What is known and objectiveThe overuse and misuse of antibiotics, especially for viral, and self‐limiting, respiratory tract infections such as sore throat, increases the risk of the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance within communities. Up to 80% of sore throat cases have a viral aetiology, and even when the infection is bacterial, most cases resolve without antibiotics. However, antibiotics are still frequently and often inappropriately prescribed for the treatment of sore throat. Furthermore, topical (local) antibiotics for treatment of sore throat are widely available over the counter. The objective of this systematic review was to establish the evidence for the benefits, risk of harm and antimicrobial resistance associated with topical (local) antibiotics used for patients with sore throat.MethodsEligible studies included those in patients with sore throat of any aetiology receiving the topical (local) antibiotics tyrothricin, bacitracin, gramicidin or neomycin where the antibiotic was topically/locally applied via the nasal cavity or throat. Nasal applications were included as these are occasionally used to treat upper respiratory tract infections that may involve sore throat. There was no restriction or requirement regarding comparator. The outcomes of interest included efficacy, safety, and in vitro culture and antimicrobial resistance data.Results and discussionThis systematic review found sparse and mainly poor‐quality evidence relating to the use of topical (local) antibiotics for sore throat, and it was not possible to establish the benefits, risk of harm or impact of use on antimicrobial resistance.What is new and conclusionsFurther research is necessary to ascertain the risks and benefits of topical (local) antibiotics, their contribution to antimicrobial resistance and the risk of harm. We do, however, question whether it is appropriate and rational to use topical (local) antibiotics for the treatment of sore throat caused by respiratory tract infections in the absence of robust evidence.

No abstract

Pharyngitis (also known as sore throat) is a common, predominately viral, self-limiting condition which can be symptomatically managed without antibiotic treatment. Inappropriate antibiotic use for pharyngitis contributes to the development and spread of antibiotic resistance. However, a small proportion of sore throats caused by group A streptococcal (GAS) infection may benefit from the provision of antibiotics. Establishing the cause of infection is therefore an important step in effective antibiotic stewardship. Point-of-care (POC) tests, where results are available within minutes, can distinguish between viral and GAS pharyngitis and can therefore guide treatment in primary healthcare settings such as community pharmacies, which are often the first point of contact with the healthcare system. In this opinion article, the evidence for the use of POC testing in the community pharmacy has been discussed. Evidence suggests that pharmacy POC testing can promote appropriate antibiotic use and reduce the need for general practitioner consultations. Challenges to implementation include cost, training and ‘who prescribes’, with country and regional differences presenting a particular issue. Despite these challenges, POC testing for pharyngitis has become widely available in pharmacies in some countries and may represent a strategy to contain antibiotic resistance and contribute to antimicrobial stewardship.

Purpose The purpose of this review is to discuss the development of Wixela™ Inhub™, a generic equivalent of Advair Diskus ® , a fixed-dose combination of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol powder for oral inhalation for patients with asthma whose symptoms are not controlled with inhaled corticosteroids alone and for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are at a high risk for exacerbations. Summary We provide an overview of the Inhub device and the bioequivalence studies that have been conducted to date. Briefly, the in vitro performance, improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dose strengths for Wixela Inhub and Advair Diskus were comparable. Conclusion The bioequivalence demonstrated by the totality of clinical and in vitro data supports the use of Wixela Inhub and provides a treatment option for patients with asthma or COPD.

No abstract