Search

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).)

Objectives: Infectious mononucleosis (IM) is a clinical syndrome that is characterised by lymphadenopathy, fever and sore throat. Although generally not considered a serious illness, IM can lead to significant loss of time from school or work due to profound fatigue, or the development of chronic illness. This study aimed to derive and externally validate clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for IM caused by Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting and Participants: 328 participants were recruited prospectively for the derivation cohort, from seven university-affiliated student health centres in Ireland. Participants were young adults (17-39 years old, mean age 20.6 years) with sore throat and one other additional symptom suggestive of IM. The validation cohort was a retrospective cohort of 1498 participants from a student health centre at the University of Georgia, USA., Main Outcome Measures: Regression analyses were used to develop four CPR models, internally validated in the derivation cohort. External validation was carried out in the geographically separate validation cohort., Results: In the derivation cohort, there were 328 participants, of whom 42 (12.8%) had a positive EBV serology test result. Of 1498 participants in the validation cohort, 243 (16.2%) had positive heterophile antibody tests for IM. Four alternative CPR models were developed and compared. There was moderate discrimination and good calibration for all models. The sparsest CPR included presence of enlarged/tender posterior cervical lymph nodes and presence of exudate on the pharynx. This model had moderate discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 0.70; 95% CI: 0.62-0.79) and good calibration. On external validation, this model demonstrated reasonable discrimination (AUC: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.67-0.72) and good calibration., Conclusions: The alternative CPRs proposed can provide quantitative probability estimates of IM. Used in conjunction with serological testing for atypical lymphocytosis and immunoglobulin testing for viral capsid antigen, CPRs can enhance diagnostic decision-making for IM in community settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Clinical findings do not accurately predict laboratory diagnosis of influenza. Early identification of influenza is considered useful for proper management decisions in primary care., Objective: We evaluated the diagnostic value of the presence and the severity of symptoms for the diagnosis of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection among adults presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI) in primary care., Methods: Secondary analysis of patients with ILI who participated in a clinical trial from 2015 to 2018 in 15 European countries. Patients rated signs and symptoms as absent, minor, moderate, or major problem. A nasopharyngeal swab was taken for microbiological identification of influenza and other microorganisms. Models were generated considering (i) the presence of individual symptoms and (ii) the severity rating of symptoms., Results: A total of 2,639 patients aged 18 or older were included in the analysis. The mean age was 41.8 ± 14.7 years, and 1,099 were men (42.1%). Influenza was microbiologically confirmed in 1,337 patients (51.1%). The area under the curve (AUC) of the model for the presence of any of seven symptoms for detecting influenza was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.68), whereas the AUC of the symptom severity model, which included eight variables-cough, fever, muscle aches, sweating and/or chills, moderate to severe overall disease, age, abdominal pain, and sore throat-was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.69-0.72)., Conclusion: Clinical prediction of microbiologically confirmed influenza in adults with ILI is slightly more accurate when based on patient reported symptom severity than when based on the presence or absence of symptoms., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: There is little evidence about the relationship between aetiology, illness severity, and clinical course of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care. Understanding these associations would aid in the development of effective management strategies for these infections., Aim: To investigate whether clinical presentation and illness course differ between RTIs where a viral pathogen was detected and those where a potential bacterial pathogen was found., Design and Setting: Post hoc analysis of data from a pragmatic randomised trial on the effects of oseltamivir in patients with flu-like illness in primary care ( n = 3266) in 15 European countries., Method: Patient characteristics and their signs and symptoms of disease were registered at baseline. Nasopharyngeal (adults) or nasal and pharyngeal (children) swabs were taken for polymerase chain reaction analysis. Patients were followed up until 28 days after inclusion. Regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyse the relationship between aetiology, clinical presentation at baseline, and course of disease including complications., Results: Except for a less prominent congested nose (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.86) and acute cough (OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.65) in patients with flu-like illness in whom a possible bacterial pathogen was isolated, there were no clear clinical differences in presentations between those with a possible bacterial aetiology compared with those with a viral aetiology. Also, course of disease and complications were not related to aetiology., Conclusion: Given current available microbiological tests and antimicrobial treatments, and outside pandemics such as COVID-19, microbiological testing in primary care patients with flu-like illness seems to have limited value. A wait-and-see policy in most of these patients with flu-like illness seems the best option., (© The Authors.)

Background: Patients infected with the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) are being treated empirically with oseltamivir, but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the treatment of coronavirus infections with oseltamivir., Aim: To determine whether adding oseltamivir to usual care reduces time to recovery in symptomatic patients who have tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2)., Design and Setting: Exploratory analysis of data from an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial during three influenza seasons, from 2016 to 2018, in primary care research networks, in 15 European countries., Method: Patients aged ≥1 year presenting to primary care with influenza-like illness (ILI), and who tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2), were randomised to usual care or usual care plus oseltamivir. The primary outcome was time to recovery defined as a return to usual activities, with minor or absent fever, headache, and muscle ache., Results: Coronaviruses (CoV-229E, CoV-OC43, CoV-KU1 and CoV-NL63) were identified in 308 (9%) out of 3266 randomised participants in the trial; 153 of these were allocated to usual care and 155 to usual care plus oseltamivir; the primary outcome was ascertained in 136 and 147 participants, respectively. The median time to recovery was shorter in patients randomised to oseltamivir: 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3-6) versus 5 days (IQR 3-8; hazard ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.66; P = 0.026)., Conclusion: Primary care patients with ILI testing positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2) recovered sooner when oseltamivir was added to usual care compared with usual care alone. This may be of relevance to the primary care management of COVID-19., (©The Authors.)

Introduction: Reflection is thought to be an essential skill for physicians. Although much has been written about it, there is little concurrence about how to best teach reflection in medical education. The aim of this review was to determine: (i) which educational interventions are being used to develop reflection, (ii) how is reflection being assessed, and (iii) what are the most effective interventions., Methods: Inclusion criteria comprised: (i) undergraduate medical students, (ii) a teaching intervention to develop reflection, and (iii) assessment of the intervention. A review protocol was developed and nine databases were searched. Screening, data extraction, and analysis procedures were performed in duplicate. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, a narrative synthesis approach was performed for the study analysis., Results: Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The interventions in these studies had at least of two of the following components related to reflection: (i) introduction, (ii) trigger, (iii) writing, (iv) guidelines, (v) small group discussion, (vi) tutor and (vii) feedback. Three validated rubrics were used to assess reflective writing in these studies., Conclusions: The strongest evidence from studies in this review indicates that guidelines for, and feedback on, reflective writing improve student reflection.

Introduction: Effective management of seasonal and pandemic influenza is a high priority internationally. Guidelines in many countries recommend antiviral treatment for older people and individuals with comorbidity at increased risk of complications. However, antivirals are not often prescribed in primary care in Europe, partly because its clinical and cost effectiveness has been insufficiently demonstrated by non-industry funded and pragmatic studies., Methods and Analysis: Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness? An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE is a European multinational, multicentre, open-labelled, non-industry funded, pragmatic, adaptive-platform, randomised controlled trial. Initial trial arms will be best usual primary care and best usual primary care plus treatment with oseltamivir for 5 days. We aim to recruit at least 2500 participants ≥1 year presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI), with symptom duration ≤72 hours in primary care over three consecutive periods of confirmed high influenza incidence. Participant outcomes will be followed up to 28 days by diary and telephone. The primary objective is to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to best usual primary care is effective in reducing time to return to usual daily activity with fever, headache and muscle ache reduced to minor severity or less. Secondary objectives include estimating cost-effectiveness, benefits in subgroups according to age (<12, 12-64 and >64 years), severity of symptoms at presentation (low, medium and high), comorbidity (yes/no), duration of symptoms (≤48 hours/>48-72 hours), complications (hospital admission and pneumonia), use of additional prescribed medication including antibiotics, use of over-the-counter medicines and self-management of ILI symptoms., Ethics and Dissemination: Research ethics committee (REC) approval was granted by the NRES Committee South Central (Oxford B) and Clinical Trial Authority (CTA) approval by The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. All participating countries gained national REC and CTA approval as required. Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN27908921; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Infectious mononucleosis (IM) is a clinical syndrome, usually caused by the Epstein Barr virus (EPV), characterised by lymphadenopathy, fever and sore throat. Most cases of symptomatic IM occur in older teenagers or young adults. Usually IM is a benign self-limiting illness and requires only symptomatic treatment. However, occasionally the disease course can be complicated or prolonged and lead to decreased productivity in terms of school or work. Antiviral medications have been used to treat IM, but the use of antivirals for IM is controversial. They may be effective by preventing viral replication which helps to keep the virus inactive. However, there are no guidelines for antivirals in IM., Objectives: To assess the effects of antiviral therapy for infectious mononucleosis (IM)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, March 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to 15 April 2016), Embase (1974 to 15 April 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 April 2016), LILACS (1982 to 15 April 2016) and Web of Science (1955 to 15 April 2016). We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antivirals versus placebo or no treatment in IM. We included trials of immunocompetent participants of any age or sex with clinical and laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of IM, who had symptoms for up to 14 days. Our primary outcomes were time to clinical recovery and adverse events and side effects of medication. Secondary outcomes included duration of abnormal clinical examination, complications, viral shedding, health-related quality of life, days missing from school or work and economic outcomes., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed the included studies' risk of bias and extracted data using a customised data extraction sheet. We used the GRADE criteria to rate the quality of the evidence. We pooled heterogeneous data where possible, and presented the results narratively where we could not statistically combine data., Main Results: We included seven RCTs with a total of 333 participants in our review. Three trials studied hospitalised patients, two trials were conducted in an outpatient setting, while the trial setting was unclear in two studies. Participants' ages ranged from two years to young adults. The type of antiviral, administration route, and treatment duration varied between the trials. The antivirals in the included studies were acyclovir, valomaciclovir and valacyclovir. Follow-up varied from 20 days to six months. The diagnosis of IM was based on clinical symptoms and laboratory parameters.The risk of bias for all included studies was either unclear or high risk of bias. The quality of evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes and so the results should be interpreted with caution. There were statistically significant improvements in the treatment group for two of the 12 outcomes. These improvements may be of limited clinical significance.There was a mean reduction in 'time to clinical recovery as assessed by physician' of five days in the treatment group but with wide confidence intervals (CIs) (95% CI -8.04 to -1.08; two studies, 87 participants). Prospective studies indicate that clinical signs and symptoms may take one month or more to resolve and that fatigue may be persistent in approximately 10% of patients at six-month follow-up, so this may not be a clinically meaningful result.Trial results for the outcome 'adverse events and side effects of medication' were reported narratively in only five studies. In some reports authors were unsure whether an adverse event was related to medication or complication of disease. These results could not be pooled due to the potential for double counting results but overall, the majority of trials reporting this outcome did not find any significant difference between treatment and control groups.There was a mean reduction in 'duration of lymphadenopathy' of nine days (95% CI -11.75 to -6.14, two studies, 61 participants) in favour of the treatment group.In terms of viral shedding, the overall effect from six studies was that viral shedding was suppressed while on antiviral treatment, but this effect was not sustained when treatment stopped.For all other outcomes there was no statistically significant difference between antiviral treatment and control groups., Authors' Conclusions: The effectiveness of antiviral agents (acyclovir, valomaciclovir and valacyclovir) in acute IM is uncertain. The quality of the evidence is very low. The majority of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias and so questions remain about the effectiveness of this intervention. Although two of the 12 outcomes have results that favour treatment over control, the quality of the evidence of these results is very low and may not be clinically meaningful. Alongside the lack of evidence of effectiveness, decision makers need to consider the potential adverse events and possible associated costs, and antiviral resistance. Further research in this area is warranted.