Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of amoxicillin versus amoxicillin-clavulanate among adults with acute sinusitis in emergency department and urgent care settings.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of amoxicillin-clavulanate versus amoxicillin for adults diagnosed with acute sinusitis (AS). A secondary objective compared antibiotic effectiveness in patients meeting risk criteria for treatment failure.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of adults diagnosed with AS prescribed amoxicillin ± clavulanate within Veterans Affairs emergency departments from 2012-2019 was conducted. The primary outcome was sinusitis-related return visits for amoxicillin versus amoxicillin-clavulanate. Secondary outcomes included 30-day infectious complications, gastrointestinal-related adverse events (AEs), and hospitalizations. Propensity-score matching and logistic regression models adjusted for potential confounders.

Results

A total of 89,627 AS patient visits were identified: 18,576 prescribed amoxicillin and 71,051 amoxicillin-clavulanate. Most patients were male (75,604; 84.4%) and afebrile (80,624; 91.7%). The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 17,929 amoxicillin and 42,294 amoxicillin-clavulanate patient visits. There was no difference in sinusitis-related return visits between amoxicillin (4.9%) and amoxicillin-clavulanate (5.1%) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88, 1.04; P = 0.317). Infectious complications (amoxicillin [0.3%] vs amoxicillin-clavulanate [0.4%]); (adjusted OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57, 1.07; P = 0.124) and hospitalization (amoxicillin [2.0%] vs amoxicillin-clavulanate [2.4%]); (adjusted OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81, 1.04; P = 0.173) were not different. Gastrointestinal-related AEs were lower with amoxicillin (0.5%) relative to amoxicillin-clavulanate (0.7%); (adjusted OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53, 0.86; P = 0.002). Comorbidity was the only guideline-recommended risk factor that was a significant predictor of infectious complications with respect to treatment (amoxicillin vs amoxicillin-clavulanate, OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94; P = 0.022).

Conclusion

Amoxicillin demonstrated similar efficacy to amoxicillin-clavulanate for AS with fewer gastrointestinal-related AEs. Amoxicillin is a viable option in adults with AS meeting criteria for antibiotic therapy.

SUBMITTER: Rovelsky SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8208653 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe recommended treatment for acute bacterial sinusitis in adults, amoxicillin with clavulanate, provides only modest benefit.ObjectiveTo see if a higher dose of amoxicillin will lead to more rapid improvement.Design, setting, and participantsDouble-blind randomized trial in which, from November 2014 through February 2017, we enrolled 315 adult outpatients diagnosed with acute sinusitis in accordance with Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines.InterventionsStandard-dose (SD) immediate-release (IR) amoxicillin/clavulanate 875 /125 mg (n = 159) vs. high-dose (HD) (n = 156). The original HD formulation, 2000 mg of extended-release (ER) amoxicillin with 125 mg of IR clavulanate twice a day, became unavailable half way through the study. The IRB then approved a revised protocol after patient 180 to provide 1750 mg of IR amoxicillin twice a day in the HD formulation and to compare Time Period 1 (ER) with Time Period 2 (IR).Main measureThe primary outcome was the percentage in each group reporting a major improvement-defined as a global assessment of sinusitis symptoms as "a lot better" or "no symptoms"-after 3 days of treatment.Key resultsMajor improvement after 3 days was reported during Period 1 by 38.8% of ER HD versus 37.9% of SD patients (P = 0.91) and during Period 2 by 52.4% of IR HD versus 34.4% of SD patients, an effect size of 18% (95% CI 0.75 to 35%, P = 0.04). No significant differences in efficacy were seen at Day 10. The major side effect, severe diarrhea at Day 3, was reported during Period 1 by 7.4% of HD and 5.7% of SD patients (P = 0.66) and during Period 2 by 15.8% of HD and 4.8% of SD patients (P = 0.048).ConclusionsAdults with clinically diagnosed acute bacterial sinusitis were more likely to improve rapidly when treated with IR HD than with SD but not when treated with ER HD. They were also more likely to suffer severe diarrhea. Further study is needed to confirm these findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02340000.

Project description:ImportanceAcute bacterial sinusitis is common, but currently recommended antibiotic treatment provides minimal benefit.ObjectiveTo confirm the previous finding that high-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate (with double the amount of amoxicillin) may be superior to standard-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate in adults.Design, setting, and participantsThis double-blind, comparative-effectiveness randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 26, 2018, through May 10, 2020, at the academic primary care internal medicine and pediatrics practice of Albany Medical Center, located in Cohoes, New York. Participants included adults aged 18 years or older who were prescribed amoxicillin plus clavulanate for acute bacterial sinusitis diagnosed in accordance with the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines.InterventionsAmoxicillin 875 mg with clavulanate 125 mg plus either placebo (standard dose) or amoxicillin 875 mg (high dose) twice a day for 7 days.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary efficacy outcome was a global rating of "a lot better" or "no symptoms" at the end of 3 days of treatment using a Global Rating of Improvement scale, with outcomes ranging from 1 (a lot worse) to 6 (no symptoms). The primary adverse effect outcome was severe diarrhea at 3 or 10 days after the start of treatment.ResultsAt an unplanned interim analysis prompted by COVID-19 restrictions, 157 of a projected 240 participants had been enrolled (mean age, 48.5 [range, 18.7-84.0] years; 117 women [74.5%]), with 79 randomized to the standard dose and 78 to the high dose; 9 and 12, respectively, withdrew or were lost to follow-up before the assessment of the primary outcome. At day 3, 31 of 70 participants (44.3%) in the standard-dose group reported a global rating of "a lot better" or "no symptoms," as did 24 of 66 (36.4%) in the high-dose group, for a difference of -7.9% (95% CI, -24.4% to 8.5%; P = .35). The study was, therefore, stopped for futility. Diarrhea was common in both groups by day 3, with any diarrhea reported in 29 of 71 participants (40.8%) receiving the standard dose and 28 of 65 (43.1%) receiving the high dose and severe diarrhea reported in 5 of 71 (7.0%) and 5 of 65 (7.7%), respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that adults treated for clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis did not appear to benefit from taking high-dose compared with standard-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03431337.

Project description:BackgroundUrgent and emergency care (UEC) settings provide an opportunity to prevent ill-health and promote healthy lifestyles with potential to screen and deliver interventions to under-served, at-risk populations. The aim of this study was to synthesise and summarise the evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of interventions for health promotion in UEC settings.MethodsPubMed and Embase (OVID) databases were used to search for studies published in English between January 2010 and January 2023. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that examined the effectiveness or implementation of face-to-face health promotion interventions for lifestyle behaviours delivered in UEC settings were eligible. Extracted data were synthesised and qualitatively summarised by lifestyle behaviour. Reviews were quality assessed using AMSTAR 2.ResultsEighteen reviews met the inclusion criteria; all included studies were conducted in emergency departments or trauma units. We identified 15 reviews on alcohol interventions (13 on effectiveness; 2 on implementation) and 3 on smoking interventions (effectiveness). There were no reviews of intervention studies targeting physical activity or diet and nutrition. There was heterogeneity across studies for study design, target populations, intervention design and content, comparator/control groups and outcomes assessed. The effectiveness of alcohol and smoking interventions in UEC settings varied but some reviews provided evidence of a significant decrease in alcohol consumption, alcohol-related outcomes and smoking in intervention groups, particularly in the short-term and in specific population groups. Research has focused on 'brief' interventions as part of screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) approaches. Interventions are delivered by a wide range of staff with substantial variation in design. Alcohol brief interventions appear to be acceptable to UEC patients but clinicians face barriers in delivering them.ConclusionsUEC settings have been under-researched and appear to be under-utilised for delivering health promotion activities, except for alcohol prevention. Review level evidence suggests alcohol and smoking interventions are warranted in some population groups. However, further research is needed to determine the optimal intervention design, content and delivery mode for lifestyle behaviours which are suitable for implementation in UEC settings and promote long-term intervention effectiveness. Changes in clinical practice may be needed, including increased training, integration into service delivery and supportive policy, to facilitate the implementation of SBIRT for lifestyle behaviours. Interventions may need to be delivered in the wider UEC system such as urgent care centres, minor injury units and walk-in centres, in addition to emergency departments and trauma units, to support and increase health promotion activities in UEC settings.

Project description:BackgroundVirtual urgent care (VUC) is intended to support diversion of patients with low-acuity complaints and reduce the need for in-person emergency department visits. We aimed to describe subsequent health care utilization and outcomes of patients who used VUC compared with similar patients who had an in-person emergency department visit.MethodsWe used patient-level encounter data that were prospectively collected for patients using VUC services provided by 14 pilot programs in Ontario, Canada. We linked the data to provincial administrative databases to identify subsequent 30-day health care utilization and outcomes. We defined 2 subgroups of VUC users; those with a documented prompt referral to an emergency department by a VUC provider, and those without. We matched patients in each cohort to an equal number of patients presenting to an emergency department in person, based on encounter date, medical concern and the logit of a propensity score. For the subgroup of patients not promptly referred to an emergency department, we matched patients to those who were seen in an emergency department and then discharged home.ResultsOf the 19 595 patient VUC visits linked to administrative data, we matched 2129 patients promptly referred to the emergency department by a VUC provider to patients presenting to the emergency department in person. Index visit hospital admissions (9.4% v. 8.7%), 30-day emergency department visits (17.0% v. 17.5%), and hospital admissions (12.9% v. 11.0%) were similar between the groups. We matched 14 179 patients who were seen by a VUC provider with no documented referral to the emergency department. Patients seen by VUC were more likely to have a subsequent in-person emergency department visit within 72 hours (13.7% v. 7.0%), 7 days (16.5% v. 10.3%) and 30 days (21.9% v. 17.9%), but hospital admissions were similar within 72 hours (1.1% v. 1.3%), and higher within 30 days for patients who were discharged home from the emergency department (2.6% v. 3.4%).InterpretationThe impact of the provincial VUC pilot program on subsequent health care utilization was limited. There is a need to better understand the inherent limitations of virtual care and ensure future virtual providers have timely access to in-person outpatient resources, to prevent subsequent emergency department visits.