Rationale, design and organization of the delayed antibiotic prescription (DAP) trial: a randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies in the non-complicated acute respiratory tract infections in general practice.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: de la Poza Abad M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3682866 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Rationale, design and organization of the delayed antibiotic prescription (DAP) trial: a randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies in the non-complicated acute respiratory tract infections in general practice.
de la Poza Abad Mariam M Mas Dalmau Gemma G Moreno Bakedano Mikel M González González Ana Isabel AI Canellas Criado Yolanda Y Hernández Anadón Silvia S Rotaeche del Campo Rafael R Torán Monserrat Pere P Negrete Palma Antonio A Pera Guillem G Borrell Thió Eulàlia E Llor Carl C Little Paul P Alonso Coello Pablo P
BMC family practice 20130519
<h4>Background</h4>Respiratory tract infections are an important burden in primary care and it's known that they are usually self-limited and that antibiotics only alter its course slightly. This together with the alarming increase of bacterial resistance due to increased use of antimicrobials calls for a need to consider strategies to reduce their use. One of these strategies is the delayed prescription of antibiotics.<h4>Methods</h4>Multicentric, parallel, randomised controlled trial comparing ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of different strategies involving delayed antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory tract infections.DesignOpen, pragmatic, parallel group, factorial, randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care in the United Kingdom.Patients889 patients aged 3 years and over with acute respiratory tract infection, recruited between 3 March 2010 and 28 March 2012 by 53 health professionals in 25 practices.InterventionsPatients judged not to need immediate antibiotics were randomised to undergo four strategies of delayed prescription: recontact for a prescription, post-dated prescription, collection of the prescription, and be given the prescription (patient led). During the trial, a strategy of no antibiotic prescription was added as another randomised comparison. Analysis was intention to treat.Main outcome measuresMean symptom severity (0-6 scale) at days 2-4 (primary outcome), antibiotic use, and patients' beliefs in the effectiveness of antibiotic use. Secondary analysis included comparison with immediate use of antibiotics.ResultsMean symptom severity had minimal differences between the strategies involving no prescription and delayed prescription (recontact, post-date, collection, patient led; 1.62, 1.60, 1.82, 1.68, 1.75, respectively; likelihood ratio test χ(2) 2.61, P=0.625). Duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse also did not differ between no prescription and delayed prescription strategies combined (median 3 days v 4 days; 4.29, P=0.368). There were modest and non-significant differences in patients very satisfied with the consultation between the randomised groups (79%, 74%, 80%, 88%, 89%, respectively; likelihood ratio test χ(2) 2.38, P=0.667), belief in antibiotics (71%, 74%, 73%, 72%, 66%; 1.62, P=0.805), or antibiotic use (26%, 37%, 37%, 33%, 39%; 4.96, P=0.292). By contrast, most patients given immediate antibiotics used antibiotics (97%) and strongly believed in them (93%), but with no benefit for symptom severity (score 1.76) or duration (median 4 days).ConclusionStrategies of no prescription or delayed antibiotic prescription result in fewer than 40% of patients using antibiotics, and are associated with less strong beliefs in antibiotics, and similar symptomatic outcomes to immediate prescription. If clear advice is given to patients, there is probably little to choose between the different strategies of delayed prescription.Trial registrationISRCTN38551726.
| S-EPMC3944682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntibiotic prescription for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in children attending primary care centres is almost double that predicted according to bacterial prevalence. Delayed antibiotic prescription (DAP) is designed to deploy a more rational use of antibiotics. While studies have evaluated DAP efficacy and safety for children with RTIs, little research has been conducted on the economic implications.MethodsOur trial compared cost-effectiveness for DAP, immediate antibiotic prescription (IAP), and no antibiotic prescription (NAP) for children aged 2-14 years with acute uncomplicated RTIs attended to in 39 primary care centres in Spain. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in euros per gained quality-adjusted life days (QALDs). Net monetary benefit (NMB) was also calculated as a tool for decision making. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective for a time horizon of 30 days, and included healthcare direct costs, non-healthcare direct and indirect costs, and the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) cost.ResultsDAP was the most cost-effective strategy, even when the cost of AMR was included. QALD values for the three strategies were very similar. IAP compared to DAP was more costly (109.68 vs 100.90 euros) and similarly effective (27.88 vs 27.94 QALDs). DAP compared to NAP was more costly (100.90 vs 97.48 euros) and more effective (27.94 vs. 27.82 QALDs). The ICER for DAP compared to NAP was 28.84 euros per QALD. The deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that non-healthcare indirect costs had the greatest impact on the ICER. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that DAP was the preferred option in approximately 81.75% of Monte Carlo iterations, assuming a willingness-to-pay value of 82.2 euros per gained QALD.ConclusionsWhen clinicians are in doubt about whether an antibiotic is needed for children with RTIs attending PC centres, those treated with the DAP strategy will have slightly better efficiency outcomes than those treated with IAP because its costs are lower than those of IAP. DAP is also the most cost-effective strategy over a time horizon of 30 days if AMR is considered, despite higher short-term costs than NAP. However, if in the long term the costs of AMR are larger than estimated, NAP could also be an alternative strategy.Trial registrationThis trial has been registered at www.Clinicaltrialsgov (identifier NCT01800747; Date: 28/02/2013 (retrospectively registered).
| S-EPMC10544479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the overall effect of delayed antibiotic prescribing on average symptom severity for patients with respiratory tract infections in the community, and to identify any factors modifying this effect.DesignSystematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised controlled trials and observational cohort studies in a community setting that allowed comparison between delayed versus no antibiotic prescribing, and delayed versus immediate antibiotic prescribing.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the average symptom severity two to four days after the initial consultation measured on a seven item scale (ranging from normal to as bad as could be). Secondary outcomes were duration of illness after the initial consultation, complications resulting in admission to hospital or death, reconsultation with the same or worsening illness, and patient satisfaction rated on a Likert scale.ResultsData were obtained from nine randomised controlled trials and four observational studies, totalling 55 682 patients. No difference was found in follow-up symptom severity (seven point scale) for delayed versus immediate antibiotics (adjusted mean difference -0.003, 95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.11) or delayed versus no antibiotics (0.02, -0.11 to 0.15). Symptom duration was slightly longer in those given delayed versus immediate antibiotics (11.4 v 10.9 days), but was similar for delayed versus no antibiotics. Complications resulting in hospital admission or death were lower with delayed versus no antibiotics (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 1.27) and delayed versus immediate antibiotics (0.78, 0.53 to 1.13). A significant reduction in reconsultation rates (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.87) and an increase in patient satisfaction (adjusted mean difference 0.09, 0.06 to 0.11) were observed in delayed versus no antibiotics. The effect of delayed versus immediate antibiotics and delayed versus no antibiotics was not modified by previous duration of illness, fever, comorbidity, or severity of symptoms. Children younger than 5 years had a slightly higher follow-up symptom severity with delayed antibiotics than with immediate antibiotics (adjusted mean difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.18), but no increased severity was found in the older age group.ConclusionsDelayed antibiotic prescribing is a safe and effective strategy for most patients, including those in higher risk subgroups. Delayed prescribing was associated with similar symptom duration as no antibiotic prescribing and is unlikely to lead to poorer symptom control than immediate antibiotic prescribing. Delayed prescribing could reduce reconsultation rates and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in symptoms or illness duration, except in young children.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42018079400.
| S-EPMC8080136 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUpper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) account for approximately 50% of antibiotic prescriptions in the United Kingdom. General practitioners (GPs) frequently issue such prescriptions simply because they believe that the patient expects it. Deferred prescribing (issuing a prescription, but with instructions to wait for no spontaneous improvement before deciding whether to use it) might address patients' expectations, while minimising actual antibiotic consumption. Although the technique is quite widely practiced, patients' attitudes and responses to it are unclear.AimsTo establish the proportion of recipients who claim to consume their delayed antibiotic prescriptions. To elicit factors associated with patients' decisions to consume their antibiotics, and patients' confidence in taking this decision.Design of studyPostal questionnaire survey.SettingPatients from 13 group practices in the south of England.MethodsPatients who had received a delayed antibiotic prescription for URTI from their GP were posted a questionnaire 2 days after their consultation.ResultsThree hundred and seventy-four subjects were recruited of whom 256 (68.4%) returned their questionnaires. Just over half (53.1%) of the responders claimed to have consumed their antibiotics. The majority of patients (87.1%) were confident about taking the decision as to whether to use their antibiotics, and 92.5% would choose to receive a delayed prescription again. Subjects were more likely to take their antibiotics if their presenting symptoms included a fever or sinus pain.ConclusionMost patients are confident in making the decision about whether or not to take their antibiotics when receiving a delayed prescription for URTIs. Antibiotic consumption is associated with presenting symptoms, and this has implications for future practice.
| S-EPMC1314726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical safety of delayed antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), which is recommended in treatment guidelines for less severe cases.MethodsTwo population-based cohort studies used the English Clinical Practice Research Databank and Welsh Secure Anonymized Information Linkage, containing electronic health records from primary care linked to hospital admission records. Patients with URTI and prescriptions of amoxicillin, clarithromycin, doxycycline, erythromycin, or phenoxymethylpenicillin were identified. Patients were stratified according to delayed and immediate prescribing relative to URTI diagnosis. Outcome of interest was infection-related hospital admission after 30 days.ResultsThe population included 1.82 million patients with an URTI and antibiotic prescription; 91.7% had an antibiotic at URTI diagnosis date (immediate) and 8.3% had URTI diagnosis in 1-30 days before (delayed). Delayed antibiotic prescribing was associated with a 52% increased risk of infection-related hospital admissions (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-1.62). The probability of delayed antibiotic prescribing was unrelated to predicted risks of hospital admission. Analyses of the number needed to harm showed considerable variability across different patient groups (median with delayed antibiotic prescribing, 1357; 2.5% percentile, 295; 97.5% percentile, 3366).ConclusionsThis is the first large population-based study examining the safety of delayed antibiotic prescribing. Waiting to treat URTI was associated with increased risk of hospital admission, although delayed antibiotic prescribing was used similarly between high- and low-risk patients. There is a need to better target delayed antibiotic prescribing to URTI patients with lower risks of complications.
| S-EPMC8282258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Antibiotic use is a major driver of antibiotic resistance. Although delayed antibiotic prescription is a recommended strategy to reduce antibiotic use, practices vary; it appears less commonly used in southern European countries where antibiotic consumption is highest. Despite these variations, few qualitative studies have explored general practitioners' perceptions of delayed antibiotic prescription. We therefore aimed to explore and describe the perceptions of delayed antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract infections among general practitioners in Malta. METHODS:This qualitative phenomenographic study was conducted in Malta. A semi-structured interview guide was developed in English, pilot tested and revised accordingly. Interview topics included views on antibiotic resistance, antibiotic use and delayed antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract infections, and barriers and facilitators to antibiotic prescription. Individual, face-to-face interviews were held in 2014 with a quota sample of 20 general practitioners and transcribed verbatim. Data were subsequently analysed using a phenomenographic approach. FINDINGS:General practitioners perceived delayed antibiotic prescription in five qualitatively different ways: (A) "The Service Provider"-maintaining a good general practitioner-patient relationship to retain patients and avoid doctor-shopping, (B) "The Uncertainty Avoider"-reaching a compromise and providing treatment just in case, (C) "The Comforter"-providing the patient comfort and reassurance, (D) "The Conscientious Practitioner"-empowering and educating patients, and limiting antibiotic use, and (E) "The Holder of Professional Power"-retaining general practitioner responsibility by employing a wait-and-see approach. Although general practitioners were largely positive towards delayed antibiotic prescription, not all supported the strategy; some preferred a wait-and-see approach with follow-up. Many delayed antibiotic prescription users selectively practiced delayed prescription with patients they trusted or who they believed had a certain level of knowledge and understanding. They also preferred a patient-led approach with a one to three day delay; post-dating delayed antibiotic prescriptions was uncommon. CONCLUSIONS:In this study we have shown that general practitioners hold varying perceptions about delayed antibiotic prescription and that there is variation in the way delayed antibiotic prescription is employed in Malta. Whilst delayed antibiotic prescription is utilised in Malta, not all general practitioners support the strategy, and motivations and practices differ. In high consumption settings, formal and standardised implementation of delayed antibiotic prescription could help curb antibiotic overuse. Diagnosis-specific delayed antibiotic prescription recommendations should also be incorporated into guidelines. Finally, further investigation into patients' and pharmacists' views on delayed antibiotic prescription is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03218930.
| S-EPMC6874332 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntibiotics are overprescribed for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). However, the decision to prescribe is often complex. Delayed antibiotic prescription (DAP), a strategy designed to promote more rational antibiotic use, is still not widely used. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions and attitudes in primary care professionals, regarding antibiotic use and different DAP strategies for uncomplicated RTIs.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study, using an inductive thematic approach to generate themes, based on focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with professionals, recruited from 6 primary care centres (Barcelona metropolitan area, Spain).Results26 professionals (25 family physicians and one nurse) were included in four focus group discussions and three semi-structured interviews. Participants commented that RTIs were a main reason for consultation, motivated often by patient anxiety and fear of possible complications, and this was associated with the patients' poor health-related education. Acknowledging inappropriate antibiotic use in the health system, participants attributed this, mainly to defensive medicine strategies. DAP was used when in doubt about the aetiology, and considering factors related to patient-physician interactions. The main perceived advantage of DAP was that it could reduce the need for additional visits, while the main disadvantage was uncertainty regarding proper use by the patient.ConclusionsDAP was used by participants in cases of doubt, in specific situations, and for specific patient profiles. Weak points were detected in our primary care system and its users that affect the proper use of both antibiotics and DAP, namely, time pressure on professionals, poor patient health-related education, and the lack of a patient-physician relationship in some scenarios.
| S-EPMC10548630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDelayed prescribing can be a useful strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing, but it is not clear for whom delayed prescribing might be effective. This protocol outlines an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies to explore the overall effect of delayed prescribing and identify key patient characteristics that are associated with efficacy of delayed prescribing.Methods and analysisA systematic search of the databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies from inception to October 2017. Outcomes of interest include duration of illness, severity of illness, complication, reconsultation and patient satisfaction. Study authors of eligible papers will be contacted and invited to contribute raw IPD data. IPD data will be checked against published data, harmonised and aggregated to create one large IPD database. Multilevel regression will be performed to explore interaction effects between treatment allocation and patient characteristics. The economic evaluation will be conducted based on IPD from the combined trial and observational studies to estimate the differences in costs and effectiveness for delayed prescribing compared with normal practice. A decision model will be developed to assess potential savings and cost-effectiveness in terms of reduced antibiotic usage of delayed prescribing and quality-adjusted life years.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 30068). Findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals as well as General Practice trade journals and will be presented at national and international conferences. The results will have important public health implications, shaping the way in which antibiotics are prescribed in the future and to whom delayed prescriptions are issued.Prospero registration numberCRD42018079400.
| S-EPMC6347865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess the effects of a multifaceted educational intervention in Norwegian general practice aiming to reduce antibiotic prescription rates for acute respiratory tract infections and to reduce the use of broad spectrum antibiotics.Cluster randomised controlled study.Existing continuing medical education groups were recruited and randomised to intervention or control.79 groups, comprising 382 general practitioners, completed the interventions and data extractions.The intervention groups had two visits by peer academic detailers, the first presenting the national clinical guidelines for antibiotic use and recent research evidence on acute respiratory tract infections, the second based on feedback reports on each general practitioner's antibiotic prescribing profile from the preceding year. Regional one day seminars were arranged as a supplement. The control arm received a different intervention targeting prescribing practice for older patients.Prescription rates and proportion of non-penicillin V antibiotics prescribed at the group level before and after the intervention, compared with corresponding data from the controls.In an adjusted, multilevel model, the effect of the intervention on the 39 intervention groups (183 general practitioners) was a reduction (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.84) in prescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections compared with the controls (40 continuing medical education groups with 199 general practitioners). A corresponding reduction was seen in the odds (0.64, 0.49 to 0.82) for prescribing a non-penicillin V antibiotic when an antibiotic was issued. Prescriptions per 1000 listed patients increased from 80.3 to 84.6 in the intervention arm and from 80.9 to 89.0 in the control arm, but this reflects a greater incidence of infections (particularly pneumonia) that needed treating in the intervention arm.The intervention led to improved antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in a representative sample of Norwegian general practitioners, and the courses were feasible to the general practitioners.Clinical trials NCT00272155.
| S-EPMC3724398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAntibiotics are commonly prescribed in primary care, increasing the risk of antimicrobial resistance in the population.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of quarterly audit and feedback on antibiotic prescribing among primary care physicians in Switzerland with medium to high antibiotic prescription rates.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, among 3426 registered primary care physicians and pediatricians in single or small practices in Switzerland who were among the top 75% prescribers of antibiotics. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed using analysis of covariance models and conducted from September 1, 2021, to January 31, 2022.InterventionsPrimary care physicians were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to undergo quarterly antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback with peer benchmarking vs no intervention for 2 years, with 2017 used as the baseline year. Anonymized patient-level claims data from 3 health insurers serving roughly 50% of insurees in Switzerland were used for audit and feedback. The intervention group also received evidence-based guidelines for respiratory tract and urinary tract infection management and community antibiotic resistance information. Physicians in the intervention group were blinded regarding the nature of the trial, and physicians in the control group were not informed of the trial.Main outcomes and measuresThe claims data used for audit and feedback were analyzed to assess outcomes. Primary outcome was the antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 consultations during the second year of the intervention. Secondary end points included overall antibiotic use in the first year and over 2 years, use of quinolones and oral cephalosporins, all-cause hospitalizations, and antibiotic use in 3 age groups.ResultsA total of 3426 physicians were randomized to the intervention (n = 1713) and control groups (n = 1713) serving 629 825 and 622 344 patients, respectively, with a total of 4 790 525 consultations in the baseline year of 2017. In the entire cohort, a 4.2% (95% CI, 3.9%-4.6%) relative increase in the antibiotic prescribing rate was noted during the second year of the intervention compared with 2017. In the intervention group, the median annual antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 consultations was 8.2 (IQR, 6.1-11.4) in the second year of the intervention and was 8.4 (IQR, 6.0-11.8) in the control group. Relative to the overall increase, a -0.1% (95% CI, -1.2% to 1.0%) lower antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 consultations was found in the intervention group compared with the control group. No relevant reductions in specific antibiotic prescribing rates were noted between groups except for quinolones in the second year of the intervention (-0.9% [95% CI, -1.5% to -0.4%]).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that quarterly personalized antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback with peer benchmarking did not reduce antibiotic prescribing among primary care physicians in Switzerland with medium to high antibiotic prescription rates.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03379194.
| S-EPMC9989898 | biostudies-literature