Health alliance for prudent prescribing and yield of antibiotics in a patient-centred perspective (HAPPY PATIENT): a before-and-after intervention and implementation study protocol

Background Excessive and inappropriate use of antibiotics is the most important driver of antimicrobial resistance. The aim of the HAPPY PATIENT project is to evaluate the adaptation of European Union (EU) recommendations on the prudent use of antimicrobials in human health by evaluating the impact of a multifaceted intervention targeting different categories of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on common community-acquired infectious diseases, especially respiratory and urinary tract infections. Methods/design HAPPY PATIENT was initiated in January 2021 and is planned to end in December 2023. The partners of this project include 15 organizations from 9 countries. Diverse HCPs (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians) will be audited by the Audit Project Odense (APO) method before and after an intervention in four different settings: general practice, out of hours services, nursing homes and community pharmacies in four high antibiotic prescribing countries (France, Poland, Greece, and Spain) and one low prescribing country (Lithuania). About 25 individuals from each professional group will be recruited in each country, who will register at least 25 patients with community-acquired infections during each audit period. Shortly before the second registration participants will undertake a multifaceted intervention and will receive the results from the first registration to allow the identification of possible quality problems. At these meetings participants will receive training courses on enhancement of communication skills, dissemination of clinical guidelines with recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, posters for the waiting rooms, and leaflets for patients. The results of the second registration will be compared with those obtained in the first audit. Discussion HAPPY PATIENT is an EU-funded project aimed at contributing to the battle against antibiotic resistance through improvement of the quality of management of common community-acquired infections based on interventions by different types of HCPs. It is hypothesized that the use of multifaceted strategies combining active intervention will be effective in reducing inappropriate prescribing and dispensing of antibiotics.publishedVersio

Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness? A randomised Controlled trial of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE (ALIC4 E): the ALIC4 E protocol

INTRODUCTION: Effective management of seasonal and pandemic influenza is a high priority internationally. Guidelines in many countries recommend antiviral treatment for older people and individuals with comorbidity at increased risk of complications. However, antivirals are not often prescribed in primary care in Europe, partly because its clinical and cost effectiveness has been insufficiently demonstrated by non-industry funded and pragmatic studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness? An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE is a European multinational, multicentre, open-labelled, non-industry funded, pragmatic, adaptive-platform, randomised controlled trial. Initial trial arms will be best usual primary care and best usual primary care plus treatment with oseltamivir for 5 days. We aim to recruit at least 2500 participants ≥1 year presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI), with symptom duration ≤72 hours in primary care over three consecutive periods of confirmed high influenza incidence. Participant outcomes will be followed up to 28 days by diary and telephone. The primary objective is to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to best usual primary care is effective in reducing time to return to usual daily activity with fever, headache and muscle ache reduced to minor severity or less. Secondary objectives include estimating cost-effectiveness, benefits in subgroups according to age (64 years), severity of symptoms at presentation (low, medium and high), comorbidity (yes/no), duration of symptoms (≤48 hours/>48-72 hours), complications (hospital admission and pneumonia), use of additional prescribed medication including antibiotics, use of over-the-counter medicines and self-management of ILI symptoms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics committee (REC) approval was granted by the NRES Committee South Central (Oxford B) and Clinical Trial Authority (CTA) approval by The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. All participating countries gained national REC and CTA approval as required. Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations

Health Alliance for prudent antibiotic prescribing in patients with respiratory tract infections (HAPPY AUDIT) -impact of a non-randomised multifaceted intervention programme

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Excessive use of antibiotics is worldwide the most important reason for development of antimicrobial resistance. As antibiotic resistance may spread across borders, high prevalence countries may serve as a source of bacterial resistance for countries with a low prevalence. Therefore, bacterial resistance is an important issue with a potential serious impact on all countries. Initiatives have been taken to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing in primary care, but only few studies have been designed to determine the effectiveness of multifaceted strategies across countries with different practice setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted intervention targeting general practitioners (GPs) and patients in six countries with different health organization and different prevalence of antibiotic resistance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>GPs from two Nordic countries, two Baltic Countries and two Hispano-American countries registered patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in 2008 and 2009. After first registration they received individual prescriber feedback and they were offered an intervention programme that included training courses, clinical guidelines, posters for waiting rooms, patient brochures and access to point of care tests (Strep A and C-Reactive Protein). Antibiotic prescribing rates were compared before and after the intervention.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 440 GPs registered 47011 consultations; 24436 before the intervention (2008) and 22575 after the intervention (2009). After the intervention, the GPs significantly reduced the percentage of consultations resulting in an antibiotic prescription. In patients with lower RTI the GPs in Lithuania reduced the prescribing rate by 42%, in Russia by 25%, in Spain by 25%, and in Argentina by 9%. In patients with upper RTIs, the corresponding reductions in the antibiotic prescribing rates were in Lithania 20%, in Russia 15%, in Spain 9%, and in Argentina 5%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A multifaceted intervention programme targeting GPs and patients and focusing on improving diagnostic procedures in patients with RTIs may lead to a marked reduction in antibiotic prescribing. The pragmatic before-after design used may suffer from some limitations and the reduction in antibiotic prescribing could be influenced by factors not related to the intervention.</p

Enabling factors for antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections:Perspectives of Lithuanian and Russian general practitioners

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners (GPs) write about 80% of all antibiotic prescriptions, the greatest number of them for patients with respiratory tract infections. However, there is a lack of research targeting the influence of external factors on antibiotic prescribing by physicians. This study aimed to explore experiences of GPs in Lithuania and the Russian Federation with regard to antibiotic prescription for upper respiratory tract infections. By such means it might be possible to reveal external enabling factors that influence antibiotic prescribing in these countries. METHOD: Five focus groups were performed with 22 GPs from Lithuania and 29 GPs from the Kaliningrad Region of the Russian Federation; then, thematic analysis of data was performed. RESULTS: Six thematic categories were identified that are related to external forces enabling antibiotic prescription: the necessity for political leadership to encourage clinically grounded antibiotic use; over-the-counter sale of antibiotics; designation of antibiotics as reimbursable medications; supervision by external oversight institutions; lack of guidelines for the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections; and pharmaceutical company activities. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive efforts to reduce the burden of non-clinically grounded antibiotic prescription should go beyond addressing factors at the physician–patient level and take into account important factors in the enabling environment as well

Low Request of Antibiotics from Patients with Respiratory Tract Infections in Six Countries: Results from the Happy Audit Study

A total of 59,535 patients with respiratory tract infections were registered in the Happy Audit project, an audit-based, before-and-after study conducted in primary care centres of six countries (Argentina, Denmark, Lithuania, Russia, Spain, and Sweden) in 2008 and 2009. An antibiotic was explicitly requested by the patient in 1,255 cases (2.1%), with a great variation across countries ranging from 0.4%–4.9%. Antibiotics were significantly more often prescribed to patients requesting them compared to those who did not (64% vs. 28%; p &lt; 0.001). Patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were most likely to request antibiotics while those with common colds were least likely (3.9% vs. 1.2%, respectively). The presence of tonsillar exudates and dyspnoea were more commonly associated with a demand for antibiotics. Even though physicians very often perceive that patients demand an antibiotic, the results of this study clearly show that patients only request antibiotics in a low percentage of cases. Patients were most likely to request antibiotics when they had symptoms of lower respiratory tract infections and when they came with more severe symptoms. Furthermore, there were considerable differences between countries, suggesting that the different backgrounds and traditions largely explain this variability in patients’ requests for antibiotics

Predictors for antibiotic prescribing in patients with exacerbations of COPD in general practice

Background: The aim of this study was to describe the antibiotic prescribing rate in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), to analyse predictors for antibiotic prescribing and to explore the influence of the use C-reactive protein (CRP) rapid test. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in January and February 2008 in primary care. General practitioners (GPs) from six countries (Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania, Russia, Spain and Argentina) registered all patients with AECOPD during a 3-week period. A multilevel logistic regression model was estimated using two hierarchical levels, (i) patients and (ii) physicians, and was used to analyse the association between antibiotic prescribing and potential predictors for antibiotic use: patients’ age and gender, duration and symptoms and signs of exacerbations (fever, cough, dyspnoea, sputum volume and purulence) and the results of the CRP test. Results: A total of 617 GPs registered 1233 patients with AECOPD. A total of 970 patients (79%) were prescribed antibiotics, varying from 49% (Denmark) to 93% (Russia). The presence of purulent sputum was the strongest predictor for antibiotic treatment (odds ratio [OR] 8.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.9–12.8). CRP determination was carried out mainly in Denmark and Sweden and its use was the strongest protective factor for antibiotic therapy (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.2-0.6). GPs that used CRP testing weighted purulent sputum lower than GPs who did not use CRP testing. CRP values had a strong influence on the antibiotic prescribing rate. Conclusions: Antibiotic treatment for AECOPD is very high. This study shows that GPs performing CRP rapid tests prescribe fewer antibiotics than those who do not

Is C-reactive protein associated with influenza A or B in primary care patients with influenza-like illness? A cross-sectional study

Objective Identifying influenza A or B as cause of influenza-like illness (ILI) is a challenge due to non-specific symptoms. An accurate, cheap and easy to use biomarker might enhance targeting influenza-specific management in primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate if C-reactive protein (CRP) is associated with influenza A or B, confirmed with PCR testing, in patients presenting with ILI. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Primary care in Lithuania, Norway and Sweden. Subjects A total of 277 patients at least 1 year of age consulting primary care with ILI during seasonal influenza epidemics. Main outcome measures Capillary blood CRP analysed as a point-of-care test and detection of influenza A or B on nasopharyngeal swabs in adults, and nasal and pharyngeal swabs in children using PCR. Results The prevalence of positive tests for influenza A among patients was 44% (121/277) and the prevalence of influenza B was 21% (58/277). Patients with influenza A infection could not be identified based on CRP concentration. However, increasing CRP concentration in steps of 10 mg/L was associated with a significantly lower risk for influenza B with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.42 (0.25–0.70; p<.001). Signs of more severe symptoms like shortness of breath, sweats or chills and dizziness were associated with higher CRP. Conclusions There was no association between CRP and influenza A. Increased concentration of CRP was associated with a lower risk for having influenza B, a finding that lacks clinical usefulness. Hence, CRP testing should be avoided in ILI, unless bacterial pneumonia is suspected

Does C-reactive protein predict time to recovery and benefit from oseltamivir treatment in primary care patients with influenza-like illness? A randomized controlled trial secondary analysis

Objective Recovery time and treatment effect of oseltamivir in influenza-like illness (ILI) differs between patient groups. A point-of-care test to better predict ILI duration and identify patients who are most likely to benefit from oseltamivir treatment would aid prescribing decisions in primary care. This study aimed to investigate whether a C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration of ≥30 mg/L can predict (1) ILI disease duration, and (2) which patients are most likely to benefit from oseltamivir treatment. Design Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial data. Setting Primary care in Lithuania, Sweden and Norway during three consecutive influenza seasons 2016–2018. Subjects A total of 277 ILI patients aged one year or older and symptom duration of ≤72 h. Main outcome measures Capillary blood CRP concentration at baseline, and ILI recovery time defined as having ‘returned to usual daily activity’ with residual symptoms minimally interfering. Results At baseline, 20% (55/277) had CRP concentrations ≥30mg/L (range 0–210). CRP concentration ≥30 mg/L was not associated with recovery time (adjusted hazards ratio (HR) 0.80: 95% CI 0.50–1.3; p = 0.33). Interaction analysis of CRP concentration ≥30 mg/L and oseltamivir treatment did not identify which patients benefit more from oseltamivir treatment (adjusted HR 0.69: 95% CI 0.37–1.3; p = 0.23)

Direct and Indirect Costs of Influenza-Like Illness Treated with and Without Oseltamivir in 15 European Countries: A Descriptive Analysis Alongside the Randomised Controlled ALIC 4 E Trial

Background and Objective Influenza-like illness (ILI) leads to a substantial disease burden every winter in Europe; however, oseltamivir is not frequently prescribed to ILI patients in the primary-care setting. An open-label, multi-country, multi-season, randomised controlled trial investigated the effectiveness of oseltamivir for treating ILI in 15 European countries. We aimed to evaluate whether patients presenting with ILI in primary care and being managed with the addition of oseltamivir to usual care had lower average direct and indirect costs compared to patients with usual care alone. Methods Resource use data were extracted from participants’ daily diaries. Itemised country-specific unit costs were collected through official tariffs, pharmacies or literature. Costs were converted to 2018 values. The null hypothesis was tested based on one-sided credible intervals (CrIs) obtained by bootstrapping. Base-case analysis estimated direct cost and productivity losses using itemised costed resource use and the human capital approach. Scenario analyses with self-reported spending rather than itemised costing were also performed. Results Patients receiving oseltamivir (N = 1306) reported fewer healthcare visits, medication uses, hospital attendances and paid-work hours lost than the other patients (N = 1298). Excluding the oseltamivir cost, the average direct costs were lower in patients treated with oseltamivir from all perspectives, but these differences were not statistically significant (perspective of patient: €17 [0–95% Crl: 16–19] vs. €24 [5–100% Crl: 18–29]; healthcare provider: €37 [28–67] vs. €44 [25–55]; healthcare payers: €54 [45–85] vs. €68 [45–81]; and society: €423 [399–478] vs. €451 [390–478]). Scenario and age-group analyses confirmed these findings, but with some between-country differences. Conclusion The average direct and indirect costs were consistently lower in patients treated with oseltamivir than in patients without from four perspectives (excluding the oseltamivir cost). However, these differences were not statistically significant