A retrospective review of the management of acute infections and the indications for antibiotic prescription in primary care in Northern Thailand

Introduction Antibiotic use in low-income and middle-income countries continues to rise despite the knowledge that antibiotic overuse can lead to antimicrobial resistance. There is a paucity of detailed data on the use of antibiotics in primary care in low-resource settings. Objective To describe the presentation of acute infections and the indications for antibiotic prescription. Design A 2-year retrospective review of routinely collected data. Setting All 32 primary care units in one district in northern Thailand. Participants Patients attending primary care with a history of fever, documented temperature, International Statistical Classification of Diseases 10 code for infection or prescribed a systemic antibiotic. Patients attending after the initiation of a study on C-reactive protein testing in four centres were excluded. Outcome measures The proportion of patients prescribed an antibiotic and the frequency of clinical presentations. Results 762 868 patients attended the health centres, of whom 103 196 met the inclusion criteria, 5966 were excluded resulting in 97 230 attendances consisting of 83 661 illness episodes. 46.9% (39 242) of the patients were prescribed an antibiotic during their illness. Indications for antibiotic prescription in the multivariable logistic regression analysis included male sex (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.21 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.28), p37.5°C (aOR 1.24 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.48), p=0.020). 77.9% of the presentations were for respiratory-related problems, of which 98.6% were upper respiratory tract infections. The leading infection diagnoses were common cold (50%), acute pharyngitis (18.9%) and acute tonsillitis (5%) which were prescribed antibiotics in 10.5%, 88.7% and 87.1% of cases, respectively. Amoxicillin was the most commonly prescribed antibiotic. Conclusions Nearly half of the patients received an antibiotic, the majority of whom had a respiratory infection. The results can be used to plan interventions to improve the rational use of antibiotics. Further studies in private facilities, pharmacies and dental clinics are required

Antibiotics and activity spaces: protocol of an exploratory study of behaviour, marginalisation and knowledge diffusion

Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health priority. Leading UK and global strategy papers to fight AMR recognise its social and behavioural dimensions, but current policy responses to improve the popular use of antimicrobials (eg, antibiotics) are limited to education and awareness-raising campaigns. In response to conceptual, methodological and empirical weaknesses of this approach, we study people’s antibiotic-related health behaviour through three research questions. RQ1: What are the manifestations and determinants of problematic antibiotic use in patients’ healthcare-seeking pathways? RQ2: Will people’s exposure to antibiotic awareness activities entail changed behaviours that diffuse or dissipate within a network of competing healthcare practices? RQ3: Which proxy indicators facilitate the detection of problematic antibiotic behaviours across and within communities? Methods We apply an interdisciplinary analytical framework that draws on the public health, medical anthropology, sociology and development economics literature. Our research involves social surveys of treatment-seeking behaviour among rural dwellers in northern Thailand (Chiang Rai) and southern Lao PDR (Salavan). We sample approximately 4800 adults to produce district-level representative and social network data. Additional 60 cognitive interviews facilitate survey instrument development and data interpretation. Our survey data analysis techniques include event sequence analysis (RQ1), multilevel regression (RQ1–3), social network analysis (RQ2) and latent class analysis (RQ3). Discussion Social research in AMR is nascent, but our unprecedentedly detailed data on microlevel treatment-seeking behaviour can contribute an understanding of behaviour beyond awareness and free choice, highlighting, for example, decision-making constraints, problems of marginalisation and lacking access to healthcare and competing ideas about desirable behaviour

A retrospective review of the management of acute infections and the indications for antibiotic prescription in primary care in Northern Thailand

Introduction Antibiotic use in low-income and middle-income countries continues to rise despite the knowledge that antibiotic overuse can lead to antimicrobial resistance. There is a paucity of detailed data on the use of antibiotics in primary care in low-resource settings. Objective To describe the presentation of acute infections and the indications for antibiotic prescription. Design A 2-year retrospective review of routinely collected data. Setting All 32 primary care units in one district in northern Thailand. Participants Patients attending primary care with a history of fever, documented temperature, International Statistical Classification of Diseases 10 code for infection or prescribed a systemic antibiotic. Patients attending after the initiation of a study on C-reactive protein testing in four centres were excluded. Outcome measures The proportion of patients prescribed an antibiotic and the frequency of clinical presentations. Results 762 868 patients attended the health centres, of whom 103 196 met the inclusion criteria, 5966 were excluded resulting in 97 230 attendances consisting of 83 661 illness episodes. 46.9% (39 242) of the patients were prescribed an antibiotic during their illness. Indications for antibiotic prescription in the multivariable logistic regression analysis included male sex (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.21 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.28), p<0.001), adults (aOR 1.77 (95% CI 1.57 to 2), p<0.001) and a temperature >37.5°C (aOR 1.24 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.48), p=0.020). 77.9% of the presentations were for respiratory-related problems, of which 98.6% were upper respiratory tract infections. The leading infection diagnoses were common cold (50%), acute pharyngitis (18.9%) and acute tonsillitis (5%) which were prescribed antibiotics in 10.5%, 88.7% and 87.1% of cases, respectively. Amoxicillin was the most commonly prescribed antibiotic. Conclusions Nearly half of the patients received an antibiotic, the majority of whom had a respiratory infection. The results can be used to plan interventions to improve the rational use of antibiotics. Further studies in private facilities, pharmacies and dental clinics are required

Indo-Oceanic <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i> strains from Thailand associated with higher mortality

SETTING: This study was conducted among tuberculosis (TB) patients in a highly endemic Thai province.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between different Mycobacterium tuberculosis lineages and clinical characteristics, especially mortality.DESIGN: We enrolled 1,304 TB patients registered from 2002–2011 with culture isolates whose lineages were identified by specific regions of deletion. Data on mortality within 1 year of follow-up were extracted from the registration system and hospital records. Mortality-associated risk factors, including bacterial lineages, as independent variables were analysed using Cox regression models.RESULTS: Of 1,304 isolates, 521 (40.0%) and 582 (44.6%) belonged to Indo-Oceanic and East-Asian lineages, respectively. Indo-Oceanic strains significantly increased the mortality risk compared with East-Asian strains (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.42, 95%CI 1.02–1.99) or modern lineages (aHR 1.49, 95%CI 1.08–2.06) in the 172 patients who died within 1 year after TB diagnosis. The former also caused significantly higher mortality than modern lineages among patients who died within 6 months after TB diagnosis (aHR 1.62, 95%CI 1.12–2.35). No significant association was found between drug resistance and death.CONCLUSION: In Thailand, the Indo-Oceanic lineage of M. tuberculosis increased mortality risk compared with modern lineages or the East-Asian lineage, the latter being considered highly virulent in previous studies.</jats:p

Effect of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing on antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care in Thailand and Myanmar: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial

Background In southeast Asia, antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care is common, and a probable contributor to the high burden of antimicrobial resistance. The objective of this trial was to explore whether C-reactive protein (CRP) testing at point of care could rationalise antibiotic prescription in primary care, comparing two proposed thresholds to classify CRP concentrations as low or high to guide antibiotic treatment. Methods We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial in participants aged at least 1 year with a documented fever or a chief complaint of fever (regardless of previous antibiotic intake and comorbidities other than malignancies) recruited from six public primary care units in Thailand and three primary care clinics and one outpatient department in Myanmar. Individuals were randomly assigned using a computer-based randomisation system at a ratio of 1:1:1 to either the control group or one of two CRP testing groups, which used thresholds of 20 mg/L (group A) or 40 mg/L CRP (group B) to guide antibiotic prescription. Health-care providers were masked to allocation between the two intervention groups but not to the control group. The primary outcome was the prescription of any antibiotic from day 0 to day 5 and the proportion of patients who were prescribed an antibiotic when CRP concentrations were above and below the 20 mg/L or 40 mg/L thresholds. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02758821, and is now completed. Findings Between June 8, 2016, and Aug 25, 2017, we recruited 2410 patients, of whom 803 patients were randomly assigned to CRP group A, 800 to CRP group B, and 807 to the control group. 598 patients in CRP group A, 593 in CRP group B, and 767 in the control group had follow-up data for both day 5 and day 14 and had been prescribed antibiotics (or not) in accordance with test results (per-protocol population). During the trial, 318 (39%) of 807 patients in the control group were prescribed an antibiotic by day 5, compared with 290 (36%) of 803 patients in CRP group A and 275 (34%) of 800 in CRP group B. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0·80 (95% CI 0·65–0·98) and risk difference of −5·0 percentage points (95% CI −9·7 to −0·3) between group B and the control group were significant, although lower than anticipated, whereas the reduction in prescribing in group A compared with the control group was not significant (aOR 0·86 [0·70–1·06]; risk difference −3·3 percentage points [–8·0 to 1·4]). Patients with high CRP concentrations in both intervention groups were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic than in the control group (CRP ≥20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p&lt;0·0001; CRP ≥40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p&lt;0·0001), and those with low CRP concentrations were more likely to have an antibiotic withheld (CRP &lt;20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p&lt;0·0001; CRP &lt;40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p&lt;0·0001). 24 serious adverse events were recorded, consisting of 23 hospital admissions and one death, which occurred in CRP group A. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be possibly related to the study (a hospital admission in CRP group A). Interpretation In febrile patients attending primary care, testing for CRP at point of care with a threshold of 40 mg/L resulted in a modest but significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing, with patients with high CRP being more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic, and no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes. This study extends the evidence base from lower-income settings supporting the use of CRP tests to rationalise antibiotic use in primary care patients with an acute febrile illness. A key limitation of this study is the individual rather than cluster randomised study design which might have resulted in contamination between the study groups, reducing the effect size of the intervention

Effect of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing on antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care in Thailand and Myanmar: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial

Background In southeast Asia, antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care is common, and a probable contributor to the high burden of antimicrobial resistance. The objective of this trial was to explore whether C-reactive protein (CRP) testing at point of care could rationalise antibiotic prescription in primary care, comparing two proposed thresholds to classify CRP concentrations as low or high to guide antibiotic treatment. Methods We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial in participants aged at least 1 year with a documented fever or a chief complaint of fever (regardless of previous antibiotic intake and comorbidities other than malignancies) recruited from six public primary care units in Thailand and three primary care clinics and one outpatient department in Myanmar. Individuals were randomly assigned using a computer-based randomisation system at a ratio of 1:1:1 to either the control group or one of two CRP testing groups, which used thresholds of 20 mg/L (group A) or 40 mg/L CRP (group B) to guide antibiotic prescription. Health-care providers were masked to allocation between the two intervention groups but not to the control group. The primary outcome was the prescription of any antibiotic from day 0 to day 5 and the proportion of patients who were prescribed an antibiotic when CRP concentrations were above and below the 20 mg/L or 40 mg/L thresholds. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02758821, and is now completed. Findings Between June 8, 2016, and Aug 25, 2017, we recruited 2410 patients, of whom 803 patients were randomly assigned to CRP group A, 800 to CRP group B, and 807 to the control group. 598 patients in CRP group A, 593 in CRP group B, and 767 in the control group had follow-up data for both day 5 and day 14 and had been prescribed antibiotics (or not) in accordance with test results (per-protocol population). During the trial, 318 (39%) of 807 patients in the control group were prescribed an antibiotic by day 5, compared with 290 (36%) of 803 patients in CRP group A and 275 (34%) of 800 in CRP group B. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0·80 (95% CI 0·65–0·98) and risk difference of −5·0 percentage points (95% CI −9·7 to −0·3) between group B and the control group were significant, although lower than anticipated, whereas the reduction in prescribing in group A compared with the control group was not significant (aOR 0·86 [0·70–1·06]; risk difference −3·3 percentage points [–8·0 to 1·4]). Patients with high CRP concentrations in both intervention groups were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic than in the control group (CRP ≥20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP ≥40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001), and those with low CRP concentrations were more likely to have an antibiotic withheld (CRP <20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP <40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001). 24 serious adverse events were recorded, consisting of 23 hospital admissions and one death, which occurred in CRP group A. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be possibly related to the study (a hospital admission in CRP group A). Interpretation In febrile patients attending primary care, testing for CRP at point of care with a threshold of 40 mg/L resulted in a modest but significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing, with patients with high CRP being more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic, and no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes. This study extends the evidence base from lower-income settings supporting the use of CRP tests to rationalise antibiotic use in primary care patients with an acute febrile illness. A key limitation of this study is the individual rather than cluster randomised study design which might have resulted in contamination between the study groups, reducing the effect size of the intervention