Risk of unintended consequences from lower antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care

IF 14.3 1区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
{"title":"Risk of unintended consequences from lower antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jinf.2024.106255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>About 60% of antibiotic prescribing in primary care is for respiratory tract infections (RTIs), some of which is likely unnecessary. There is limited evidence on the association between reduced antibiotic prescribing and adverse events. We aimed to identify associations between practice-level prescribing rates for RTIs in general practice, and patient-level adverse outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We included 1471 English General Practitioner (GP) practices, linked to hospital admissions in England, from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink for 2005 to 2019. Outcomes were hospitalisations, RTI-related re-consultations and additional antibiotic prescriptions, adjusted for practice level case-mix prescribing.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Prescribing rates for practices falling within the lowest and highest prescribing quintiles were 52 and 139 prescriptions per 1000 RTI-related consultations. Patients from practices in the lowest prescribing quintile did not have significantly higher risk of hospitalisation, adjusted odds ratio 0·99 (95% CI 0·96 to 1·02). Re-consultations within 30 days were significantly higher for the lowest prescribing practices, adjusted odds ratio 1·209 (1·206 to 1·212). Additional antibiotic prescriptions and subsequent prescriptions upon re-consultation were significantly lower for the lowest prescribing practices, adjusted odds ratio 0·317 (0·314 to 0·321) and 0·706 (0·699 to 0·712), respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our results contribute to evidence on the safety of reduced antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in primary care. Results suggest that for the majority of practices, further reductions in RTI-related antibiotic prescribing should be possible without an increase in hospitalisation for pneumonia.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infection","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":14.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445324001890/pdfft?md5=6dc6ef2c1dd3c0a0c02e529e92fa08a5&pid=1-s2.0-S0163445324001890-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445324001890","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

About 60% of antibiotic prescribing in primary care is for respiratory tract infections (RTIs), some of which is likely unnecessary. There is limited evidence on the association between reduced antibiotic prescribing and adverse events. We aimed to identify associations between practice-level prescribing rates for RTIs in general practice, and patient-level adverse outcomes.

Methods

We included 1471 English General Practitioner (GP) practices, linked to hospital admissions in England, from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink for 2005 to 2019. Outcomes were hospitalisations, RTI-related re-consultations and additional antibiotic prescriptions, adjusted for practice level case-mix prescribing.

Results

Prescribing rates for practices falling within the lowest and highest prescribing quintiles were 52 and 139 prescriptions per 1000 RTI-related consultations. Patients from practices in the lowest prescribing quintile did not have significantly higher risk of hospitalisation, adjusted odds ratio 0·99 (95% CI 0·96 to 1·02). Re-consultations within 30 days were significantly higher for the lowest prescribing practices, adjusted odds ratio 1·209 (1·206 to 1·212). Additional antibiotic prescriptions and subsequent prescriptions upon re-consultation were significantly lower for the lowest prescribing practices, adjusted odds ratio 0·317 (0·314 to 0·321) and 0·706 (0·699 to 0·712), respectively.

Conclusions

Our results contribute to evidence on the safety of reduced antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in primary care. Results suggest that for the majority of practices, further reductions in RTI-related antibiotic prescribing should be possible without an increase in hospitalisation for pneumonia.

基层医疗机构降低呼吸道感染抗生素处方的意外后果风险。
目的:初级保健中约 60% 的抗生素处方用于治疗呼吸道感染 (RTI),其中一些可能是不必要的。有关减少抗生素处方与不良事件之间关系的证据有限。我们的目的是确定全科医疗实践中 RTI 病例处方率与患者不良后果之间的关系:我们从 2005 年至 2019 年的临床实践研究数据链中纳入了 1471 个英国全科医生(GP)诊所,这些诊所与英国的入院情况相关联。结果是住院率、RTI相关复诊率和额外抗生素处方,并根据诊所层面的病例组合处方进行了调整:结果:处方量最低和最高五分位数诊所的处方率分别为每1000例RTI相关就诊中开出52和139个处方。处方量最低五分位数诊所的患者住院风险并没有明显增加,调整后的几率比为 0-99 (95% CI 0-96 to 1-02)。开具处方最少的医疗机构的患者在 30 天内再次就诊的风险明显更高,调整后的几率比为 1-209 (1-206 至 1-212)。开具抗生素处方和再次就诊时开具抗生素处方的比例最低者明显较低,调整后的几率比分别为 0-317(0-314 至 0-321)和 0-706(0-699 至 0-712):我们的研究结果为基层医疗机构减少 RTI 抗生素处方的安全性提供了证据。结果表明,对于大多数医疗机构而言,在不增加肺炎住院率的情况下,进一步减少与 RTI 相关的抗生素处方是可能的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Infection
Journal of Infection 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
45.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
475
审稿时长
16 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Infection publishes original papers on all aspects of infection - clinical, microbiological and epidemiological. The Journal seeks to bring together knowledge from all specialties involved in infection research and clinical practice, and present the best work in the ever-changing field of infection. Each issue brings you Editorials that describe current or controversial topics of interest, high quality Reviews to keep you in touch with the latest developments in specific fields of interest, an Epidemiology section reporting studies in the hospital and the general community, and a lively correspondence section.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信