populations including children. Pediatric clinical research in pandemics is essential to improve children's healthcare and minimize risks of harm by interventions that lack an adequate evidence base for this population. The unique features of ID pandemics require consideration of special processes to facilitate clinical research. We aimed to obtain consensus on pediatric clinician-researchers' perceptions of the priorities to feasibly conduct clinical pediatric pandemic research in Europe., Methods: Mixed method study in 2 stages, recruiting pediatric clinician-researchers with experience of conducting pediatric ID research in clinical settings in Europe. Stage 1 was an expert stakeholder workshop and interviews. Discussions focused on participant's experience of conducting pediatric ID research and processes to facilitate pandemic research. Information informed stage 2, an online consensus survey to identify pediatric inician-researchers priorities to enable ID pandemic research., Results: Twenty-three pediatric clinician-researchers attended the workshop and 39 completed the survey. Priorities were primarily focused on structural and operational requirements of research design and regulation: (1) clarity within the European Clinical Trials Directive for pediatric pandemic research; (2) simplified regulatory processes for research involving clinical samples and data; and (3) improved relationships between regulatory bodies and researchers., Conclusions: Results suggest that changes need to be made to the current regulatory environment to facilitate and improve pediatric research in the pandemic context. These findings can provide expert evidence to research policy decision-makers and regulators and to develop a strategy to lobby for change.

Background: Point of care tests (POCTs) are increasingly being promoted for guiding the primary medical care of community acquired lower respiratory tract infections (CA-LRTI). POCT development has seldom been guided by explicitly identified clinical need and requirements of the intended users. Approaches for identifying POCT priorities and developing target product profiles (TPPs) for POCTs in primary medical care are not well developed, and there is no published TPP for a CA-LRTI POCT aimed at developed countries., Methods: We conducted workshops with expert stakeholders and a survey with primary care clinicians to produce a target product profile (TPP) to guide the development of a clinically relevant and technologically feasible POCT for CA-LRTI., Results: Participants with clinical, academic, industrial, technological and basic scientific backgrounds contributed to four expert workshops, and 45 practicing primary care clinicians responded to an online survey and prioritised community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) as the CA-LRTI where a new POCT was most urgently needed. Consensus was reached on a TPP document that included information on the intended niche in the clinical pathway in primary medical care; diagnostic product specification (intended use statement and test concept), and minimum and ideal user specifications. Clinicians minimum requirements of a CA-LRTI POCT included the use of minimally invasive samples, a result in less than 30 minutes, no more than a single preparation step, minimum operational requirements, and detection of common respiratory pathogens and their resistance to commonly prescribed antibiotics., Conclusions: This multidisciplinary, multistage partnership approach generated a clinically-driven TPP for guiding the development of a new POCT, and this approach as well as the TPP itself may be useful to others developing a new POCT., Competing Interests: Author JV was employed by the commercial company, "Janssen Diagnostics BVBA", which is one of the European Federation of Pharamaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) member companies of the IMI RAPP-ID Consortium. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Pandemics of new and emerging infectious diseases are unpredictable, recurrent events that rapidly threaten global health and security. We aimed to identify public views regarding provision of information and consent to participate in primary and critical care clinical research during a future influenza-like illness pandemic., Methods: Descriptive-interpretive qualitative study, using focus groups (n = 10) and semi-structured interviews (n = 16), with 80 members of the public (>18 years) in Belgium, Spain, Poland and the UK. Local qualitative researchers followed a scenario-based topic guide to collect data. Data were transcribed verbatim, translated into English and subject to framework analysis., Results: Public understandings of pandemics were shaped by personal factors (illness during the previous H1N1 pandemic, experience of life-threatening illness) and social factors (historical references, media, public health information). Informants appreciated safeguards provided by ethically robust research procedures, but current enrolment procedures were seen as a barrier. They proposed simplified enrolment processes for higher risk research and consent waiver for certain types of low-risk research. Decision making about research participation was influenced by contextual, research and personal factors. Informants generally either carefully weighed up various approaches to research participation or responded instinctively. They supported the principle of using routinely collected, anonymized clinical biological samples for research without explicit consent, but regarded this as less acceptable if researchers were motivated primarily by commercial gain., Conclusions: This bottom-up approach to ascertaining public views on pandemic clinical research has identified support for more proportionate research protection procedures for publically funded, low-risk studies., (© 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

BACKGROUND It is largely unknown what medication is used by patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). AIM To describe the use of self-medication and prescribed medication in adults presenting with LRTI in different European countries, and to relate self-medication to patient characteristics. DESIGN AND SETTING An observational study in 16 primary care networks in 12 European countries. METHOD A total of 2530 adult patients presenting with LRTI in 12 European countries filled in a diary on any medication used before and after a primary care consultation. Patient characteristics related to self-medication were determined by univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS The frequency and types of medication used differed greatly between European countries. Overall, 55.4% self-medicated before consultation, and 21.5% after consultation, most frequently with paracetamol, antitussives, and mucolytics. Females, non-smokers, and patients with more severe symptoms used more self-medication. Patients who were not prescribed medication during the consultation self-medicated more often afterwards. Self-medication with antibiotics was relatively rare. CONCLUSION A considerable amount of medication, often with no proven efficacy, was used by adults presenting with LRTI in primary care. There were large differences between European countries. These findings should help develop patient information resources, international guidelines, and international legislation concerning the availability of over-the-counter medication, and can also support interventions against unwarranted variations in care. In addition, further research on the effects of symptomatic medication is needed.

Background: To reduce the spread of antibiotic resistance, there is a pressing need for worldwide implementation of effective interventions to promote more prudent prescribing of antibiotics for acute LRTI. This study is a process analysis of the GRACE/INTRO trial of a multifactorial intervention that reduced antibiotic prescribing for acute LRTI in six European countries. The aim was to understand how the interventions were implemented and to examine effects of the interventions on general practitioners' (GPs') and patients' attitudes., Methods: GPs were cluster randomised to one of three intervention groups or a control group. The intervention groups received web-based training in either use of the C-reactive protein (CRP) test, communication skills and use of a patient booklet, or training in both. GP attitudes were measured before and after the intervention using constructs from the Theory of Planned Behaviour and a Website Satisfaction Questionnaire. Effects of the interventions on patients were assessed by a post-intervention questionnaire assessing patient enablement, satisfaction with the consultation, and beliefs about the risks and need for antibiotics., Results: GPs in all countries and intervention groups had very positive perceptions of the intervention and the web-based training, and felt that taking part had helped them to reduce prescribing. All GPs perceived reducing prescribing as more important and less risky following the intervention, and GPs in the communication groups reported increased confidence to reduce prescribing. Patients in the communication groups who received the booklet reported the highest levels of enablement and satisfaction and had greater awareness that antibiotics could be unnecessary and harmful., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the interventions should be broadly acceptable to both GPs and patients, as well as feasible to roll out more widely across Europe. There are also some indications that they could help to engender changes in GP and patient attitudes that will be helpful in the longer-term, such as increased awareness of the potential disadvantages of antibiotics and increased confidence to manage LRTI without them. Given the positive effects of the booklet on patient beliefs and attitudes, it seems logical to extend the use of the patient booklet to all patients.

Background: Conflicting data on the diagnostic and prognostic value of auscultation abnormalities may be partly explained by inconsistent use of terminology., Objectives: To describe general practitioners use of chest auscultation abnormality terms for patients presenting with acute cough across Europe, and to explore the influence of geographic location and case mix on use of these terms., Methods: Clinicians recorded whether 'diminished vesicular breathing', 'wheezes', 'crackles' and 'rhonchi' were present in an observational study of adults with acute cough in 13 networks in 12 European countries. We describe the use of these terms overall and by network, and used multilevel logistic regression to explore variation by network, controlling for patients' gender, age, comorbidities, smoking status and symptoms., Results: 2345 patients were included. Wheeze was the auscultation abnormality most frequently recorded (20.6% overall) with wide variation by network (range: 8.3-30.8%). There was similar variation for other auscultation abnormalities. After controlling for patient characteristics, network was a significant predictor of auscultation abnormalities with odds ratios for location effects ranging from 0.37 to 4.46 for any recorded auscultation abnormality, and from 0.25 to 3.14 for rhonchi., Conclusion: There is important variation in recording chest auscultation abnormalities by general practitioners across Europe, which cannot be explained by differences in patient characteristics. There is a need and opportunity for standardization in the detection and classification of lung sounds.

Background: Interventions to promote prudent antibiotic prescribing by general practitioners (GPs) have often only been developed for use in one country. We aimed to develop an intervention which would be appropriate to implement in multiple European countries in order to offer greater benefit to practice whilst using fewer resources. The INTRO (INternet TRaining for antibiOtic use) intervention needed to deliver training to GPs in the use of C-Reactive Protein (CRP) near patient tests to help diagnose acute cough and in communication skills to help explain prescribing decisions to patients. We explored GPs' views on the initial version of INTRO to test acceptability and potentially increase applicability for use in multiple countries before the start of a randomised trial., Method: 30 GPs from five countries (Belgium, England, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain), were interviewed using a "think aloud" approach. GPs were asked to work through the intervention and discuss their views on the content and format in relation to following the intervention in their own practice. GPs viewed the same intervention but versions were created in five languages. Data were coded using thematic analysis., Results: GPs in all five countries reported the view that the intervention addressed an important topic, was broadly acceptable and feasible to use, and would be a useful tool to help improve clinical practice. However, GPs in the different countries identified aspects of the intervention that did not reflect their national culture or healthcare system. These included perceived differences in communication style used in the consultation, consultation length and the stage of illness at which patient typically presented., Conclusion: An online intervention to support evidence-based use of antibiotics is acceptable and feasible to implement amongst GPs in multiple countries. However, tailoring of the intervention to suit national contexts was necessary by adding local information and placing more emphasis on the fact that GPs could select the communication skills they wished to use in practice. Using think aloud methods to complement the development of interventions is a powerful method to identify regional contextual barriers to intervention implementation.

Background: Delayed antibiotic prescribing is promoted as a strategy to reduce antibiotic consumption, but its use and its effect on antibiotic consumption in routine care is poorly described., Aim: To quantify delayed antibiotic prescribing in adults presenting in primary care with acute cough/lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), duration of advised delay, consumption of delayed antibiotics, and factors associated with consumption., Design and Setting: Prospective observational cohort in general practices in 14 primary care networks in 13 European countries., Method: GPs recorded clinical features and antibiotic prescribing for adults presenting with an acute infective illness with cough as the dominant symptom. Patients recorded their consumption of antibiotics from any source during the 28-day follow up., Results: Two hundred and ten (6.3%) of 3368 patients with usable consultation data were prescribed delayed antibiotics. The median recommended delay period was 3 days. Seventy-five (44.4%) of the 169 with consumption data consumed the antibiotic course and a further 18 (10.7%) took another antibiotic during the study period. 50 (29.6%) started their delayed course on the day of prescription. Clinician diagnosis of upper respiratory tract/viral infection and clinician's perception of patient's wanting antibiotics were associated with less consumption of the delayed prescription. Patient's wanting antibiotics was associated with greater consumption., Conclusion: Delayed antibiotic prescribing was used infrequently for adults presenting in general practice with acute cough/LRTI. When used, the effect on antibiotic consumption was less than found in most trials. There are opportunities for standardising the intervention and promoting wider uptake.