Search

Objectives Many patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care do not benefit from antibiotics. Excessive use wastes resources, promotes antimicrobial resistance and can harm patients.Design We conducted a within-trial economic evaluation, using a UK National Health Service perspective, as part of the multicentre, parallel-arm, open, individually randomised, controlled PACE trial.Setting Participating general practices in primary care.Participants PACE included 324 and 325 consenting participants presenting with AECOPD in the usual-care and CRP-guided groups, respectively.Intervention We assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of a C-reactive protein point-of-care-test (CRP-POCT) in addition to usual clinical assessment to guide antibiotic prescribing for AECOPD in primary care.Primary and secondary outcome measures A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of incremental cost per 1% antibiotic consumption reduction at 4 weeks and a cost-utility analysis (CUA) at 6 months were performed, based on a modified intention-to-treat population. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of uncertainty on the results. CE acceptability curves represent the probability of CRP-POCT being cost-effective at different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.Results Both groups had similar clinical outcomes, but a 20% absolute reduction in antibiotic consumption was observed in the CRP-guided group. CRP-POCT costs of £11.31 per test were largely offset by savings in healthcare resource use related to COPD. The mean incremental CE ratios of CRP-POCT were £120 per 1% absolute reduction in antibiotic consumption at 4 weeks and £1054 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 6 months. Sensitivity analysis showed that the CEA results were most affected by changes in healthcare costs, while CUA was sensitive due to marginal differences in costs and outcomes. There is a 73% probability of CRP-POCT being cost-effective at WTP ≤£20 000 per QALY gained.Conclusion CRP-POCT is a cost-effective intervention for safely reducing antibiotic consumption in patients with AECOPD.Trial registration number ISRCTN24346473

Abstract Background Cellulitis is a painful infection of the skin and underlying tissues, commonly affecting the lower leg. Approximately one‐third of people experience recurrence. Nurses who work in general practice (practice nurses) and see people at home (community or district nurses) could have an important role in managing risk factors for cellulitis, such as long‐term leg swelling, wound care and skin care. Objective To explore practice and community nurses' views and experiences of helping people to manage risk factors for recurrent lower limb cellulitis. Methods Semi‐structured, telephone interviews with 21 practice and community nurses in England from October 2020 to March 2021. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results Nurses face multiple challenges when supporting people to manage risk factors for recurrent lower limb cellulitis. Key challenges include limited time and access to resources such as Doppler equipment, and the physical and psychosocial capabilities of patients to self‐manage. Nurses identified potential strategies to overcome these challenges, such as placing greater emphasis on prevention and supporting self‐management by providing resources for patients and support networks (paid and unpaid carers) to reinforce knowledge post‐consultation and develop skills to self‐care. Conclusions We identified a need to develop and evaluate resources, such as support materials, for nurses to use to help patients reduce their risk of recurrent cellulitis.

Background: FebriDx is a single-use, analyser-free, point-of-care test with markers for bacterial (C-reactive protein [CRP]) and viral (myxovirus resistance protein A [MxA]) infection, measured on a finger-prick blood sample. Aim: As part of a larger feasibility study, we explored the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on the use of FebriDx to safely reduce antibiotic prescriptions for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in primary care. Design & setting: Remote semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in South England. Method: In total, 22 individuals (12 patients who underwent FebriDx testing and 10 HCPs from general practices that conducted testing) participated in interviews, which were analysed thematically. Results: Patients and HCPs expressed positive views about use of the test. They felt FebriDx was a useful tool to inform prescribing decisions and provided a visual aid to support shared decision making and appropriate antibiotic use. Most felt it would be feasible to integrate use into routine primary care consultations. Some practical difficulties with blood collection and interpreting results, which impacted on usability, were identified. Some patients’ reactions to negative test results suggested the need for better communication alongside use of the test. Conclusion: FebriDx was perceived as a useful tool to guide antibiotic prescribing and support shared decision making. Initial practical problems with testing and communicating results are potential barriers to use. Training and practice on using the test and effective communication are likely to be important elements in ensuring patient understanding and satisfaction, and successful adoption.

Background Acne is common, can cause significant impact on quality of life and is a frequent reason for long-term antibiotic use. Spironolactone has been prescribed for acne in women for many years, but robust evidence is lacking. Objective To evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women. Design Pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised superiority trial. Setting Primary and secondary healthcare and community settings (community and social media advertising). Participants Women aged 18 years and older with facial acne persisting for at least 6 months, judged to potentially warrant oral antibiotic treatment. Interventions Participants were randomised 1 : 1, using an independent web-based procedure, to either 50 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 6, increasing to 100 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 24. Participants continued usual topical treatment. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was the adjusted mean difference in Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included Acne-Specific Quality of Life total and subscales; participant self-assessed improvement; Investigator’s Global Assessment; Participant’s Global Assessment; satisfaction; adverse effects and cost-effectiveness. Results Of 1267 women assessed for eligibility, 410 were randomised (201 intervention, 209 control), 342 in the primary analysis (176 intervention, 166 control). Mean age was 29.2 years (standard deviation 7.2) and 7.9% (28/356) were from non-white backgrounds. At baseline, Investigator’s Global Assessment classified acne as mild in 46%, moderate in 40% and severe in 13%. At baseline, 82.9% were using topical treatments. Over 95% of participants in both groups tolerated the treatment and increased their dose. Mean baseline Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale was 13.0 (standard deviation 4.7) across both groups. Mean scores at week 12 were 19.2 (standard deviation 6.1) for spironolactone and 17.8 (standard deviation 5.6) for placebo [difference favouring spironolactone 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.46) adjusting for baseline variables]. Mean scores at week 24 were 21.2 (standard deviation 5.9) in spironolactone group and 17.4 (standard deviation 5.8) in placebo group [adjusted difference 3.77 (95% confidence interval 2.50 to 5.03) adjusted]. Secondary outcomes also favoured spironolactone at 12 weeks with greater differences at 24 weeks. Participants taking spironolactone were more likely than those taking placebo to report overall acne improvement at 12 weeks {72.2% vs. 67.9% [adjusted odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.91)]} and at 24 weeks {81.9% vs. 63.3% [adjusted odds ratio 2.72 (95% confidence interval 1.50 to 4.93)]}. Investigator’s Global Assessment was judged successful at week 12 for 31/201 (18.5%) taking spironolactone and 9/209 (5.6%) taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 5.18 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 12.28)]. Satisfaction with treatment improved in 70.6% of participants taking spironolactone compared with 43.1% taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 3.12 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 5.41)]. Adverse reactions were similar between groups, but headaches were reported more commonly on spironolactone (20.4% vs. 12.0%). No serious adverse reactions were reported. Taking account for missing data through multiple imputation gave an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of £27,879 (adjusted) compared to placebo or £2683 per quality-adjusted life-year compared to oral antibiotics. Conclusions Spironolactone resulted in better participant-reported and investigator-reported outcomes than placebo, with greater differences at week 24 than week 12. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN12892056 and EudraCT (2018-003630-33). Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/13/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 56. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary What was the question? Acne (or spots) is common and often persists into adulthood. Many people take long courses of antibiotic tablets, but concerns about antibiotic resistance mean alternatives are needed. Spironolactone is a medicine that is sometimes used for acne in women. However, we do not know whether it works. This trial aimed to answer this question. What did we do? We invited women aged over 18 who had acne on their face for at least 6 months to take part via their general practitioner surgery, hospital or advertising. Women were randomly assigned to two groups: one group was given spironolactone and the other group was given identical-looking placebo (‘dummy pill’) daily for 24 weeks. Women in both groups could continue using acne treatments applied to the skin (gels/creams/lotions). We asked participants to rate their acne using a questionnaire called Acne-Specific Quality of Life, asked whether they felt their skin had improved and asked skin specialists to assess their skin. What did we find? Four hundred and ten women took part, many of whom had had acne for a long time. Acne-Specific Quality of Life scores improved in both groups by 12 weeks but improved more in the spironolactone group at 12 and 24 weeks. When asked directly whether their skin had improved, 71% of participants in the spironolactone group said it had, compared with 43% on placebo. Skin specialists were also more likely to report that the acne had improved in the spironolactone group. Side effects were mild and similar in both groups but there were slightly more headaches on spironolactone (20% compared with 12%). Spironolactone is likely to represent value for money for the National Health Service, though this depends on a number of factors including what it is compared to. What does this mean? This trial suggests that spironolactone is a useful additional treatment for women with persistent acne. Scientific summary Background Acne vulgaris (hereon ‘acne’) is common, can cause significant psychosocial impact and risks permanent scarring. Topical treatments are first line, but people commonly receive long courses of oral antibiotics, raising concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance. Spironolactone, a potassium-sparing diuretic, is widely used for other conditions, such as hypertension. Spironolactone has anti-androgenic properties and is prescribed by dermatologists to treat acne in women, but robust evidence of effectiveness is lacking. Objective To evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating persistent facial acne in women. Methods Design This was a pragmatic, multicentre, participant-blinded and clinician-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial. Participants were recruited through primary care (search and mail-out or opportunistic recruitment), secondary care (opportunistic recruitment) and advertising, including community and social media advertising. Trial participants were randomised to receive either 50 mg spironolactone or matched placebo one tablet daily for the first 6 weeks and then two tablets daily (total 100 mg spironolactone or matched placebo) at (or after) week 6, providing the participant was tolerating any side effects. Treatment continued for 24 weeks in both groups. Participants in both groups could continue to use usual topical treatments throughout the trial but adherence to topicals was not promoted beyond usual care. Between baseline and week 12, participants were asked not to change their topical treatments and not to take oral treatments for acne such as oral antibiotics, hormonal treatments or isotretinoin. After week 12, participants could change usual acne care, including oral treatments, if needed. In both groups, spironolactone or placebo was stopped at week 24, participants were informed of their treatment allocation and entered an unblinded follow-up period up to week 52. After week 24, participants could seek any treatment from their usual clinical team, including spironolactone. Baseline assessment was carried out in secondary care to ensure standardisation of clinical assessments, as the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) for acne is not commonly used in primary care and was an important secondary outcome. The baseline appointment included pregnancy test, blood test (to exclude renal impairment or raised serum potassium), participant photo to aid recall about changes in acne, and contraceptive counselling. Baseline visits were conducted by research nurses and/or dermatologists. Participants were followed up face-to-face (or by video call or telephone due to the COVID-19 pandemic) in secondary care at week 6 and week 12, with primary outcome assessment at week 12, and longer-term follow-up by questionnaires at week 24 and up to week 52. Participants Participants eligible for inclusion were women aged 18 years or over: with facial acne vulgaris for at least 6 months acne of sufficient severity to warrant oral antibiotics, as judged by trial clinician; and with IGA ≥ 2 (mild or worse) women of childbearing potential at risk of pregnancy had to be willing to use their usual hormonal or barrier method of contraception for the first 6 months of the trial and for at least 4 weeks afterwards willing to be randomised sufficient English to self-complete acne-specific quality of life (Acne-QoL). Potential participants were excluded if: IGA acne grade was 0–1 (clear or almost clear) ever taken spironolactone taken oral isotretinoin within past 6 months taken oral antibiotics (lasting longer than 1 week) for acne within previous month started, stopped or changed hormonal contraception, co-cyprindiol or other hormonal treatment within past 3 months or planning to start, stop or change within the next 3 months intending to become pregnant in next 6 months spironolactone contraindicated: currently taking potassium-sparing diuretic, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blocker or digoxin hereditary problems of galactose intolerance, lactase deficiency or glucose–galactose malabsorption (as the spironolactone and placebo tablets contain lactose) androgen-secreting adrenal or ovarian tumour Cushing syndrome congenital adrenal hyperplasia estimated glomerular filtration rate below 60 ml/minute/1.73 m2 serum potassium level above upper limit of reference range for laboratory. Outcomes Primary outcome was comparison of mean Acne-QoL symptom subscale scores between groups at week 12. Acne-QoL contains 19 questions with seven response categories, each referring to the past week, reported in four domains (acne symptoms, self-perception, role-social, role-emotional). Secondary outcomes included: Acne-QoL symptom subscale score at week 24 and up to week 52 Acne-QoL other subscales (self-perception, role-emotional and role-social) at week 12, week 24 and up to week 52 participant self-assessed overall improvement at week 12 recorded on six-point Likert scale (with baseline photo to aid recall) IGA change from baseline to week 12 Participant’s Global Assessment (PGA) change at week 12 and week 24 generic health-related quality of life at week 6, week 12, week 24 and up to week 52 [EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L)] adverse reactions use of oral acne treatment during follow-up (e.g. antibiotics, isotretinoin) resource use. Sample size Sample size calculation was based on Acne-QoL symptom subscale scores as recommended by the questionnaire developer. Based on comparison Acne-QoL symptom subscale scores between groups at week 12, power 90%, alpha 0.05 and seeking a difference of 2 points between groups (effect size 0.35), a target sample size of 346 participants was initially estimated, or 434 participants allowing for 20% loss to follow-up. During the trial, the target sample size was revised to allow for correlation between baseline and follow-up measures, following discussion with trial monitoring committees and funder. Allowing for a correlation with baseline of 0.293 and a deflation factor of 1-ρ2, gave a revised target sample size of 398 participants (including allowing for 20% loss to follow-up). Randomisation and blinding Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to either spironolactone or matched placebo using an independent web-based system (block sizes 2 and 4). Participants were stratified by recruitment centre and baseline acne severity (IGA

Abstract Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031

Abstract Background Germ Defence ( www.germdefence.org ) is an evidence-based interactive website that promotes behaviour change for infection control within households. To maximise the potential of Germ Defence to effectively reduce the spread of COVID-19, the intervention needed to be implemented at scale rapidly. Methods With NHS England approval, we conducted an efficient two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the effectiveness of randomising implementation of Germ Defence via general practitioner (GP) practices across England, UK, compared with usual care to disseminate Germ Defence to patients. GP practices randomised to the intervention arm (n = 3292) were emailed and asked to disseminate Germ Defence to all adult patients via mobile phone text, email or social media. Usual care arm GP practices (n = 3287) maintained standard management for the 4-month trial period and then asked to share Germ Defence with their adult patients. The primary outcome was the rate of GP presentations for respiratory tract infections (RTI) per patient. Secondary outcomes comprised rates of acute RTIs, confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses and suspected COVID-19 diagnoses, COVID-19 symptoms, gastrointestinal infection diagnoses, antibiotic usage and hospital admissions. The impact of the intervention on outcome rates was assessed using negative binomial regression modelling within the OpenSAFELY platform. The uptake of the intervention by GP practice and by patients was measured via website analytics. Results Germ Defence was used 310,731 times. The average website satisfaction score was 7.52 (0–10 not at all to very satisfied, N = 9933). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of RTIs between intervention and control practices (rate ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.96, 1.06, p = 0.70). This was similar to all other eight health outcomes. Patient engagement within intervention arm practices ranged from 0 to 48% of a practice list. Conclusions While the RCT did not demonstrate a difference in health outcomes, we demonstrated that rapid large-scale implementation of a digital behavioural intervention is possible and can be evaluated with a novel efficient prospective RCT methodology analysing routinely collected patient data entirely within a trusted research environment. Trial registration This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry (14602359) on 12 August 2020.

Abstract Background Primary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Objective To develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance—Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network. Methods We used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A&F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement. Results The final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5). Conclusion We report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A&F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Objective This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of oral spironolactone plus routine topical treatment compared with routine topical treatment alone for persistent acne in adult women from a British NHS perspective over 24 weeks.Design Economic evaluation undertaken alongside a pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised trial.Setting Primary and secondary healthcare, community and social media advertising.Participants Women ≥18 years with persistent facial acne judged to warrant oral antibiotic treatment.Interventions Participants were randomised 1:1 to 50 mg/day spironolactone (increasing to 100 mg/day after 6 weeks) or matched placebo until week 24. Participants in both groups could continue topical treatment.Main outcome measures Cost-utility analysis assessed incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L. Cost-effectiveness analysis estimated incremental cost per unit change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale. Adjusted analysis included randomisation stratification variables (centre, baseline severity (investigator’s global assessment, IGA

Abstract Background Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are a major reason for consultations in primary care, hospital admissions, deterioration in function, and mortality. Despite the majority of exacerbations not being caused by bacteria, as many as 70% of patients who present in UK primary care with AECOPD are prescribed antibiotics as part of standard care. However, finding effective non-antibiotic treatments for COPD exacerbations is a priority to reduce antibiotic use. The Chinese herbal medicine Shufeng Jiedu® (SFJD) has the potential to reduce treatment failure and duration of hospital stay. This study aims to determine the feasibility of conducting a fully powered randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on SFJD for AECOPD in UK primary care. Methods This study is a phase III, two-arm individually double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled feasibility trial with nested qualitative study, coordinated by the Southampton Clinical Trial Unit (SCTU). Patients aged ≥ 40 years, with a current AECOPD, presenting with increased sputum purulence/volume, or breathlessness, and for whom the GP is considering use of antibiotics, will be eligible to participate. We aim to recruit seven eligible participants per month and randomise them to receive either the patent Chinese herbal medicine SFJD capsules or placebo for 14 consecutive days and to follow-up for 12 weeks. The primary outcomes include the feasibility of recruitment, study retention, and the percentage of diary completion. Discussion If this trial demonstrates the feasibility of recruitment, delivery, and follow-up, we will seek funding for a fully powered placebo-controlled trial of SFJD for the treatment of AECOPD in primary care. Trial registration This trial is registered via ISRCTN on 1 July 2021, identifier: ISRCTN26614726.

Background: Diagnosis of suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) in care and nursing home residents is commonly based on vague non-localising symptoms (for example, confusion), potentially leading to inappropriate antibiotic prescription. The safety of withholding antibiotics in such cases could be addressed by a randomised controlled trial (RCT); however, this would require close monitoring of residents, and support from care home staff, clinicians, residents, and families. Aim: To explore the views of residential care and nursing home staff (herein referred to as care home staff) and primary care clinicians on the feasibility and design of a potential RCT of antibiotics for suspected UTI in care home residents, with no localising urinary symptoms. Design & setting: A qualitative interview study with primary care clinicians and care home staff in the UK. Method: Semi-structured interviews with 16 care home staff and 11 primary care clinicians were thematically analysed. Results: Participants were broadly supportive of the proposed RCT. The safety of residents was a priority and there was strong support for using the RESTORE2 (Recognise Early Soft Signs, Take Observations, Respond, Escalate) assessment tool to monitor residents; however, there were concerns about associated training requirements, especially for night and temporary staff. Effective communication (with residents, families, and staff) was deemed essential, and carers were confident that residents and families would be supportive of the RCT if the rationale was clearly explained and safety systems were robust. There were mixed views on a placebo-controlled design. The perceived additional burden was seen as a potential barrier, and the use of temporary staff and the out-of-hours period were highlighted as potential risk areas. Conclusion: The support for this potential trial was encouraging. Future development will need to prioritise resident safety (especially in the out-of-hours period), effective communication, and minimising additional burden on staff to optimise recruitment.

Background: Although many acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are triggered by non-bacterial causes, they are often treated with antibiotics. Preliminary research suggests that the Chinese herbal medicine “Shufeng Jiedu” (SFJD), may improve recovery and therefore reduce antibiotic use in patients with AECOPD.Aims: To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial of SFJD for AECOPD in UK primary care.Methods: GPs opportunistically recruited patients experiencing an AECOPD. Participants were randomised 1:1 to usual care plus SFJD or placebo for 14 days. Participants, GPs and research nurses were blinded to treatment allocation. GPs could prescribe immediate, delayed or no antibiotics, with delayed prescribing encouraged where appropriate. Participants were asked to complete a participant diary, including EXACT-PRO and CAT™ questionnaires for up to 4 weeks. Outcomes included recruitment rate and other measures of study feasibility described using only descriptive statistics and with no formal comparisons between groups. We also conducted qualitative interviews with recruited and non-recruited COPD patients and clinicians, analysed using framework analysis.Results: Over 6 months, 19 participants (6 SFJD, 13 placebo) were recruited. Sixteen (84%) participants returned diaries or provided a diary by recall. Overall, 1.3 participants were recruited per 1,000 patients on the COPD register per month open. Median duration of treatment was 9.8 days in the intervention group vs 13.3 days in the placebo group. The main reason for discontinuation in both groups was perceived side-effects. in both groups. Point estimates for both the EXACT-PRO and CAT™ outcomes suggested possible small benefits of SFJD. Most patients and clinicians were happy to try SFJD as an alternative to antibiotics for AECOPD. Recruitment was lower than expected because of the short recruitment period, the lower incidence of AECOPD during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients starting antibiotics from “rescue packs” before seeing their GP, and workforce challenges in primary care.Conclusion: Recruitment was impaired by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, we were able to demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting and randomising participants and identified approaches to address recruitment challenges such as including the trial medication in COPD patients’ “rescue packs” and delegating recruitment to a central trials team.Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier, ISRCTN26614726

Introduction Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Published clinical trials suggest that the Chinese patent herbal medicine Shufeng Jiedu capsule (SFJD) is safe and may be effective for treating acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). However, these effects have been reported with low or very low certainty evidence. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SFJD for AECOPD.Methods and analysis This study is designed as a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Three hundred patients with moderate or severe hospitalised AECOPD will be recruited in Beijing, Shanghai and Hefei. Participants will be randomly assigned to SFJD and usual care or placebo and usual care at a ratio of 1:1. SFJD and placebo will be administered orally four capsules three times daily for 7 consecutive days followed by an 8-week follow-up period. The primary outcome will be COPD symptom severity as measured by the EXAcerbation of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool score. Secondary outcomes include clinical symptoms, quality of life, length of hospital stay, a total dose of antibiotics, the frequency of recurrence of AECOPD, haematological biomarkers, death and adverse events. This study will answer the question of whether SFJD was safe to use and will improve symptoms in people with AECOPD, and will therefore reduce the necessity for antibiotics, the risk and duration of admission to hospital, and the risk of recurrence.Ethics and dissemination The ethics committee of the first affiliated hospital of Anhui Medical University, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine affiliated Dongzhimen hospital and fifth people’s hospital of Shanghai Fudan University approved the study protocol. Informed written consent will be obtained from all the participants. The results of this trial will be disseminated at academic conferences and in peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration number ISRCTN99049821.

Abstract Background Acne is very common, can cause considerable negative impact on quality of life and there is increasing concern over the use of long courses of oral antibiotics for this condition. Objectives (1) To critically appraise reporting in acne guidelines and compare this with previous systematic review of acne guidelines. (2) Examine acne treatment guidance on pre‐specified acne treatments of interest and compare between acne guidelines. Methods Searches for new or updated guidelines were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, LILACS from 1 January 2017 to 31 July 2021, supplemented by searching a guideline‐specific depository and checking for updates to guidelines included in previous review. We included guidelines, consensus statements or care protocols on the medical treatment of acne vulgaris in adults and/or children and excluded those that focused on a single intervention or subgroup of acne, regional adaptations of guidelines or guidelines included in previous review. AGREE II checklist was applied to critically appraise reporting of guidelines. Results were synthesised narratively. Results Of 807 abstracts identified nine guidelines were identified that were eligible for inclusion. All guidelines had AGREE II scores above average in at least one domain and reporting was substantially improved compared to the systematic review of acne carried out 5 years previously. There was consensus between guidelines on the key role of topical treatments as first‐line acne treatment and most recommended continuing topical treatments as maintenance therapy. There was considerable variation between guidelines on classification of severity, indications for commencing oral antibiotics and on maximum duration of oral antibiotics. However, there was consensus on the need for co‐prescription of a non‐antibiotic topical treatment when using oral antibiotics. There were notable differences on recommendations regarding provision of information for patients on how to use topical treatments or how to mitigate against side effects. Conclusions Substantial differences in classification of acne severity hampered comparisons between guidelines. Although development and reporting of guidelines has improved over the past 5 years, differences in key recommendations remain, possibly reflecting uncertainties in the underlying evidence base. Differences between guidelines could have substantial implications for prevalence of antibiotic prescribing for acne.

Introduction There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.Methods and analysis PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). Eligibility criteria: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18–49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval granted by South Central–Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Abstract Severe sepsis is a time critical condition which is known to have a high mortality rate. Evidence suggests that early diagnosis and early administration of antibiotics can reduce morbidity and mortality from sepsis. The prehospital phase of emergency medical care may provide the earliest opportunity for identification of sepsis and delivery of life-saving treatment for patients. We aimed to assess the feasibility of (1) paramedics recognising and screening patients for severe sepsis, collecting blood cultures and administering intravenous antibiotics; and (2) trial methods in order to decide whether a fully-powered trial should be undertaken to determine safety and effectiveness of this intervention. Paramedics were trained in using a sepsis screening tool, aseptic blood culture collection and administration of intravenous antibiotics. If sepsis was suspected, paramedics randomly allocated patients to intervention or usual care using scratchcards. Patients were followed up at 90 days using linked anonymised data to capture length of hospital admission and mortality. We collected self-reported health-related quality of life at 90 days. We pre-specified criteria for deciding whether to progress to a fully-powered trial based on: recruitment of paramedics and patients; delivery of the intervention; retrieval of outcome data; safety; acceptability; and success of anonymised follow-up. Seventy-four of the 104 (71.2%) eligible paramedics agreed to take part and 54 completed their training (51.9%). Of 159 eligible patients, 146 (92%) were recognised as eligible by study paramedics, and 118 were randomised (74% of eligible patients, or 81% of those recognised as eligible). Four patients subsequently dissented to be included in the trial (3%), leaving 114 patients recruited to follow-up. All recruited patients were matched to routine data outcomes in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Ninety of the 114 (79%) recruited patients had sepsis or a likely bacterial infection recorded in ED. There was no evidence of any difference between groups in patient satisfaction, and no adverse reactions reported. There were no statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups in Serious Adverse Events (ICU admissions; deaths). This feasibility study met its pre-determined progression criteria; an application will therefore be prepared and submitted for funding for a fully-powered multi-centre randomised trial. Trial registration: ISRCTN36856873 sought 16th May 2017; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN36856873

IntroductionSore throat is a common reason for overuse of antibiotics. The value of inflammatory or biomarkers in throat swab or saliva samples in predicting benefit from antibiotics is unknown.MethodsWe used the ‘person-based approach’ to develop an online tool to support self-swabbing and recruited adults and children with sore throats through participating general practices and social media. Participants took bacterial and viral swabs and a saliva sponge swab and passive drool sample. Bacterial swabs were cultured for streptococcus (Group A, B, C, F and G). The viral swab and saliva samples were tested using a routine respiratory panel PCR and Covid-19 PCR testing. We used remaining viral swab and saliva sample volume for biomarker analysis using a panel of 13 biomarkers.ResultsWe recruited 11 asymptomatic participants and 45 symptomatic participants. From 45 symptomatic participants, bacterial throat swab, viral throat swab, saliva sponge and saliva drool samples were returned by 41/45 (91.1%), 43/45 (95.6%), 43/45 (95.6%) and 43/45 (95.6%) participants respectively. Three saliva sponge and 6 saliva drool samples were of insufficient quantity. Two adult participants had positive bacterial swabs. Six participants had a virus detected from at least one sample (swab or saliva). All of the biomarkers assessed were detectable from all samples where there was sufficient volume for testing. For most biomarkers we found higher concentrations in the saliva samples. Due to low numbers, we were not able to compare biomarker concentrations in those who did and did not have a bacterial pathogen detected. We found no evidence of a difference between biomarker concentrations between the symptomatic and asymptomatic participants but the distributions were wide.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated that it is feasible for patients with sore throat to self-swab and provide saliva samples for pathogen and biomarker analysis. Typical bacterial and viral pathogens were detected but at low prevalence rates. Further work is needed to determine if measuring biomarkers using oropharyngeal samples can help to differentiate between viral and bacterial pathogens in patients classified as medium or high risk using clinical scores, in order to better guide antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate prescriptions.

Objectives Conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care is challenging; recruiting patients during time-limited or remote consultations can increase selection bias and physical access to patients’ notes is costly and time-consuming. We investigated barriers and facilitators to running a more efficient design.Design An RCT aiming to reduce antibiotic prescribing among children presenting with acute cough and a respiratory tract infection (RTI) with a clinician-focused intervention, embedded at the practice level. By using aggregate level, routinely collected data for the coprimary outcomes, we removed the need to recruit individual participants.Setting Primary care.Participants Baseline data from general practitioner practices and interviews with individuals from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) in England who helped recruit practices and Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) who collected outcome data.Intervention The intervention included: (1) explicit elicitation of parental concerns, (2) a prognostic algorithm to identify children at low risk of hospitalisation and (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety-netting advice.Coprimary outcomes For 0–9 years old—(1) Dispensing data for amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics and (2) hospital admission rate for RTI.Results We recruited 294 of the intended 310 practices (95%) representing 336 496 registered 0–9 years old (5% of all 0–9 years old children). Included practices were slightly larger, had slightly lower baseline prescribing rates and were located in more deprived areas reflecting the national distribution. Engagement with CCGs and their understanding of their role in this research was variable. Engagement with CRNs and installation of the intervention was straight-forward although the impact of updates to practice IT systems and lack of familiarity required extended support in some practices. Data on the coprimary outcomes were almost 100%.Conclusions The infrastructure for trials at the practice level using routinely collected data for primary outcomes is viable in England and should be promoted for primary care research where appropriate.Trial registration number ISRCTN11405239.

Abstract Background Chinese herbal medicine is widely used in combination with usual care for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in China. Chinese patent medicine Shufeng Jiedu (SFJD) capsules is widely used for respiratory infectious diseases. This review aims to evaluate effectiveness and safety of SFJD for AECOPD. Methods A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with AECOPD, who received SFJD as a single intervention or as add-on treatment to usual care. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and four Chinese databases were searched from inception to April 2019. Two authors screened trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, independently. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. We performed subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses according to the predefined protocol. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results Thirteen RCTs (1036 patients, with 936 inpatients) were included, all compared SFJD in combination with usual care (including antibiotics) to usual care alone. The mean age of participants ranged from 52 to 67 years, with approximately 60% male. Due to lack of blinding and other factors, all trials were of high risk of bias. SFJD was associated with a significant reduction in treatment failure, from 20.1 to 8.3% (11 trials; 815 patients; relative risk 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.62), and duration of hospital stay (2 trials; 79 patients; mean difference − 4.32 days, 95% CI − 5.89 to − 2.75 days). No significant difference in adverse events was found between SFJD and control groups. Conclusion Low certainty evidence suggests SFJD may bring additional benefit in reducing treatment failure, shorten hospital stay, and improving symptoms. Further large, high quality RCTs are needed to confirm its benefit and safety. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42019133682 .

Abstract Objectives To examine the effectiveness of randomising dissemination of the Germ Defence behaviour change website via GP practices across England UK. Trial design A two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial implementing Germ Defence via GP practices compared with usual care. Participants Setting: All Primary care GP practices in England. Participants: All patients aged 16 years and over who were granted access by participating GP practices. Intervention and comparator Intervention: We will ask staff at GP practices randomised to the intervention arm to share the weblink to Germ Defence with all adult patients registered at their practice during the 4-month trial implementation period and care will otherwise follow current standard management. Germ Defence is an interactive website ( http://GermDefence.org/ ) employing behaviour change techniques and practical advice on how to reduce the spread of infection in the home. The coronavirus version of Germ Defence helps people understand what measures to take and when to take them to avoid infection. This includes hand washing, avoiding sharing rooms and surfaces, dealing with deliveries and ventilating rooms. Using behaviour change techniques, it helps users think through and adopt better home hygiene habits and find ways to solve any barriers, providing personalised goal setting and tailored advice that fits users’ personal circumstances and problem solving to overcome barriers. Comparator: Patients at GP practices randomised to the usual care arm will receive current standard management for the 4-month trial period after which we will ask staff to share the link to Germ Defence with all adult patients registered at their practice. Main outcomes The primary outcome is the effects of implementing Germ Defence on prevalence of all respiratory tract infection diagnoses during the 4-month trial implementation period. The secondary outcomes are: 1) incidence of COVID-19 diagnoses 2) incidence of COVID-19 symptom presentation 3) incidence of gastrointestinal infections 4) number of primary care consultations 5) antibiotic usage 6) hospital admissions 7) uptake of GP practices disseminating Germ Defence to their patients 8) usage of the Germ Defence website by individuals who were granted access by their GP practice Randomisation GP practices will be randomised on a 1:1 basis by the independent Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC). Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) in England will be divided into blocks according to region, and equal numbers in each block will be randomly allocated to intervention or usual care. The randomisation schedule will be generated in Stata statistical software by a statistician not otherwise involved in the enrolment of general practices into the study. Blinding (masking) The principal investigators, the statistician and study collaborators will remain blinded from the identity of randomised practices until the end of the study. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) To detect planned effect size (based on PRIMIT trial, Little et al, 2015): 11.1 million respondents from 6822 active GP practices. Assuming 25% of these GP practices will engage, we will contact all GP practices in England spread across 135 Clinical Commissioning Groups. Trial status Protocol version 2.0, dated 13 January 2021. Implementation is ongoing. The implementation period started on 10 November 2020 and will end on 10 March 2021. Trial registration This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry ( isrctn.com/ ISRCTN14602359 ) on 12 August 2020. Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health priority. Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition for which antibiotic use ranges from a few months to years of daily exposure. Aim: To systemically search for and synthesise evidence on the risk of treatment-resistant infections, and other evidence of AMR, following long-term oral antibiotic use for acne. Design & setting: In this systematic review, a literature search was carried out using the databases Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. They were searched using MeSH, Emtree, or other relevant terms, and followed a pre-registered protocol. Method: Search strategies were developed with a librarian and undertaken in July 2019. All searches date from database inception. The primary outcome was antibiotic treatment failure or infection caused by a resistant organism. Secondary outcomes included detection of resistant organisms without an infection, rate of infection, or changes to flora. Results: A total of 6996 records were identified. Seventy-three full-text articles were shortlisted for full review, of which five were included. Two investigated rates of infection, and three resistance or changes to microbial flora. Three studies had 35 or fewer participants (range 20–118 496). Three studies had a serious or high risk of bias, one moderate, and one a low risk of bias. Weak evidence was found for an association between antibiotic use for acne and subsequent increased rates of upper respiratory tract infections and pharyngitis. Conclusion: There is a lack of high quality evidence on the relationship between oral antibiotics for acne treatment and subsequent AMR sequelae. This needs to be urgently addressed with rigorously conducted studies.

Introduction Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in children are common and present major resource implications for primary care. Unnecessary use of antibiotics is associated with the development and proliferation of antimicrobial resistance. In 2016, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded ‘TARGET’ programme developed a prognostic algorithm to identify children with acute cough and RTI at very low risk of 30-day hospitalisation and unlikely to need antibiotics. The intervention includes: (1) explicit elicitation of parental concerns, (2) the results of the prognostic algorithm accompanied by prescribing guidance and (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety netting advice. The CHIldren’s COugh feasibility study suggested differential recruitment of healthier patients in control practices. This phase III ‘efficiently designed’ trial uses routinely collected data at the practice level, thus avoiding individual patient consent. The aim is to assess whether embedding a multifaceted intervention into general practitioner (GP) practice Information Technology (IT) systems will result in reductions of antibiotic prescribing without impacting on hospital attendance for RTI.Methods and analysis The coprimary outcomes are (1) practice rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics, (2) hospital admission rate for RTI using routinely collected data by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). Data will be collected for children aged 0–9 years registered at 310 practices (155 intervention, 155 usual care) over a 12-month period. Recruitment and randomisation of practices (using the Egton Medical Information Systems web data management system) is conducted via each CCG stratified for children registered and baseline dispensing rates of each practice. Secondary outcomes will explore intervention effect modifiers. Qualitative interviews will explore intervention usage. The economic evaluation will be limited to a between-arm comparison in a cost–consequence analysis.Ethics and dissemination Research ethics approval was given by London-Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee (ref:18/LO/0345). This manuscript refers to protocol V.4.0. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and international conferences.Trial registration number ISRCTN11405239.

Background: The management of acute respiratory infections (ARIs), urinary tract infections (UTIs), and skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) should be guided by high quality evidence. Aim: To compare the quantity and quality of randomised placebo-controlled trials of antibiotics for ARIs, UTIs, and SSTIs. Design & setting: A scoping review of the literature was performed using comprehensive search strategies. Method: PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for published studies from inception until 17 April 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared participants in primary care or in the community who had uncomplicated acute ARI, UTI, or studies, and were randomised to antibiotic or placebo (or no active treatment), were eligible for inclusion. Two groups of researchers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Results: A total of 108 eligible studies were identified: 80 on ARI, eight on UTI, and 20 on SSTI. The quality of studies varied with unclear risk of bias (RoB) prevalent in many domains. There was a gradual improvement in the quality of trials investigating ARIs over time, which could not be assessed in SSTI and UTI studies. Conclusion: This review highlights a sparsity of trials assessing the effectiveness of antibiotics in people with UTIs and SSTIs, compared to trials targeting ARIs. This gap in the evidence needs to be addressed by conducting further high quality trials on the effects of antibiotics in patients with UTI and SSTI.

Abstract Background Sepsis is a common condition which kills between 36,000 and 64,000 people every year in the UK. Early recognition and management of sepsis has been shown to reduce mortality and improve the health and well-being of people with sepsis. Paramedics frequently come into contact with patients with sepsis and are well placed to provide early diagnosis and treatment. We aim to determine the feasibility of undertaking a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedics obtaining blood cultures from and administering IV antibiotics to patients with sepsis, so we can make a decision about whether to proceed to a fully powered randomised controlled trial, which will answer questions regarding safety and effectiveness for patients and benefit to the National Health Service (NHS). Methods/design This is an individually randomised, two-arm feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 ratio. Sixty paramedics will receive training to assist them to recognise sepsis using a screening tool, obtain blood cultures, and provide IV antibiotics. If sepsis is suspected, paramedics will randomly allocate patients to intervention or usual care using their next sequential individually issued scratch card. Patients will be followed up at 90 days using linked anonymised data to capture length of hospital admission and mortality. We will also collect self-reported health-related quality of life (using SF-12) at this time. We will interview ten patients by telephone and hold a focus group with paramedics, to find out what they think about the intervention. Discussion At the end of this study, we will make a recommendation about whether a full randomised controlled trial of paramedics obtaining blood cultures and administering IV antibiotics for sepsis is warranted, and if so, we will develop a proposal for research funding in order to take the work forward. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN36856873

Chronic lung disease: Changing attitudes to help patients stop smoking Doctors should be given careful, ethically-informed guidance during medical training to help them to support patients to quit smoking. The most important part of treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is help to stop smoking. However, there is evidence to suggest that doctors don’t always motivate COPD patients to quit. Eva Anne Marije van Eerd at Maastrict University, The Netherlands, together with an international team of scientists, conducted focus group interviews with doctors in seven different countries to assess barriers to smoking cessation. They found that doctors’ frustration with and negative attitudes towards patients who continued to smoke contributed to poor cessation management and treatment inequalities in some cases. Many doctors also cited a lack of experience with smoking cessation techniques alongside time and money issues as barriers to effective treatment.

Background: Most people with sore throat do not benefit from antibiotic treatment, but nearly three-quarters of those presenting in primary care are prescribed antibiotics. A test that is predictive of bacterial infection could help guide antibiotic prescribing. Calprotectin is a biomarker of neutrophilic inflammation, and may be a useful marker of bacterial throat infections. Aim: To assess the feasibility of measuring calprotectin from throat swabs, and assess whether individuals with sore throats likely to be caused by streptococcal infections have apparently higher throat calprotectin levels than other individuals with sore throat and healthy volunteers. Design & setting: A proof of concept case–control study was undertaken, which compared primary care patients with sore throats and healthy volunteers. Method: Baseline characteristics and throat swabs were collected from 30 primary care patients with suspected streptococcal sore throat, and throat swabs were taken from 10 volunteers without sore throat. Calprotectin level determination and rapid antigen streptococcal testing were conducted on the throat swab eluents. Calprotectin levels in the following groups were compared: volunteers without a sore throat; all patients with a sore throat; patients with a sore throat testing either negative or positive for streptococcal antigen; and those with lower and higher scores on clinical prediction rules for streptococcal sore throat. Results: Calprotectin was detected in all throat swab samples. Mean calprotectin levels were numerically higher in patients with sore throat compared with healthy volunteers, and sore throat patients who had group A streptococci antigen detected compared with those who did not. Conclusion: Calprotectin can be measured from throat swab samples and levels are consistent with the hypothesis that streptococcal infection leads to higher throat calprotectin levels. This hypothesis will be tested in a larger study.

Background Guidelines recommend the prompt diagnosis and treatment of UTI in young children to reduce the risk of renal scarring and possible long-term complications. However, the evidence for this association is weak and has been questioned. There is an urgent need to clarify this as the correct approach to urine sampling and diagnosis of UTI in children hinges on this association. Main Aim Determine outcomes following UTI in childhood (1 microbiologically confirmed UTI (mcUTI) aged 1 mcUTI. The overall prevalence of renal scarring in the cohort by age 7 was 0.16%; 1.26% in those with >1 mcUTI; 0.08% in those with no mcUTI. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was 16.62 (12.91-21.39) and adjusted 3.64 (2.57-5.14). Among the group with >1 mcUTI, predictors of renal scarring were VUR, younger age of first UTI, and greater number of UTIs 1 mcUTI was lower than expected. Possible explanations include poor coding in routine data, different patient populations or missed renal scarring diagnoses. We are currently validating our results using radiology data. If renal scarring diagnoses are being missed, a more proactive urine sampling and imaging strategy may be indicated. However, if renal scarring rates are low following UTI, this may not be necessary.

Background: Little is known about clinicians’ experiences of using a point-of-care test (POCT) to inform management of urinary tract infection (UTI) in general practice. Aim: To explore experiences of using the Flexicult test to inform management of UTI and views on requirements for an optimal POCT to inform successful implementation. Design & setting: Telephone interviews with 35 primary care clinicians and healthcare professionals in Wales, England, Spain, and the Netherlands, who had participated in a trial of the Flexicult POCT for UTI based on urine culture. Method: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. Results: Most primary care clinicians interviewed agreed on the need for a POCT in UTI management, and that the Flexicult POCT delivered quicker results than laboratory results used in usual care, reassured patients, boosted their confidence in decision-making, and reminded them about antibiotic stewardship. However, clinicians also reported difficulties in interpreting results, limitations on when the Flexicult could be used, and concerns that testing all patients would strain care delivery and prolong patient discomfort when delaying decisions until a non-rapid POCT result was available. An optimal POCT would produce more rapid results, and be reliable and easy to use. Uptake into routine care would be enhanced by: clear guidance on which patients should be tested; training for interpreting ‘grey area’ results; reiterating that even ‘straightforward’ cases might be better managed with a test; clear messages about stopping unnecessary antibiotics versus completing a course; and better self-management strategies to accompany implementation of delayed, or non-prescription of, antibiotics. Conclusion: Primary care clinicians believe that POCT tests could play a useful role in the management of UTI and gave clear recommendations for successful implementation.

Peer education (PE) has been used successfully to improve young peoples’ health-related behaviour. This paper describes a qualitative evaluation of the feasibility of university healthcare students delivering PE, covering self-care and antibiotic use for infections, to biology students in three UK schools (16–18 years), who then educated their peers. Twenty peer educators (PEds) participated in focus groups and two teachers took part in interviews to discuss PE feasibility. Data were analysed inductively. All participants reported that teaching students about antibiotic resistance was important. PE was used by PEds to gain communication skills and experience for their CV. PEds confidence increased with practice and group delivery. Interactive activities and real-life illness scenarios facilitated enjoyment. Barriers to PE were competing school priorities, no antibiotic content in the non-biology curriculum, controlling disruptive behaviour, and evaluation consent and questionnaire completion. Participation increased PEds’ awareness of appropriate antibiotic use. This qualitative study supports the feasibility of delivering PE in schools. Maximising interactive and illness scenario content, greater training and support for PEds, and inclusion of infection self-care and antibiotics in the national curriculum for all 16–18-year olds could help facilitate greater antibiotic education in schools. Simplifying consent and data collection procedures would facilitate future evaluations.

Peer education (PE) interventions may help improve knowledge and appropriate use of antibiotics in young adults. In this feasibility study, health-care students were trained to educate 16–18 years old biology students, who then educated their non-biology peers, using e-Bug antibiotic lessons. Knowledge was assessed by questionnaires, and antibiotic use by questionnaire, SMS messaging and GP record searches. Five of 17 schools approached participated (3 PE and 2 control (usual lessons)). 59% (10/17) of university students and 28% (15/54) of biology students volunteered as peer-educators. PE was well-received; 30% (38/127) intervention students and 55% (66/120) control students completed all questionnaires. Antibiotic use from GP medical records (54/136, 40% of students’ data available), student SMS (69/136, 51% replied) and questionnaire (109/136, 80% completed) data showed good agreement between GP and SMS (kappa = 0.72), but poor agreement between GP and questionnaires (kappa = 0.06). Median knowledge scores were higher post-intervention, with greater improvement for non-biology students. Delivering and evaluating e-Bug PE is feasible with supportive school staff. Single tiered PE by university students may be easier to regulate and manage due to time constraints on school students. SMS collection of antibiotic data is easier and has similar accuracy to GP data.

ALIC4E is the first publicly funded, multicountry, pragmatic study determining whether antivirals should be routinely prescribed for influenza-like illness in primary care. The trial aims to go beyond determining the average treatment effect in a population to determining effects in patients with combinations of participant characteristics (age, symptom duration, illness severity, and comorbidities). It is one of the first platform, response-adaptive, open trial designs implemented in primary care, and this article aims to provide an accessible description of key aspects of the study design. 1) The platform design allows the study to remain relevant to evolving circumstances, with the ability to add treatment arms. 2) Response adaptation allows the proportion of participants with key characteristics allocated to study arms to be altered during the course of the trial according to emerging outcome data, so that participants' information will be most useful, and increasing their chances of receiving the trial intervention that will be most effective for them. 3) Because the possibility of taking placebos influences participant expectations about their treatment, and determining effects of the interventions on patient help seeking and adherence behaviour in real-world care is critical to estimates of cost-effectiveness, ALIC4E is an open-label trial.

Background: Antibiotic prescribing rates in care homes are higher than in the general population. Antibiotics disrupt the normal gut flora, sometimes causing antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD). Clostridium difficile (Hall and O’Toole 1935) Prévot 1938 is the most commonly identified cause of AAD. Little is known either about the frequency or type of antibiotics prescribed in care homes or about the incidence and aetiology of AAD in this setting. Objectives: The Probiotics for Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhoea (PAAD) study was designed as a two-stage study. PAAD stage 1 aimed to (1) prospectively describe antibiotic prescribing in care homes; (2) determine the incidence of C. difficile carriage and AAD (including C. difficile-associated diarrhoea); and (3) to consider implementation challenges and establish the basis for a sample size estimation for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of probiotic administration with antibiotics to prevent AAD in care homes. If justified by PAAD stage 1, the RCT would be implemented in PAAD stage 2. However, as a result of new evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of probiotics on the incidence of AAD, a decision was taken not to proceed with PAAD stage 2. Design: PAAD stage 1 was a prospective observational cohort study in care homes in South Wales with up to 12 months’ follow-up for each resident. Setting: Recruited care homes had management and owner’s agreement to participate and three or more staff willing to take responsibility for implementing the study. Participants: Eleven care homes were recruited, but one withdrew before any residents were recruited. A total of 279 care home residents were recruited to the observational study and 19 withdrew, 16 (84%) because of moving to a non-participating care home. Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes were the rate of antibiotic prescribing, incidence of AAD, defined as three or more loose stools (type 5–7 on the Bristol Stool Chart) in a 24-hour period, and C. difficile carriage confirmed on stool culture. Results: Stool samples were obtained at study entry from 81% of participating residents. Over half of the samples contained antibiotic-resistant isolates, with Enterobacteriaceae resistant to ciprofloxacin in 47%. Residents were prescribed an average of 2.16 antibiotic prescriptions per year [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.90 to 2.46]. Antibiotics were less likely to be prescribed to residents from dual-registered homes. The incidence of AAD was 0.57 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.81) episodes per year among those residents who were prescribed antibiotics. AAD was more likely in residents who were prescribed co-amoxiclav than other antibiotics and in those residents who routinely used incontinence pads. AAD was less common in residents from residential homes. Conclusions: Care home residents, particularly in nursing homes, are frequently prescribed antibiotics and often experience AAD. Antibiotic resistance, including ciprofloxacin resistance, is common in Enterobacteriaceae isolated from the stool of care home residents. Co-amoxiclav is associated with greater risk of AAD than other commonly prescribed antibiotics. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 7954844. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

General public views and expectations around the use of antibiotics can influence general practitioners' antibiotic prescribing decisions. We set out to describe the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about the use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections in adults in Poland, and explore differences according to where people live in an urban-rural continuum.Face to face survey among a stratified random sample of adults from the general population.1,210 adults completed the questionnaire (87% response rate); 44.3% were rural; 57.9% were women. 49.4% of rural respondents and 44.4% of urban respondents had used an antibiotic in the last 2 years. Rural participants were less likely to agree with the statement "usually I know when I need an antibiotic," (53.5% vs. 61.3% respectively; p = 0.015) and reported that they would consult with a physician for a cough with yellow/green phlegm (69.2% vs. 74.9% respectively; p = 0.004), and were more likely to state that they would leave the decision about antibiotic prescribing to their doctor (87.5% vs. 85.6% respectively; p = 0.026). However, rural participants were more likely to believe that antibiotics accelerate recovery from sore throat (45.7% vs. 37.1% respectively; p = 0.017). Use of antibiotic in the last 2 years, level of education, number of children and awareness of the problem of developing antimicrobial resistance predicted accurate knowledge about antibiotic effectiveness.There were no major differences in beliefs about antibiotics between urban and rural responders, although rural responders were slightly less confident in their knowledge about antibiotics and self-reported greater use of antibiotics. Despite differences in the level of education between rural and urban responders, there were no significant differences in their knowledge about antibiotic effectiveness.

BackgroundOutpatients with acute cough who expect, hope for or ask for antibiotics may be more unwell, benefit more from antibiotic treatment, and be more satisfied with care when they are prescribed antibiotics. Clinicians may not accurately identify those patients.ObjectiveTo explore whether patient views (expecting, hoping for or asking for antibiotics) are associated with illness presentation and resolution, whether patient views are accurately perceived by clinicians, and the association of all these factors with antibiotic prescribing and patient satisfaction with care.MethodsProspective observational study of 3402 adult patients with acute cough presenting in 14 primary care networks. Correlations and associations tested with multilevel logistic regression and McNemar 's tests, and Cohen's Kappa, positive agreement (PA) and negative agreement (NA) calculated as appropriate.Results1,213 (45.1%) patients expected, 1,093 (40.6%) hoped for, and 275 (10.2%) asked for antibiotics. Clinicians perceived 840 (31.3%) as wanting to be prescribed antibiotics (McNemar's test, pConclusionPatient views about antibiotic treatment were not useful for identifying those who will benefit from antibiotics. Clinician perceptions did not match with patient views, but particularly influenced antibiotic prescribing. Patients were generally satisfied with care, but those hoping for but not prescribed antibiotics were less satisfied. Clinicians need to more effectively elicit and address patient views about antibiotics.