Dataset Information

Delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies for respiratory tract infections in primary care: pragmatic, factorial, randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To estimate the effectiveness of different strategies involving delayed antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory tract infections.

Design

Open, pragmatic, parallel group, factorial, randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Primary care in the United Kingdom.

Patients

889 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.

Interventions

Patients 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 measures

Mean 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.

Results

Mean 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 ?(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 ?(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).

Conclusion

Strategies 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 registration

ISRCTN38551726.

SUBMITTER: Little P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3944682 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies for respiratory tract infections in primary care: pragmatic, factorial, randomised controlled trial.

Little Paul P Moore Michael M Kelly Jo J Williamson Ian I Leydon Geraldine G McDermott Lisa L Mullee Mark M Stuart Beth B

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20140306

<h4>Objective</h4>To estimate the effectiveness of different strategies involving delayed antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory tract infections.<h4>Design</h4>Open, pragmatic, parallel group, factorial, randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Primary care in the United Kingdom.<h4>Patients</h4>889 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.<h4>Interventions</h4>Pat ...[more]

PMID: 24603565

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess strategies for advice on analgesia and steam inhalation for respiratory tract infections.DesignOpen pragmatic parallel group factorial randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care in United Kingdom.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 3 with acute respiratory tract infections.Intervention889 patients were randomised with computer generated random numbers in pre-prepared sealed numbered envelopes to components of advice or comparator advice: advice on analgesia (take paracetamol, ibuprofen, or both), dosing of analgesia (take as required v regularly), and steam inhalation (no inhalation v steam inhalation).OutcomesPrimary: mean symptom severity on days 2-4; symptoms rated 0 (no problem) to 7 (as bad as it can be). Secondary: temperature, antibiotic use, reconsultations.ResultsNeither advice on dosing nor on steam inhalation was significantly associated with changes in outcomes. Compared with paracetamol, symptom severity was little different with ibuprofen (adjusted difference 0.04, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to 0.19) or the combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol (0.11, -0.04 to 0.26). There was no evidence for selective benefit with ibuprofen among most subgroups defined before analysis (presence of otalgia; previous duration of symptoms; temperature >37.5 °C; severe symptoms), but there was evidence of reduced symptoms severity benefit in the subgroup with chest infections (ibuprofen -0.40, -0.78 to -0.01; combination -0.47; -0.84 to -0.10), equivalent to almost one in two symptoms rated as a slight rather than a moderately bad problem. Children might also benefit from treatment with ibuprofen (ibuprofen: -0.47, -0.76 to -0.18; combination: -0.04, -0.31 to 0.23). Reconsultations with new/unresolved symptoms or complications were documented in 12% of those advised to take paracetamol, 20% of those advised to take ibuprofen (adjusted risk ratio 1.67, 1.12 to 2.38), and 17% of those advised to take the combination (1.49, 0.98 to 2.18). Mild thermal injury with steam was documented for four patients (2%) who returned full diaries, but no reconsultations with scalding were documented.ConclusionOverall advice to use steam inhalation, or ibuprofen rather than paracetamol, does not help control symptoms in patients with acute respiratory tract infections and must be balanced against the possible progression of symptoms during the next month for a minority of patients. Advice to use ibuprofen might help short term control of symptoms in those with chest infections and in children.Trial registrationISRCTN 38551726.

Project description:ObjectivesInappropriate antibiotic use for respiratory tract infection (RTI) is an ongoing problem linked to the emergence of drug resistance and other adverse effects. Less is known about the prescribing practices of individual physicians or the impact of physician prescribing habits on patient outcomes. We studied the prescribing practices of providers for acute RTIs in an integrated health system, identified patient factors associated with receipt of an antibiotic and assessed the relation between providers' adjusted prescribing rates and a number of patient outcomes.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of adults with an RTI visit to any primary care providers across the Cleveland Clinic Health System in 2011-2012. Patients with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or immunocompromised status were excluded. Logistic regression was used to examine patient factors associated with receipt of an antibiotic.ResultsOf 31,416 patients with an RTI, 54.8% received an antibiotic. Patient factors associated with antibiotic prescribing included white race (odds ratio [OR] 1.35, P < 0.001), presence of fever (OR 1.66, P < 0.001), and a diagnosis of bronchitis (OR 10.98, P < 0.001) or sinusitis (OR 33.85, P < 0.001). Among 290 providers with ≥10 RTI visits, adjusted antibiotic prescribing rates ranged from 0% to 100% (mean 49%). Antibiotics were prescribed more often for sinusitis (OR 33.85, P < 0.001), bronchitis (OR 10.98, P < 0.001), or pharyngitis (OR 1.76, P < 0.001) compared with upper respiratory tract infection. Patients who were prescribed antibiotics at the index visit were more likely to return for RTI within 1 year (adjusted OR 1.26, P < 0.001). Emergency department visits for respiratory complications were rare and not associated with antibiotic receipt.ConclusionsAntibiotic prescribing for RTI varies widely among physicians and cannot be explained by patient factors. Patients prescribed antibiotics for RTI were more likely to return for RTI.

Dataset Information

Delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies for respiratory tract infections in primary care: pragmatic, factorial, randomised controlled trial.

Objective

Design

Setting

Patients

Interventions

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies for respiratory tract infections in primary care: pragmatic, factorial, randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets