No abstract

Introduction General practitioners (GPs) write about 80% of all antibiotic prescriptions, the greatest number of them for patients with respiratory tract infections. However, there is a lack of research targeting the influence of external factors on antibiotic prescribing by physicians. This study aimed to explore experiences of GPs in Lithuania and the Russian Federation with regard to antibiotic prescription for upper respiratory tract infections. By such means it might be possible to reveal external enabling factors that influence antibiotic prescribing in these countries.Method Five focus groups were performed with 22 GPs from Lithuania and 29 GPs from the Kaliningrad Region of the Russian Federation; then, thematic analysis of data was performed.Results Six thematic categories were identified that are related to external forces enabling antibiotic prescription: the necessity for political leadership to encourage clinically grounded antibiotic use; over-the-counter sale of antibiotics; designation of antibiotics as reimbursable medications; supervision by external oversight institutions; lack of guidelines for the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections; and pharmaceutical company activities.Conclusions Comprehensive efforts to reduce the burden of non-clinically grounded antibiotic prescription should go beyond addressing factors at the physician–patient level and take into account important factors in the enabling environment as well.

Background and Objective Influenza-like illness (ILI) leads to a substantial disease burden every winter in Europe; however, oseltamivir is not frequently prescribed to ILI patients in the primary-care setting. An open-label, multi-country, multi-season, randomised controlled trial investigated the effectiveness of oseltamivir for treating ILI in 15 European countries. We aimed to evaluate whether patients presenting with ILI in primary care and being managed with the addition of oseltamivir to usual care had lower average direct and indirect costs compared to patients with usual care alone. Methods Resource use data were extracted from participants' daily diaries. Itemised country-specific unit costs were collected through official tariffs, pharmacies or literature. Costs were converted to 2018 values. The null hypothesis was tested based on one-sided credible intervals (CrIs) obtained by bootstrapping. Base-case analysis estimated direct cost and productivity losses using itemised costed resource use and the human capital approach. Scenario analyses with self-reported spending rather than itemised costing were also performed. Results Patients receiving oseltamivir (N = 1306) reported fewer healthcare visits, medication uses, hospital attendances and paid-work hours lost than the other patients (N = 1298). Excluding the oseltamivir cost, the average direct costs were lower in patients treated with oseltamivir from all perspectives, but these differences were not statistically significant (perspective of patient: €17 [0-95% Crl: 16-19] vs. €24 ; healthcare provider: €37 [28-67] vs. €44 [25-55]; healthcare payers: €54 [45-85] vs. €68 [45-81]; and society: €423 [399-478] vs. €451 ). Scenario and age-group analyses confirmed these findings, but with some between-country differences. Conclusion The average direct and indirect costs were consistently lower in patients treated with oseltamivir than in patients without from four perspectives (excluding the oseltamivir cost). However, these differences were not statistically significant.

No abstract

Background: There is little evidence about the relation between aetiology, illness severity and clinical course of respiratory tract infections (RTI) in primary care. Understanding these associations would aid to develop effective management strategies for these infections. Aim: To investigate whether the clinical presentation and illness course differ between RTI in whom a viral pathogen was detected and those in whom a potential bacterial pathogen was found. Design and setting: Post hoc analysis of data from a pragmatic randomised trial on the effects of oseltamivir in patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) in primary care (n=3266) in 15 European countries. Methods: Patient characteristics, signs and symptoms were registered at baseline. Naso-pharyngeal (adults) or nasal and pharyngeal (children) swabs were taken for PCR analysis. Patients were followed up until 28 days after inclusion. Regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyse the relation between aetiology, clinical presentation at baseline and course of disease including complications. Results: Except for a less prominent congested nose (OR 0.55, CI 0.35 – 0.86) and acute cough (OR 0.52, CI 0.27 – 0.65) in ILI patients in whom a possible bacterial pathogen was isolated, there were no clear clinical differences in presentations between those with a possible bacterial aetiology than in those with a viral one. Also the course of disease and complications were not related to aetiology. Conclusion: Given the currently available microbiological tests and antimicrobial treatments, and outside pandemics like COVID-19, microbiological testing in primary care patients with ILI seems to have limited value.