Gemma Lasseter

Is Helicobacter pylori antibiotic resistance surveillance needed and how can it be delivered

Most patients are prescribed Helicobacter pylori treatment without culture and antibiotic susceptibility testing, as current guidance recommends that patients with recurrent dyspepsia should be tested for H. pylori using a non‐invasive breath or faecal antigen test.

Does laboratory antibiotic susceptibility reporting influence primary care prescribing in urinary tract infection and other infections

OBJECTIVES Using a prospective interrupted time series design, our goal was to determine whether a change in urine antibiotic susceptibility reporting from co-amoxiclav to cefalexin to community clinicians served by Southmead General Hospital led to a change in antibiotic prescribing. METHODS We used longitudinal data on antibiotic prescribing using a clinician questionnaire to identify prescribing for urinary tract infections (UTIs) when a urine specimen was submitted to microbiology; MIQUEST computer search in general practices for prescribing for all UTIs in the community; and Prescribing Analysis and Cost (PACT) data to determine antibiotic prescribing for all infections. RESULTS Cefalexin and cephalosporin prescribing increased when cefalexin was reported and co-amoxiclav prescribing decreased when co-amoxiclav was not reported by the laboratory. This was seen for episodes of UTI in which a general practitioner (GP) sent a specimen as determined with: the questionnaire results (9-fold rise in cephalosporins, 70% fall in co-amoxiclav); episodes of UTI identified by MIQUEST searches in the practice (50% increase in cefalexin, 25% reduction in co-amoxiclav); and overall antibiotic prescribing in the practice determined with PACT data (20% increase in cefalexin, 8% reduction in co-amoxiclav). MIQUEST data indicated that prescribing reverted to pre-intervention levels once the change in antibiotic reporting had stopped. CONCLUSIONS Our data provide more evidence that changing laboratory antibiotic susceptibility reporting has a direct effect on antibiotic prescribing by GPs. Our data indicate that much of the change in prescribing was attributable to the use of cefalexin and co-amoxiclav for persistent or recurrent infections. Microbiology laboratories can influence antibiotic use by selectively reporting antibiotics they would prefer GPs to prescribe.

In vitro evaluation of five rapid antigen detection tests for group A beta-haemolytic streptococcal sore throat infections.

BACKGROUND Using accurate and easy to use rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) to identify group A beta-haemolytic Streptococci (GABHS) sore throat infections could reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance. Although there is no international consensus on the use of RADTs, these kits have been widely adopted in Finland, France and the USA. Yet in the UK, the Clinical Knowledge Summaries, that provide the main online guidance for GPs, discourage RADTs use, citing their poor sensitivity and inability to impact on prescribing decisions in acute sore throat infections. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ease of use and in vitro accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the five most commonly used RADTs in Europe (OSOM Ultra, Quickvue Dipstick, Streptatest, Clearview Exact Strep A and IMI Test Pack). METHODS To ensure the RADTs were evaluated objectively, a standardized in vitro method using known concentrations of GABHS was used to remove the inherent biases associated with clinical studies. RESULTS The IMI Test Pack was the easiest RADT to use overall. The ability to detect all positive GABHS (sensitivity) varied considerably between kits from 95% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88-98%], for the IMI Test Pack and OSOM, to 62% (95% CI: 51-72%) for Clearview, at the highest GABHS concentration. None of the RADTs gave any false-positive results with commensal flora-they were 100% specific. CONCLUSIONS The IMI Test Pack is most suitable for use in primary care, as it had high sensitivity, high specificity and was easy to use.

Stool submission by general practitioners in SW England - when, why and how? A qualitative study

BackgroundWe know little about when and why general practitioners (GPs) submit stool specimens in patients with diarrhoea. The recent UK-wide intestinal infectious disease (IID2) study found ten GP consultations for every case reported to national surveillance. We aimed to explore what factors influence GP’s decisions to send stool specimens for laboratory investigation, and what guidance, if any, informs them.MethodsWe used qualitative methods that enabled us to explore opinions and ask open questions through 20 telephone interviews with GPs with a range of stool submission rates in England, and a discussion group with 24 GPs. Interviews were transcribed and subjected to content analysis.ResultsInterviews: GPs only sent stool specimens to microbiology if diarrhoea persisted for over one week, after recent travel, or the patient was very unwell. Very few had a systematic approach to determine the clinical or public health need for a stool specimen. Only two GPs specifically asked patients about blood in their stool; only half asked about recent antibiotics, or potential food poisoning, and few asked about patients’ occupations. Few GPs gave patients advice on how to collect specimens.Results from interviews and discussion group in relation to guidance: All reported that the HPA stool guidance and patient collection instructions would be useful in their clinical work, but only one GP (an interviewee) had previously accessed them. The majority of GPs would value links to guidance on electronic requests. Most GPs were surprised that a negative stool report did not exclude all the common causes of IID.ConclusionsGPs value stool culture and laboratories should continue to provide it. Patient instructions on how to collect stool specimens should be within stool collection kits. Through readily accessible guidance and education, GPs need to be encouraged to develop a more systematic approach to eliciting and recording details in the patient’s history that indicate greater risk of severe infection or public health consequences. Mild or short duration IID (under one week) due to any cause is less likely to be picked up in national surveillance as GPs do not routinely submit specimens in these cases.

Developing best practice for fungal specimen management: audit of UK microbiology laboratories

Abstract This study represents an audit of microbiology laboratories in the UK to ascertain whether they are aware of, or follow, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) National Standard Methods Standard Operating Procedure (NSM SOP) for the investigation of dermatological specimens for superficial mycoses, or use a locally adapted version. A questionnaire audit was distributed to 179 NHS microbiology laboratories throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The NSM SOP was followed by 92% of laboratories for the microscopy of dermatological samples; light microscopy/ KOH digestion was used by 63% and fluorescence microscopy/KOH digestion by 29% of laboratories. Preliminary reports post-microscopy were issued by 98% of laboratories, with 93% issuing reports within 48 hours. Adherence to the NSM SOP guidelines for culture was low; only 34% of laboratories incubated microscopy-negative specimens for the recommended 14 days, while approximately 60% incubated microscopy-positive specimens for 21 days. The culture medium recommended by the NSM SOP was used in 82% of laboratories. Comments were added to culture reports by 51% of laboratories; most were added manually and comments varied between laboratories. Nail samples were the most common sample received from primary care, followed by skin and hair. These results show no significant difference in the rate of microscopy positives versus culture positives. Microscopy and culture are the easiest and cheapest methods available to UK laboratories for the investigation of suspected superficial fungal infections. Although most laboratories included in this audit claimed to follow the NSM SOP for microscopy and culture, these results show that the techniques used vary throughout the UK. To maximise the service provided to primary care, UK laboratories should use standardise methods based on the NSM SOP.

Is the Mental Capacity Act reducing generalizable research in care homes

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 08454 2250 E-mail address: Gemma.Lasseter@hpa.or 0033-3506/

Effect of swab type on the analytical sensitivity of five point-of-care tests for group A streptococci

e see front matter a 2011 The R doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2011.04.007 The National Dementia Strategy in 2009 called for an increased coordinated research programme (Objective 16), while a collaborative report from the Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Nursing and the British Geriatric Society called for more research in care homes. Currently in the UK, £11 is spent on research for each individual with dementia, compared with around £300 for each cancer patient. A European Charter has been launched recently to highlight the rights and importance of recruiting older people into research trials. Section 30 of the Mental Capacity Act states that subjects without decisional capacity (including dementia) should only be recruited into research trials if their inclusion is essential. A ‘personal consultee’ must give informed consent on their behalf, and the subject themselves must demonstrate agreement in cooperating with the researcher. In practice, this process is problematic, illustrated by the authors’ experience below. The recognition of dementia by staff in long-term care is low, and there is no reliable objective method of defining who lacks decisional capacity. Consultees may not appreciate that their relative lacks decisional capacity and can be

Developing best practice for fungal specimen submission - fungal audit of general practice

The majority of point-of-care rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for group A b-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS) are sold by manufacturers with kit swabs provided. This is convenient for the purchaser but may have unexpected effects on kit performance. Most clinical validation studies compare the performance of RADTs against culture and in these studies the clinical throat samples are often collected using various swab types; usually swabs provided with bacteriology transport media. It is widely assumed that swab type has no impact on RADT performance, and despite the fact that manufacturers often provide swabs with their kit that have been specifically validated for use with a RADT, many clinical validation studies routinely disregard these recommendations by using a variety of swab types.

Commentary: is Helicobacter pylori antibiotic resistance surveillance needed and how can it be delivered? Authors' reply

The objective of this study was to investigate the management of suspected fungal nail infections by general practitioners (GPs) and determine whether guidance is sought when submitting specimens for investigation or treating cases. Questionnaires were sent to all GPs (n = 2420) served by five Health Protection Agency (HPA) collaborating laboratories in the South West of England. A total of 769 GPs responded – topical and oral antifungals were never used by 29% and 16% of GPs respectively. When antifungals were prescribed, topicals were normally given because of the severity of infection (32%); Amorolofine (53%) was the preferred choice. Oral antifungals were most often prescribed after receipt of a laboratory report (77%); Terbinafine was the preferred choice (86%). Seventy percent of GPs would only treat a suspected nail infection with oral antifungals after sending a sample for investigation, yet 27% never waited for a microscopy report before prescribing oral antifungal treatment. GPs routinely send specimens from suspected fungal nail infections for microbiological investigation, yet treatment is often prescribed before a result is received. With clinical signs of fungal infections often non‐specific, GPs should rely on laboratory results before prescribing expensive and lengthy antifungal treatments. Laboratories could further reduce antifungal use by including guidance on microscopy and culture reports.

Letter: surveillance of Helicobacter pylori antibiotic resistance – authors' reply

1. McNulty CAM, Lasseter G, Shaw I, et al. Is Helicobacter pylori antibiotic resistance surveillance needed and how can it be delivered? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35: 1221–30. 2. Selgrad M, Bornschein J, Malfertheiner P. Guidelines for treatment of Helicobacter pylori in the East and West. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2011; 9: 581–8. 3. Hirschl AM, Makristathis A. Methods to detect Helicobacter pylori: from culture to molecular biology. Helicobacter 2007; 12(Suppl. 2): 6–11. 4. Selgrad M, Kandulski A, Malfertheiner P. Helicobacter pylori: diagnosis and treatment. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2009; 25: 549–56. 5. Logan RP. The chemotherapeutic effects of H/K inhibitors on Helicobacter pylori infection. Pharmacol Ther 1996; 69: 79–83. 6. Wex T, Venerito M, Kreutzer J, Gotze T, Kandulski A, Malfertheiner P. Serological prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, in 2010. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2011; 18: 2109–12. 7. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection–the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report. Gut 2012; 61: 646–64. 8. Malfertheiner P, Bazzoli F, Delchier JC, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication with a capsule containing bismuth subcitrate potassium, metronidazole, and tetracycline given with omeprazole versus clarithromycin-based triple therapy: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011; 377: 905–13.