Antibiotic prescribing in primary healthcare: Dominant factors and trade-offs in decision-making

Background: This study aims to establish dominant factors influencing general practitioner (GP) decision-making on antibiotic prescribing in the Australian primary healthcare sector. Two research questions were posed: What influences antibiotic prescribing from the perspective of GPs? How do GPs trade-off on factors influencing antibiotic prescribing? Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed methods design was used, comprising semi-structured interviews followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Ten GPs practising in Brisbane and Greater Brisbane, Queensland were interviewed in September/October 2015. Interview data were used to develop the DCE, which was conducted online from July–October 2016. Twenty-three GPs participated in the DCE. Results: Three main themes influencing antibiotic prescribing emerged from the semi-structured interviews: prescribing challenges, delayed antibiotic prescriptions, and patient expectations. From the DCE, “Duration of symptoms” and “Patient expectations” exerted the most influence on antibiotic prescribing. Taken together, these results suggest that key challenges to prudent antibiotic prescribing are: patient expectations, an important barrier which is surmountable; prescribing practices of medical colleagues, cultural memes and professional etiquette; and uncertainty of diagnosis coupled with patient expectations for antibiotics exert prescribing pressure on GPs. Conclusion: Patient expectation for antibiotics is the dominant modifiable factor influencing GP antibiotic prescribing behaviours. Key challenges to prudent antibiotic prescribing can be overcome through upskilling GPs to manage patient expectations efficaciously, and through two new emphases for public health campaigns—consumers have the power to reduce the use of antibiotics and the GP as a wise advocate for the patient

Novel 3D sequence stratigraphic numerical model for syn-rift basins: Analysing architectural responses to eustasy, sedimentation and tectonics

Syn-rift clastic sedimentary systems preserve a complicated stratigraphic architecture that records the interplay of tectonics, eustatic sea level and storage and routing of sediments. Previous conceptual models describe and explain changes in depositional stacking patterns along a fault segment. However, stacking patterns, and the nature of key stratigraphic surfaces, is challenging to predict accurately with conventional sequence stratigraphic models that do not consider the three-dimensional interplay of subsidence, sedimentation, and eustasy. We present a novel, geometric, 3D sequence stratigraphic model (‘Syn-Strat’), which applies temporally- and spatially-variable, fault-scale tectonic constraints to stratigraphic forward modelling, as well as allowing flexibility in the other controls in time and space. Syn-Strat generates a 3D graphical surface that represents accommodation. Although the model has the capacity to model footwall variation, here we present model results from the hangingwall of a normal fault, with temporal and spatial (dip and strike) predictions made of stacking patterns and systems tracts for a given set of controls. Sensitivity tests are tied to the depositional architecture of field-based examples from the Loreto Basin, Gulf of California and Alkyonides Basin, Gulf of Corinth. Here, the relative influence of major sedimentary controls, different subsidence histories, varying sedimentation distribution, including along-strike variation in stacking patterns, are assessed and demonstrate the potential of Syn-Strat for reducing subsurface uncertainties by resolving multiple scenarios. In addition, the model demonstrates the nature of diachroneity of key stratigraphic surfaces that can arise in syn-rift settings, which could be represented by a bypass surface (sequence boundary) or reservoir seal (maximum flooding surface) in the rock record. Enabling a quantitative assessment of these surfaces is critical for prospect analysis in hangingwall half-graben-fills, where these surfaces are heavily relied upon for well correlations that are used for hydrocarbon volume and production rate predictions

On ethically solvent leaders : the roles of pride and moral identity in predicting leader ethical behavior.

The popular media has repeatedly pointed to pride as one of the key factors motivating leaders to behave unethically. However, given the devastating consequences that leader unethical behavior may have, a more scientific account of the role of pride is warranted. The present study differentiates between authentic and hubristic pride and assesses its impact on leader ethical behavior, while taking into consideration the extent to which leaders find it important to their self-concept to be a moral person. In two experiments we found that with higher levels of moral identity, authentically proud leaders are more likely to engage in ethical behavior than hubristically proud leaders, and that this effect is mediated by leaders’ motivation to act selflessly. A field survey among organizational leaders corroborated that moral identity may bring the positive effect of authentic pride and the negative effect of hubristic pride on leader ethical behavior to the forefront

Dietary reference values for sodium

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) derived dietary reference values (DRVs) for sodium. Evidence from balance studies on sodium and on the relationship between sodium intake and health outcomes, in particular cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related endpoints and bone health, was reviewed. The data were not sufficient to enable an average requirement (AR) or population reference intake (PRI) to be derived. However, by integrating the available evidence and associated uncertainties, the Panel considers that a sodium intake of 2.0 g/day represents a level of sodium for which there is sufficient confidence in a reduced risk of CVD in the general adult population. In addition, a sodium intake of 2.0 g/day is likely to allow most of the general adult population to maintain sodium balance. Therefore, the Panel considers that 2.0 g sodium/day is a safe and adequate intake for the general EU population of adults. The same value applies to pregnant and lactating women. Sodium intakes that are considered safe and adequate for children are extrapolated from the value for adults, adjusting for their respective energy requirement and including a growth factor, and are as follows: 1.1 g/day for children aged 1\u20133 years, 1.3 g/day for children aged 4\u20136 years, 1.7 g/day for children aged 7\u201310 years and 2.0 g/day for children aged 11\u201317 years, respectively. For infants aged 7\u201311 months, an Adequate Intake (AI) of 0.2 g/day is proposed based on upwards extrapolation of the estimated sodium intake in exclusively breast-fed infants aged 0\u20136 months

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570