Greg Warner

Reattendance and complications in a randomised trial of prescribing strategies for sore throat: the medicalising effect of prescribing antibiotics.

Abstract Objective: To assess the medicalising effect of prescribing antibiotics for sore throat. Setting: 11 general practices in England. Design: Randomised trial of three approaches to sore throat: a 10 day prescription of antibiotics, no antibiotics, or a delayed prescription if the sore throat had not started to settle after three days. Patients: 716 patients aged 4 and over with sore throat and an abnormal physical sign: 84% had tonsillitis or pharyngitis. Outcome measures: Number and rate of patients making a first return with sore throat, pharyngitis, or tonsillitis. Early returns (within two weeks) and complications (otitis media, sinusitis, quinsy). Outcomes were documented in 675 subjects (94%). Results: Mean follow up time was similar (antibiotic group 1.07 years, other two groups 1.03 years). More of those initially prescribed antibiotics initially returned to the surgery with sore throat (38% v 27%, adjusted hazard ratio for return 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.89). Antibiotics prescribed for sore throat during the previous year had an additional effect (hazard ratio 1.69, 1.20 to 2.37). Longer duration of illness (> 5 days) was associated with increased return within six weeks (hazard ratio 2.90, 1.70 to 4.92). Prior attendance with upper respiratory conditions was also associated with increased reattendance. There was no difference between groups in early return (13/238 (5.5%) v 27/437 (6%)), or complications (2/236 (0.8%) v3/434 (0.7%)). Conclusions: Complications and early return resulting from no or delayed prescribing of antibiotics for sore throat are rare. Both current and previous prescribing for sore throat increase reattendance. To avoid medicalising a self limiting illness doctors should avoid antibiotics or offer a delayed prescription for most patients with sore throat. Key messages Sore throat is one of the commonest presentations of upper respiratory illness in primary care and attendence is increasing Complications are rare with no, or delayed, antibiotic prescription Prescribing antibiotics increases reattendance for future episodes Unless patients are very ill general practitioners should consider exploring concerns, explain the natural history, and avoid or delay prescribing antibiotics

Open randomised trial of prescribing strategies in managing sore throat

Abstract Objective: To assess three prescribing strategies for sore throat. Design: Randomised follow up study. Setting: 11 general practices in the South and West region. Subjects: 716 patients aged 4 years and over with sore throat and an abnormal physical sign in the throat; 84% had tonsillitis or pharyngitis. Patients were randomised to three groups: prescription for antibiotics for 10 days (group 1, 246 patients); no prescription (group 2, 230 patients); or prescription for antibiotics if symptoms were not starting to settle after three days (group 3; 238 patients). Main outcome measures: Duration of symptoms; satisfaction and compliance with and perceived efficacy of antibiotics; time off school or work. Outcomes were documented in 582 subjects (81%). Results: Median duration of antibiotic use differed significantly in the three groups (10 v 0 v 0 days, P<0.001); 69% of patients in group 3 did not use their prescription. The proportion of patients better by day 3 did not differ significantly (37% v 35% v 30%, P=0.28), nor did the duration of illness (median 4 v 5 v 5 days, P=0.39), days off work or school (median 2 v 2 v 1, P=0.13), or proportion of patients satisfied (96% v 90% v 93%, P=0.09), although group 1 had fewer days of fever (median 1 v 2 v 2 days, P=0.04). More patients in group 1 thought the antibiotics were effective (87% v 55% v 60%, P<0.001) and intended coming to the doctor in future attacks (79% v 54% v 57%, P<0.001). “Legitimation” of illness—to explain to work or school (60%) or family or friends (37%)–was an important reason for consultation. Patients who were more satisfied got better more quickly, and satisfaction related strongly to how well the doctor dealt with patients concerns. Conclusion: Prescribing antibiotics for sore throat only marginally affects the resolution of symptoms but enhances belief in antibiotics and intention to consult in future when compared with the acceptable strategies of no prescription or delayed prescription. Psychosocial factors are important in the decision to see a general practitioner and in predicting the duration of illness. Key messages Sore throat is one of the commonest presentations of upper respiratory illness to general practitioners, and attendance is increasing Prescribing antibiotics for sore throat does not reduce the extent and duration of symptoms Prescribing antibiotics enhances belief in antibiotics and intention to consult Legitimation of illness is an important reason for attending the doctor Satisfaction predicts duration of illness and closely relates to how well concerns are dealt with—unless patients are very ill, general practitioners should consider exploring concerns and should avoid or delay prescribing antibiotics

Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial

Objective To assess the impact of different management strategies in urinary tract infections. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Primary care. Participants 309 non-pregnant women aged 18-70 presenting with suspected urinary tract infection. Intervention Patients were randomised to five management approaches: empirical antibiotics; empirical delayed (by 48 hours) antibiotics; or targeted antibiotics based on a symptom score (two or more of urine cloudiness, urine smell, nocturia, or dysuria), a dipstick result (nitrite or both leucocytes and blood), or a positive result on midstream urine analysis. Self help advice was controlled in each group. Main outcome measures Symptom severity (days 2 to 4) and duration, and use of antibiotics. Results Patients had 3.5 days of moderately bad symptoms if they took antibiotics immediately. There were no significant differences in duration or severity of symptoms (mean frequency of symptoms on a 0 to 6 scale: immediate antibiotics 2.15, midstream urine 2.08, dipstick 1.74, symptom score 1.77, delayed antibiotics 2.11; likelihood ratio test for the five groups P=0.177). There were differences in antibiotic use (immediate antibiotics 97%, midstream urine 81%, dipstick 80%, symptom score 90%, delayed antibiotics 77%; P=0.011) and in sending midstream urine samples (immediate antibiotics 23%, midstream urine 89%, dipstick 36%, symptom score 33%, delayed antibiotics 15%; P<0.001). Patients who waited at least 48 hours to start taking antibiotics reconsulted less (hazard ratio 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.89), P=0.014) but on average had symptoms for 37% longer than those taking immediate antibiotics (incident rate ratio 1.37 (1.11 to 1.68), P=0.003), particularly the midstream urine group (73% longer, 22% to 140%; none of the other groups had more than 22% longer duration). Conclusion All management strategies achieve similar symptom control. There is no advantage in routinely sending midstream urine samples for testing, and antibiotics targeted with dipstick tests with a delayed prescription as backup, or empirical delayed prescription, can help to reduce antibiotic use. Study registration National Research Register N0484094184 ISRCTN: 03525333.

Randomised controlled trial of effect of leaflets to empower patients in consultations in primary care

Abstract Objective To assess the impact of leaflets encouraging patients to raise concerns and to discuss symptoms or other health related issues in the consultation. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Five general practices in three settings in the United Kingdom. Participants 636 consecutive patients, aged 16-80 years, randomised to receive a general leaflet, a depression leaflet, both, or neither. Main outcomes Mean item score on the medical interview satisfaction scale, consultation time, prescribing, Rerral, and investigation. Results The general leaflet increased patient satisfaction and was more effective with shorter consultations (leaflet 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 1.08; time 0.31, 0.0 to 0.06; interaction between both −0.045, −0.08 to—0.009), with similar results for subscales related to the different aspects of communication. Thus for a 10 minute consultation the leaflet increased satisfaction by 7% (seven centile points) and for a five minute consultation by 14%. The leaflet overall caused a small non-significant increase in consultation time (0.36 minutes, −0.54 to 1.26). Although there was no change in prescribing or Rerral, a general leaflet increased the numbers of investigations (odds ratio 1.43, 1.00 to 2.05), which persisted when controlling for the major potential confounders of perceived medical need and patient pRerence (1.87, 1.10 to 3.19). Most of excess investigations were not thought strongly needed by the doctor or the patient. The depression leaflet had no significant effect on any outcome. Conclusions Encouraging patients to raise issues and to discuss symptoms and other health related issues in the consultation improves their satisfaction and perceptions of communication, particularly in short consultations. Doctors do, however, need to elicit expectations to prevent needless investigations.

Presentation, pattern, and natural course of severe symptoms, and role of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance among patients presenting with suspected uncomplicated urinary tract infection in primary care: observational study

Objective To assess the natural course and the important predictors of severe symptoms in urinary tract infection and the effect of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance. Design Observational study. Setting Primary care. Participants 839 non-pregnant adult women aged 18-70 presenting with suspected urinary tract infection. Main outcome measure Duration and severity of symptoms. Results 684 women provided some information on symptoms; 511 had both laboratory results and complete symptom diaries. For women with infections sensitive to antibiotics, severe symptoms, rated as a moderately bad problem or worse, lasted 3.32 days on average. After adjustment for other predictors, moderately bad symptoms lasted 56% longer (incidence rate ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 1.99, P<0.001) in women with resistant infections; 62% longer (1.62, 1.13 to 2.31, P=0.008) when no antibiotics prescribed; and 33% longer (1.33, 1.14 to 1.56, P<0.001) in women with urethral syndrome. The duration of symptoms was shorter if the doctor was perceived to be positive about diagnosis and prognosis (continuous 7 point scale: 0.91, 0.84 to 0.99; P=0.021) and longer when the woman had frequent somatic symptoms (1.03, 1.01 to 1.05, P=0.002; for each symptom), a history of cystitis, urinary frequency, and more severe symptoms at baseline. Conclusion Antibiotic resistance and not prescribing antibiotics are associated with a greater than 50% increase in the duration of more severe symptoms in women with uncomplicated urinary tract infection. Women with a history of cystitis, frequent somatic symptoms (high somatisation), and severe symptoms at baseline can be given realistic advice that they are likely to have severe symptoms lasting longer than three days.

Randomised controlled trial of self management leaflets and booklets for minor illness provided by post

Abstract Objective: To assess the effectiveness of providing information by post about managing minor illnesses. Design: Randomised controlled trial. Setting: Six general practices. Participants: Random sample of 4002 patients from the practice registers. Intervention: Patients were randomised to receive one of three kinds of leaflet or booklet endorsed by their general practitioner: control (surgery access times), booklet, or summary card. Main outcome measures: Attendance with the 42 minor illnesses listed in the booklet. Perceived usefulness of leaflets or booklets, confidence in managing illness, and willingness to wait before seeing the doctor. Results: 238 (6%) patients did not receive the intervention as allocated. Of the remaining 3764 patients, 2965 (79%) had notes available for review after one year. Compared with the control group, fewer patients attended commonly with the minor illnesses in the booklet group (≥2 consultations a year: odds ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.99) and the summary card group (0.83; 0.72 to 0.96). Among patients who had attended with respiratory tract infections in the past year there was a reduction in those attending in the booklet group (0.81; 0.62 to 1.07) and summary card group (0.67; 0.51 to 0.89) compared with the control group. The incidence of contacts with minor illness fell slightly compared with the previous year in the booklet (incidence ratio 0.97; 0.84 to 1.13) and summary card groups (0.93; 0.80 to 1.07). More patients in the intervention groups felt greater confidence in managing illness (booklet 32%, card 34%, control 12%, P<0.001), but there was no difference in willingness to wait score (all groups mean=32, P=0.67). Conclusion: Most patients find information about minor illness provided by post useful, and it helps their confidence in managing illness. Information may reduce the number attending commonly with minor illness, but the effect on overall contacts is likely to be modest. These data suggest that posting detailed information booklets about minor illness to the general population would have a limited effect. What is already known on this topic Increasing attendance for minor illness in primary care is a threat to consultation time and quality of care Few recent studies have examined the effect of providing patients with information on self management of minor illness What this study adds Most patients find information about minor illness provided by post useful, and it helps their confidence in managing illness Information booklets and leaflets reduced the number attending frequently with minor illness, but the effect on overall contacts was not significant Information booklets on minor illness provided by post may have a limited role in the NHS

Validating the prediction of lower urinary tract infection in primary care: sensitivity and specificity of urinary dipsticks and clinical scores in women

BACKGROUND Dipsticks are one of the most commonly used near-patient tests in primary care, but few clinical or dipstick algorithms have been rigorously developed. AIM To confirm whether previously documented clinical and dipstick variables and algorithms predict laboratory diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI). DESIGN OF STUDY Validation study. SETTING Primary care. METHOD A total of 434 adult females with suspected lower UTI had bacteriuria assessed using the European Urinalysis Guidelines. RESULTS Sixty-six per cent of patients had confirmed UTI. The predictive values of nitrite, leucocyte esterase (+ or greater), and blood (haemolysed trace or greater) were confirmed (independent multivariate odds ratios = 5.6, 3.5, and 2.1 respectively). The previously developed dipstick rule--based on presence of nitrite, or both leucocytes and blood-- was moderately sensitive (75%) but less specific (66%; positive predictive value [PPV] 81%, negative predictive value [NPV] 57%). Predictive values were improved by varying the cut-off point: NPV was 76% for all three dipstick results being negative; the PPV was 92% for having nitrite and either blood or leucocyte esterase. Urine offensive smell was not found to be predictive in this sample; for a clinical score using the remaining three predictive clinical features (urine cloudiness, dysuria, and nocturia), NPV was 67% for none of the features, and PPV was 82% for three features. CONCLUSION A clinical score is of limited value in increasing diagnostic precision. Dipstick results can modestly improve diagnostic precision but poorly rule out infection. Clinicians need strategies to take account of poor NPVs.

Effect of antibiotic prescribing strategies and an information leaflet on longer-term reconsultation for acute lower respiratory tract infection

BACKGROUND Limited evidence suggests that delayed prescribing may influence future consultation behaviour. AIM To assess the effects of antibiotic prescribing strategy on reconsultation in the year following presentation with acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). DESIGN OF STUDY Balanced factorial randomised trial. SETTING Primary care. METHOD Eight hundred and seven subjects, aged>or=3 years, had acute illness presenting with cough as the main symptom, plus at least one symptom or sign from sputum, chest pain, dyspnoea or wheeze. The subjects were randomised to one of three prescribing strategies (antibiotics, delayed antibiotic, no antibiotic) and a leaflet. Prior antibiotic use and reconsultation were assessed by medical record review. RESULTS Patients who had been prescribed antibiotic for cough in the previous 2 years were much more likely to reconsult (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.62 to 4.01) and use of a delayed prescription strategy is associated with reduced reconsultation in this group. In those with prior antibiotic exposure, there was a 34% reduction in consultation rate in the no antibiotic group (IRR=0.66, 0.30 to 1.44, P=0.295) and a 78% reduction for the delayed antibiotic group (IRR=0.22, 0.10 to 0.49, P<0.001) when compared with those given immediate antibiotics. This effect was not observed in patients who had not been prescribed antibiotics in the previous 2 years; there was no reduction in consultations in the no antibiotic group (IRR=1.23, 0.79 to 1.92, P=0.358) or the delayed antibiotic group (1.19, 0.78 to 1.80, P=0.426). There was an increase in consultation rate with an information leaflet (IRR=1.27, 0.86 to 1.87, P=0.229). Past attendance with cough, or past attendance with other respiratory illness and smoking, also predicted reconsultation with cough. CONCLUSION Delayed antibiotic prescribing for LRTI appears effective in modifying reconsultation behaviour, particularly in those with a prior history of antibiotic prescription for LRTI.

Predicting the duration of symptoms in lower respiratory tract infection

BACKGROUND Acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) presenting in primary care has a long natural history. Antibiotic treatment makes little or no difference to the duration of cough. Limited information is currently available regarding predictors of illness duration. AIM To determine predictors of illness duration in acute LRTI in primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY Secondary analysis of trial data to identify independent predictors of illness severity and duration. SETTING Primary care. METHOD Eight-hundred and seven patients aged 3 years and over with acute illness (21 days or less) presenting with cough as the main symptom plus at least one symptom or sign from sputum, chest pain, dyspnoea, or wheeze were recruited to the study. Main outcomes were duration of symptoms (rated at least a slight problem) and more severe symptoms (rated at least moderately bad). RESULTS The average duration of cough (rated at least a slight problem) was 11.7 days and was shorter among children (duration -1.72 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.02 to -0.41) or in individuals with a history of fever (-1.22 days; 95% CI = -0.18 to 2.27). The duration of cough was longer among those with restricted activities on the day they saw the doctor (+0.69 days for each point of a 7-point scale). The duration of more severe symptoms was longer in those with a longer duration of symptoms prior to consultation, with a more severe cough on the day of seeing the doctor, and restriction of activities on the day of seeing the doctor. CONCLUSION Illness duration may be predicted from a limited number of clinical symptoms and from prior history. These findings should be subjected to validation in a separate population. To minimise expectation about rapid resolution of illness, adults who have restricted activities could be advised that they are likely to experience symptoms for longer.

Length of penicillin treatment of streptococcal infections: care must be taken when extrapolating data (letter)

Editor—Zwart et al recommend seven days of treatment for streptococcal infections as opposed to three days. For several decades we were educated to continue penicillin for such cases for no fewer than 10 days. The rationale was that streptococci must be eradicated to prevent rheumatic fever and that this was achievable only after 10 days of treatment. This was based on bacteriological, epidemiological, and clinical observations. The cost of oral penicillin is almost negligible, and I think we need more assurance to be persuaded to cut treatment to only seven days. Is there any study that will prove that treatment for seven days is as effective as treatment for 10 days for preventing rheumatic fever?