8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Relationship between microbiology of throat swab and clinical course among primary care patients with acute cough: a prospective cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRTIs) account for most antibiotics prescribed in primary care despite lack of efficacy, partly due to clinician uncertainty about aetiology and patient concerns about illness course. Nucleic acid amplification tests could assist antibiotic targeting.

          Methods

          In this prospective cohort study, 645 patients presenting to primary care with acute cough and suspected ALRTI, provided throat swabs at baseline. These were tested for respiratory pathogens by real-time polymerase chain reaction and classified as having a respiratory virus, bacteria, both or neither. Three hundred fifty-four participants scored the symptoms severity daily for 1 week in a diary (0 = absent to 4 = severe problem).

          Results

          Organisms were identified in 346/645 (53.6%) participants. There were differences in the prevalence of seven symptoms between the organism groups at baseline. Those with a virus alone, and those with both virus and bacteria, had higher average severity scores of all symptoms combined during the week of follow-up than those in whom no organisms were detected [adjusted mean differences 0.204 (95% confidence interval 0.010 to 0.398) and 0.348 (0.098 to 0.598), respectively]. There were no differences in the duration of symptoms rated as moderate or severe between organism groups.

          Conclusions

          Differences in presenting symptoms and symptoms severity can be identified between patients with viruses and bacteria identified on throat swabs. The magnitude of these differences is unlikely to influence management. Most patients had mild symptoms at 7 days regardless of aetiology, which could inform patients about likely symptom duration.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Understanding the culture of prescribing: qualitative study of general practitioners' and patients' perceptions of antibiotics for sore throats.

          To better understand reasons for antibiotics being prescribed for sore throats despite well known evidence that they are generally of little help. Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. General practices in South Wales. 21 general practitioners and 17 of their patients who had recently consulted for a sore throat or upper respiratory tract infection. Subjects' experience of management of the illness, patients' expectations, beliefs about antibiotic treatment for sore throats, and ideas for reducing prescribing. Doctors knew of the evidence for marginal effectiveness yet often prescribed for good relationships with patients. Possible patient benefit outweighed theoretical community risk from resistant bacteria. Most doctors found prescribing "against the evidence" uncomfortable and realised this probably increased workload. Explanations of the distinction between virus and bacterium often led to perceived confusion. Clinicians were divided on the value of leaflets and national campaigns, but several favoured patient empowerment for self care by other members of the primary care team. Patient expectations were seldom made explicit, and many were not met. A third of patients had a clear expectation for antibiotics, and mothers were more likely to accept non-antibiotic treatment for their children than for themselves. Satisfaction was not necessarily related to receiving antibiotics, with many seeking reassurance, further information, and pain relief. This prescribing decision is greatly influenced by considerations of the doctor-patient relationship. Consulting strategies that make patient expectations explicit without damaging relationships might reduce unwanted antibiotics. Repeating evidence for lack of effectiveness is unlikely to change doctors' prescribing, but information about risk to individual patients might. Emphasising positive aspects of non-antibiotic treatment and lack of efficacy in general might be helpful.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Why do general practitioners prescribe antibiotics for sore throat? Grounded theory interview study.

            To understand why general practitioners prescribe antibiotics for some cases of sore throat and to explore the factors that influence their prescribing. Grounded theory interview study. General practice. 40 general practitioners: 25 in the maximum variety sample and 15 in the theoretical sample. General practitioners are uncertain which patients will benefit from antibiotics but prescribe for sicker patients and for patients from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds because of concerns about complications. They are also more likely to prescribe in pressured clinical contexts. Doctors are mostly comfortable with their prescribing decisions and are not prescribing to maintain the doctor-patient relationship. General practitioners have reduced prescribing for sore throat in response to research and policy initiatives. Further interventions to reduce prescribing would need to improve identification of patients at risk of complications and be workable in busy clinical situations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Amoxicillin for acute lower-respiratory-tract infection in primary care when pneumonia is not suspected: a 12-country, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

              Lower-respiratory-tract infection is one of the most common acute illnesses managed in primary care. Few placebo-controlled studies of antibiotics have been done, and overall effectiveness (particularly in subgroups such as older people) is debated. We aimed to compare the benefits and harms of amoxicillin for acute lower-respiratory-tract infection with those of placebo both overall and in patients aged 60 years or older. Patients older than 18 years with acute lower-respiratory-tract infections (cough of ≤28 days' duration) in whom pneumonia was not suspected were randomly assigned (1:1) to either amoxicillin (1 g three times daily for 7 days) or placebo by computer-generated random numbers. Our primary outcome was duration of symptoms rated "moderately bad" or worse. Secondary outcomes were symptom severity in days 2-4 and new or worsening symptoms. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment allocation. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2007-001586-15), UKCRN Portfolio (ID 4175), ISRCTN (52261229), and FWO (G.0274.08N). 1038 patients were assigned to the amoxicillin group and 1023 to the placebo group. Neither duration of symptoms rated "moderately bad" or worse (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.96-1.18; p=0.229) nor mean symptom severity (1.69 with placebo vs 1.62 with amoxicillin; difference -0.07 [95% CI -0.15 to 0.007]; p=0.074) differed significantly between groups. New or worsening symptoms were significantly less common in the amoxicillin group than in the placebo group (162 [15.9%] of 1021 patients vs 194 [19.3%] of 1006; p=0.043; number needed to treat 30). Cases of nausea, rash, or diarrhoea were significantly more common in the amoxicillin group than in the placebo group (number needed to harm 21, 95% CI 11-174; p=0.025), and one case of anaphylaxis was noted with amoxicillin. Two patients in the placebo group and one in the amoxicillin group needed to be admitted to hospital; no study-related deaths were noted. We noted no evidence of selective benefit in patients aged 60 years or older (n=595). When pneumonia is not suspected clinically, amoxicillin provides little benefit for acute lower-respiratory-tract infection in primary care both overall and in patients aged 60 years or more, and causes slight harms. European Commission Framework Programme 6, UK National Institute for Health Research, Barcelona Ciberde Enfermedades Respiratorias, and Research Foundation Flanders. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Fam Pract
                Fam Pract
                famprj
                Family Practice
                Oxford University Press (UK )
                0263-2136
                1460-2229
                17 December 2019
                17 December 2019
                : cmz093
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [2 ] NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Oxford, UK
                [3 ] South West Regional Laboratory, National Infection Service, Public Health England , Bristol, UK
                [4 ] University of Southampton, Primary Care and Population Sciences, Aldermoor Health Centre , Southampton, UK
                [5 ] Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                [6 ] Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington , Seattle, WA, USA
                [7 ] Department of Public Health and Primary Care , KU Leuven, Belgium
                [8 ] Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK
                [9 ] Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to José M. Ordóñez-Mena, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Woodstock Road, OX2 6GG, Oxford, UK; E-mail: jose.ordonezmena@ 123456phc.ox.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8965-104X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0102-3453
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5432-7437
                Article
                cmz093
                10.1093/fampra/cmz093
                7108489
                31844897
                deccf647-adce-4389-83a7-bb404b087a7b
                © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 8
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research
                Funded by: NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research 10.13039/501100000272
                Funded by: In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
                Categories
                Epidemiology
                Custom metadata
                PAP

                Medicine
                bacterial,diagnosis,infection,microbiology,symptoms,viral
                Medicine
                bacterial, diagnosis, infection, microbiology, symptoms, viral

                Comments

                Comment on this article