Cultural safety and family medicine in Africa

N/

Establishing a pharmacist–prescriber partnership in publicly funded primary healthcare clinics to optimisantibiotic prescribing in the Western Cape: An exploratory study

Promoting evidence-based antibiotic prescribing through successful antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes is critical to preserving the effectiveness of antibiotics for common infections in primary care. This requires a coordinated multidisciplinary effort. Such pharmacist–prescriber partnerships have been effective in high-income countries (HICs). Yet, evidence generated in such countries is not always applicable because of different social determinants of health. Methods: A multidisciplinary workshop was conducted with pharmacists and clinicians (doctors, nurses) on community-based antibiotic stewardship, the purpose of which was to explore how and where such partnerships might work in publicly funded primary care clinics in the greater Cape Metro region. Results: Participants perceived that promoting effective AMS was a priority for South African primary healthcare. However, it was clear that there are many hurdles to overcome working in settings that are relatively resource-poor. Prescribing guidelines needed to be harmonised. Participants felt that staff training on the principles of AMS should be mandatory

Clinician-targeted interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care:An overview of systematic reviews

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To systematically review the literature and appraise the existing evidence from systematic reviews regarding the effects of interventions, aimed at changing clinician behaviour, to reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care

Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: An overview of systematic reviews

Background: Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide health threat. Interventions that reduce antibiotic prescribing by clinicians are expected to reduce antibiotic resistance. Disparate interventions to change antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) have been trialled and meta-analysed, but not yet synthesised in an overview. This overview synthesises evidence from systematic reviews, rather than individual trials. Objectives: To systematically review the existing evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions aimed at influencing clinician antibiotic prescribing behaviour for ARIs in primary care. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index to June 2016. We also searched the reference lists of all included reviews. We ran a pre-publication search in May 2017 and placed additional studies in 'awaiting classification'. We included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any clinician-focussed intervention on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in primary care. Two overview authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool, with disagreements reached by consensus or by discussion with a third overview author. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence in included reviews. The results are presented as a narrative overview. Main results: We included eight reviews in this overview: five Cochrane Reviews (33 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (11 included trials). Three reviews (all Cochrane Reviews) scored low risk across all the ROBIS domains in Phase 2 and low risk of bias overall. The remaining five reviews scored high risk on Domain 4 of Phase 2 because the 'Risk of bias' assessment had not been specifically considered and discussed in the review Results and Conclusions. The trials included in the reviews varied in both size and risk of bias. Interventions were compared to usual care. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92, 3284 participants, 6 trials), shared decision making (odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.75, 3274 participants, 3 trials; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.84, 4623 participants, 2 trials; risk difference -18.44, 95% CI -27.24 to -9.65, 481,807 participants, 4 trials), and procalcitonin-guided management (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14, 1008 participants, 2 trials) probably reduce antibiotic prescribing in general practice. We found moderate-quality evidence that procalcitonin-guided management probably reduces antibiotic prescribing in emergency departments (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43, 2605 participants, 7 trials). The overall effect of these interventions was small (few achieving greater than 50% reduction in antibiotic prescribing, most about a quarter or less), but likely to be clinically important. Compared to usual care, shared decision making probably makes little or no difference to reconsultation for the same illness (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, 1860 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence), and may make little or no difference to patient satisfaction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, 1110 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). Similarly, CRP testing probably has little or no effect on patient satisfaction (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08, 689 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence) or reconsultation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27, 5132 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence). Procalcitonin-guided management probably results in little or no difference in treatment failure in general practice compared to normal care (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24, 1008 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence), however it probably reduces treatment failure in the emergency department compared to usual care (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95, 2605 participants, 7 trials, moderate-quality evidence). The quality of evidence for interventions focused on clinician educational materials and decision support in reducing antibiotic prescribing in general practice was either low or very low (no pooled result reported) and trial results were highly heterogeneous, therefore we were unable draw conclusions about the effects of these interventions. The use of rapid viral diagnostics in emergency departments may have little or no effect on antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.22, 891 participants, 3 trials, low-quality evidence) and may result in little to no difference in reconsultation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25, 200 participants, 1 trial, low-quality evidence). None of the trials in the included reviews reported on management costs for the treatment of an ARI or any associated complications. Authors' conclusions: We found evidence that CRP testing, shared decision making, and procalcitonin-guided management reduce antibiotic prescribing for patients with ARIs in primary care. These interventions may therefore reduce overall antibiotic consumption and consequently antibiotic resistance. There do not appear to be negative effects of these interventions on the outcomes of patient satisfaction and reconsultation, although there was limited measurement of these outcomes in the trials. This should be rectified in future trials. We could gather no information about the costs of management, and this along with the paucity of measurements meant that it was difficult to weigh the benefits and costs of implementing these interventions in practice. Most of this research was undertaken in high-income countries, and it may not generalise to other settings. The quality of evidence for the interventions of educational materials and tools for patients and clinicians was either low or very low, which prevented us from drawing any conclusions. High-quality trials are needed to further investigate these interventions. </p

Guidance on C-reactive protein point-of-care testing and complementary strategies to improve antibiotic prescribing for adults with lower respiratory tract infections in primary care

The world faces the threat of increasing antimicrobial resistance, and there is growing consensus that swift action must be taken to improve the rational use of antibiotics and increase the stewardship of antibiotics to safeguard this key resource in modern healthcare. This paper provides the perspective of an international group of experts on the role of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing (CRP POCT) and other complementary strategies to improve antibiotic stewardship in primary care, with regards to the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients presenting symptoms of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). It provides guidance regarding the clinical assessment of symptoms in combination with C-reactive protein (CRP) results, at the point of care, to support the management decision, and discusses enhanced patient communication and delayed prescribing as complementary strategies to decrease the inappropriate use of antibiotics. Recommendation: CRP POCT should be promoted to improve the identification of adults presenting with symptoms of LRTIs in primary care who might gain additional benefit from antibiotic treatment. Appropriateness of antibiotic use can be maximized when CRP POCT is used together with complementary strategies such as enhanced communication skills training and delayed prescribing in addition to routine safety netting

C-reactive protein point-of-care testing and complementary strategies to improve antibiotic stewardship in children with acute respiratory infections in primary care

This paper provides the perspective of an international group of experts on the role of C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (POCT) and complementary strategies such as enhanced communication skills training and delayed prescribing to improve antibiotic stewardship in the primary care of children presenting with an acute illness episode due to an acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI). To improve antibiotics prescribing decisions, CRP POCT should be considered to complement the clinical assessment of children (6 months to 14 years) presenting with an ARTI in a primary care setting. CRP POCT can help decide whether a serious infection can be ruled out, before deciding on further treatments or management, when clinical assessment is unconclusive. Based on the evidence currently available, a CRP value can be a valuable support for clinical reasoning and facilitate communication with patients and parents, but the clinical assessment should prevail when making a therapy or referral decision. Nearly half of children tested in the primary care setting can be expected to have a CRP value below 20 mg/l, in which case it is strongly suggested to avoid prescribing antibiotics when the clinical assessment supports ruling out a severe infection. For children with CRP values greater than or equal to 20 mg/l, additional measures such as additional diagnostic tests, observation time, re-assessment by a senior decision-maker, and specialty referrals, should be considered

Chronic pain, depression and cardiovascular disease linked through a shared genetic predisposition:Analysis of a family-based cohort and twin study

BACKGROUND: Depression and chronic pain are the two most important causes of disability (Global Burden of Disease Study 2013). They occur together more frequently than expected and both conditions have been shown to be co-morbid with cardiovascular disease. Although shared socio-demographic risk factors (e.g. gender, deprivation) might explain the co-morbidity of these three conditions, we hypothesised that these three long-term, highly prevalent conditions co-occur and may be due to shared familial risk, and/or genetic factors. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We employed three different study designs in two independent cohorts, namely Generation Scotland and TwinsUK, having standardised, validated questionnaire data on the three traits of interest. First, we estimated the prevalence and co-occurrence of chronic pain, depression and angina among 24,024 participants of a population-based cohort of extended families (Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study), adjusting for age, gender, education, smoking status, and deprivation. Secondly, we compared the odds of co-morbidity in sibling-pairs with the odds in unrelated individuals for the three conditions in the same cohort. Lastly, examination of similar traits in a sample of female twins (TwinsUK, n = 2,902), adjusting for age and BMI, allowed independent replication of the findings and exploration of the influence of additive genetic (A) factors and shared (C) and non-shared (E) environmental factors predisposing to co-occurring chronic widespread pain (CWP) and cardiovascular disease (hypertension, angina, stroke, heart attack, elevated cholesterol, angioplasty or bypass surgery). In the Generation Scotland cohort, individuals with depression were more than twice as likely to have chronic pain as those without depression (adjusted OR 2·64 [95% CI 2·34-2·97]); those with angina were four times more likely to have chronic pain (OR 4·19 [3·64-4·82]); those with depression were twice as likely to have angina (OR 2·20 [1·90-2·54]). Similar odds were obtained when the outcomes and predictors were reversed and similar effects seen among sibling pairs; depression in one sibling predicted chronic pain in the other (OR 1·34 [1·05-1·71]), angina predicted chronic pain in the other (OR 2·19 [1·63-2·95]), and depression, angina (OR 1·98 [1·49-2·65]). Individuals with chronic pain and angina showed almost four-fold greater odds of depression compared with those manifesting neither trait (OR 3·78 [2·99-4·78]); angina showed seven-fold increased odds in the presence of chronic pain and depression (OR 7·76 [6·05-9·95]) and chronic pain nine-fold in the presence of depression and angina (OR 9·43 [6·85-12·98]). In TwinsUK, the relationship between CWP and depression has been published (R = 0.34, p<0.01). Considering the CWP-cardiovascular relationship, the most suitable model to describe the observed data was a combination of A, C and E, with a small but significant genetic predisposition, shared between the two traits (2·2% [95% CI 0·06-0·23]). CONCLUSION: We found an increased co-occurrence of chronic pain, depression and cardiovascular disease in two independent cohorts (general population-based cohort, twins cohort) suggesting a shared genetic contribution. Adjustment for known environmental influences, particularly those relating to socio-economic status (Generation Scotland: age, gender, deprivation, smoking, education; Twins UK: age,BMI) did not explain the relationship observed between chronic pain, depression and cardiovascular disease. Our findings from two independent cohorts challenge the concept of traditional disease boundaries and warrant further investigation of shared biological mechanisms

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease

Introduction: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. // Methods and analysis: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). Eligibility criteria: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18–49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. // Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval granted by South Central–Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. // Trial registration number: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31

Embedding physical activity in the heart of the NHS: the need for a whole-system approach

Solutions to the global challenge of physical inactivity have tended to focus on interventions at an individual level, when evidence shows that wider factors, including the social and physical environment, play a major part in influencing health-related behaviour. A multidisciplinary perspective is needed to rewrite the research agenda on physical activity if population-level public health benefits are to be demonstrated. This article explores the questions that this raises regarding the particular role that the UK National Health Service (NHS) plays in the system. The National Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine in Sheffield is put forward as a case study to discuss some of the ways in which health systems can work in collaboration with other partners to develop environments and systems that promote active lives for patients and staff

Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury

Objective: We aimed to explore the added value of common machine learning (ML) algorithms for prediction of outcome for moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Study Design and Setting: We performed logistic regression (LR), lasso regression, and ridge regression with key baseline predictors in the IMPACT-II database (15 studies, n = 11,022). ML algorithms included support vector machines, random forests, gradient boosting machines, and artificial neural networks and were trained using the same predictors. To assess generalizability of predictions, we performed internal, internal-external, and external validation on the recent CENTER-TBI study (patients with Glasgow Coma Scale <13, n = 1,554). Both calibration (calibration slope/intercept) and discrimination (area under the curve) was quantified. Results: In the IMPACT-II database, 3,332/11,022 (30%) died and 5,233(48%) had unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale less than 4). In the CENTER-TBI study, 348/1,554(29%) died and 651(54%) had unfavorable outcome. Discrimination and calibration varied widely between the studies and less so between the studied algorithms. The mean area under the curve was 0.82 for mortality and 0.77 for unfavorable outcomes in the CENTER-TBI study. Conclusion: ML algorithms may not outperform traditional regression approaches in a low-dimensional setting for outcome prediction after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Similar to regression-based prediction models, ML algorithms should be rigorously validated to ensure applicability to new populations