Comparing outpatient oral antibiotic use in Germany and the Netherlands from 2012 to 2016

PURPOSE: Overuse of antibiotics is of concern, but may differ between European countries. This study compares outpatient use of oral antibiotics between Germany (DE) and the Netherlands (NL). METHODS For DE, we used the DAPI database with information on dispensings at the expense of the Statutory Health Insurance Funds from > 80% of community pharmacies. For NL, data were obtained from the Dutch Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics. Use of oral antibiotics was estimated as defined daily doses per 1000 inhabitants per day (DID), except for age comparisons as packages per 1000 inhabitants annually. National time trends were assessed with linear regression, stratified for the major antibiotic classes, and individual substances. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2016, outpatient antibiotic use was lower in NL than in DE (9.64 vs 14.14 DID in 2016) and non‐significantly decreased slightly over time in both countries. In DE, dispensings of oral antibiotics to children were higher compared with NL for the age groups 2 to 5 (2.0‐fold in 2016) and 6 to 14 years (2.7‐fold in 2016). Use of cephalosporins was very low in NL (0.02 DID in 2016), but the second most frequently dispensed class in DE (2.95 DID in 2016). CONCLUSION: From 2012 to 2016, outpatient use of oral antibiotics was lower in NL than in DE. Differences were primarily observed in the age groups 2 to 5 and 6 to 14 years, although the recommendations of evidence‐based guidelines in both countries were in agreement

Can we define a level of protection for allergic consumers that everyone can accept?

Substantial progress has been made in characterising the risk associated with exposure to allergens in food. However, absence of agreement on what risk is tolerable has made it difficult to set quantitative limits to manage that risk and protect allergic consumers effectively. This paper reviews scientific progress in the area and the diverse status of allergen management approaches and lack of common standards across different jurisdictions, including within the EU. This lack of regulation largely explains why allergic consumers find Precautionary Allergen Labelling confusing and cannot rely on it. We reviewed approaches to setting quantitative limits for a broad range of food safety hazards to identify the reasoning leading to their adoption. This revealed a diversity of approaches from pragmatic to risk-based, but we could not find clear evidence of the process leading to the decision on risk acceptability. We propose a framework built around the criteria suggested by Murphy and Gardoni (2008) for approaches to defining tolerable risks. Applying these criteria to food allergy, we concluded that sufficient knowledge exists to implement the framework, including sufficient expertise across the whole range of stakeholders to allow opinions to be heard and respected, and a consensus to be achieved