Search

Background: We previously performed a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) in general practices and older adult care organizations in Poland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. We found that a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention (ASI) substantially reduced antibiotic use for suspected urinary tract infections (UTIs) in frail older adults compared with usual care. We aimed to evaluate the implementation process of the ASI to provide recommendations for clinical practice., Methods: We conducted a process evaluation alongside the cluster RCT. The ASI consisted of a decision-tool and a toolbox, which were implemented using a participatory-action-research (PAR) approach with sessions for education and evaluation. We documented the implementation process of the intervention and administered a questionnaire to health care professionals (HCPs) from participating organizations in the intervention and usual care clusters. We evaluated the multiple components of the intervention and its implementation following a structured framework., Results: The questionnaire was completed by 254 HCPs from the 38 participating clusters. All components were largely delivered according to plan and evaluated as useful. The decision-tool and toolbox materials were reported to facilitate decision-making on UTIs. Regarding the PAR approach, educational sessions focusing on the distinction between UTIs and asymptomatic bacteriuria were held in all 19 intervention clusters. In 17 out of these 19 clusters, evaluation sessions took place, which were reported to help remind HCPs to implement the ASI. During both sessions, HCPs valued the reflection that took place and the resulting awareness of their behavior. It allowed them to explore implementation barriers and to tailor their local implementation process to overcome these. For example, HCPs organized extra educational sessions or revised local policies to incorporate the use of the decision-tool. Various HCPs took key roles in implementation. Staff changes and the COVID-19 pandemic were important contextual barriers., Conclusions: We found each component of the multifaceted ASI and its implementation to have added value in the process to improve antibiotic prescribing for suspected UTIs in a heterogeneous older adult care setting. We recommend using a multifaceted, multidisciplinary approach that enables HCPs to reflect on their current practice and accordingly tailor local implementation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03970356. Registered on May 31, 2019., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Oseltamivir is usually not often prescribed (or reimbursed) for non-high-risk patients consulting for influenza-like-illness (ILI) in primary care in Europe. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in adults/adolescents (13 years +) and children with ILI during seasonal influenza epidemics, using data collected in an open-label, multi-season, randomised controlled trial of oseltamivir in 15 European countries., Methods: Direct and indirect cost estimates were based on patient reported resource use and official country-specific unit costs. Health-Related Quality of Life was assessed by EQ-5D questionnaires. Costs and quality adjusted life-years (QALY) were bootstrapped (N = 10,000) to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), from both the healthcare payers' and the societal perspectives, with uncertainty expressed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value for perfect information (EVPI) analysis. Additionally, scenario (self-reported spending), comorbidities subgroup and country-specific analyses were performed., Results: The healthcare payers' expected ICERs of oseltamivir were €22,459 per QALY gained in adults/adolescents and €13,001 in children. From the societal perspective, oseltamivir was cost-saving in adults/adolescents, but the ICER is €8,344 in children. Large uncertainties were observed in subgroups with comorbidities, especially for children. The expected ICERs and extent of decision uncertainty varied between countries (EVPI ranged €1-€35 per patient)., Conclusion: Adding oseltamivir to primary usual care in Europe is likely to be cost-effective for treating adults/adolescents and children with ILI from the healthcare payers' perspective (if willingness-to-pay per QALY gained > €22,459) and cost-saving in adults/adolescents from a societal perspective., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: Influenza-like illness (ILI) leads to a substantial disease burden every winter in Europe; however, oseltamivir is not frequently prescribed to ILI patients in the primary-care setting. An open-label, multi-country, multi-season, randomised controlled trial investigated the effectiveness of oseltamivir for treating ILI in 15 European countries. We aimed to evaluate whether patients presenting with ILI in primary care and being managed with the addition of oseltamivir to usual care had lower average direct and indirect costs compared to patients with usual care alone., Methods: Resource use data were extracted from participants' daily diaries. Itemised country-specific unit costs were collected through official tariffs, pharmacies or literature. Costs were converted to 2018 values. The null hypothesis was tested based on one-sided credible intervals (CrIs) obtained by bootstrapping. Base-case analysis estimated direct cost and productivity losses using itemised costed resource use and the human capital approach. Scenario analyses with self-reported spending rather than itemised costing were also performed., Results: Patients receiving oseltamivir (N = 1306) reported fewer healthcare visits, medication uses, hospital attendances and paid-work hours lost than the other patients (N = 1298). Excluding the oseltamivir cost, the average direct costs were lower in patients treated with oseltamivir from all perspectives, but these differences were not statistically significant (perspective of patient: €17 [0-95% Crl: 16-19] vs. €24 [5-100% Crl: 18-29]; healthcare provider: €37 [28-67] vs. €44 [25-55]; healthcare payers: €54 [45-85] vs. €68 [45-81]; and society: €423 [399-478] vs. €451 [390-478]). Scenario and age-group analyses confirmed these findings, but with some between-country differences., Conclusion: The average direct and indirect costs were consistently lower in patients treated with oseltamivir than in patients without from four perspectives (excluding the oseltamivir cost). However, these differences were not statistically significant., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Primary care has a crucial role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic as the first point of patient care and gatekeeper to secondary care. Qualitative studies exploring the experiences of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly focused on secondary care., Aim: To gain an understanding of the experiences of European primary care professionals (PCPs) working during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic., Design and Setting: An exploratory qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews in primary care in England, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Greece, and Sweden, between April and July 2020., Method: Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques., Results: Eighty interviews were conducted with PCPs. PCPs had to make their own decisions on how to rapidly transform services in relation to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 care. Despite being overwhelmed with guidance, they often lacked access to practical training. Consequently, PCPs turned to their colleagues for moral support and information to try to quickly adjust to new ways of working, including remote care, and to deal with uncertainty., Conclusion: PCPs rapidly transformed primary care delivery despite a number of challenges. Representation of primary care at policy level and engagement with local primary care champions are needed to facilitate easy and coordinated access to practical information on how to adapt services, ongoing training, and access to appropriate mental health support services for PCPs. Preservation of autonomy and responsiveness of primary care are critical to preserve the ability for rapid transformation in any future crisis of care delivery., (© The Authors.)

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.)

Antibiotics are among the most widely prescribed drugs in long-term care facilities, which highlights the importance of antibiotic stewardship (ABS) in this setting. In this article, we describe the experiences with ABS in nursing homes (NHs) from the perspective of 4 European countries: the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Sweden. In these countries, a large variety of initiatives to develop and implement ABS in NHs have been introduced in recent years. Among these initiatives are national antibiotic prescribing surveillance systems, NH-specific prescribing guidelines, and national networks of healthcare institutions that exchange information and develop ABS policy. Several initiatives evolved as a result of political prioritization of antibiotic resistance, translated into national action plans. Experiences of the 4 countries with the presented initiatives may inspire other countries that aim to develop or improve ABS in the long-term care setting., (Copyright © 2019 AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)