ObjectivesOverutilisation of antibiotics may contribute to the emergence of antimicrobial drug resistance, a growing international concern. This study aimed to analyse the performance of UK general practices with respect to antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) among young and middle-aged adults.SettingData are reported for 568 UK general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.ParticipantsParticipants were adults aged 18–59 years. Consultations were identified for acute upper RTIs including colds, cough, otitis-media, rhino-sinusitis and sore throat.Primary and secondary outcome measuresFor each consultation, we identified whether an antibiotic was prescribed. The proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotics prescribed was estimated.ResultsThere were 568 general practices analysed. The median general practice prescribed antibiotics at 54% of RTI consultations. At the highest prescribing 10% of practices, antibiotics were prescribed at 69% of RTI consultations. At the lowest prescribing 10% of practices, antibiotics were prescribed at 39% RTI consultations. The median practice prescribed antibiotics at 38% of consultations for ‘colds and upper RTIs’, 48% for ‘cough and bronchitis’, 60% for ‘sore throat’, 60% for ‘otitis-media’ and 91% for ‘rhino-sinusitis’. The highest prescribing 10% of practices issued antibiotic prescriptions at 72% of consultations for ‘colds’, 67% for ‘cough’, 78% for ‘sore throat’, 90% for ‘otitis-media’ and 100% for ‘rhino-sinusitis’.ConclusionsMost UK general practices prescribe antibiotics to young and middle-aged adults with respiratory infections at rates that are considerably in excess of what is clinically justified. This will fuel antibiotic resistance.

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and the Wellcome Trust and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

This study aimed to determine whether patients with statin-induced myopathy could be identified using the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink, whether DNA could be obtained, and whether previously reported associations of statin myopathy with the SLCO1B1 c.521T>C and COQ2 rs4693075 polymorphisms could be replicated. Seventy-seven statin-induced myopathy patients (serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) > 4× upper limit of normal (ULN)) and 372 statin-tolerant controls were identified and recruited. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed the SLCO1B1 c.521T>C single-nucleotide polymorphism to be a significant risk factor (P = 0.009), with an odds ratio (OR) per variant allele of 2.06 (1.32–3.15) for all myopathy and 4.09 (2.06–8.16) for severe myopathy (CPK > 10× ULN, and/or rhabdomyolysis; n = 23). COQ2 rs4693075 was not associated with myopathy. Meta-analysis showed an association between c.521C>T and simvastatin-induced myopathy, although power for other statins was limited. Our data replicate the association of SLCO1B1 variants with statin-induced myopathy. Furthermore, we demonstrate how electronic medical records provide a time- and cost-efficient means of recruiting patients with severe adverse drug reactions for pharmacogenetic studies.

PURPOSE This study aimed to implement a point-of-care cluster randomized trial using electronic health records. We evaluated the effectiveness of electronically delivered decision support tools at reducing antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care. METHODSFamily practices from England and Scotland participating in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) were included in the trial; 53 family practices were allocated to intervention and 51 practices were allocated to usual care. Patients aged 18 to 59 years consulting for respiratory tract infections were eligible. The intervention was through remotely installed, computer-delivered decision support tools accessed during the consultations. Control practices provided usual care. The primary outcome was the proportion of consultations for respiratory tract infections with an antibiotic prescribed based on electronic health records. Family practice-specific proportions were included in a clusterlevel analysis.RESULTS Data were analyzed for 603,409 patients: 317,717 at intervention practices and 285,692 at control practices. Use of the intervention was less than anticipated, varying among practices. There was a reduction in proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed of 1.85% (95% CI, 0.10%-3.59%, P = .038) and in the rate of antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (9.69%; 95% CI, 0.75%-18.63%, fewer prescriptions per 1,000 patient-years, P = .034). There were no adverse events.CONCLUSIONS Cluster randomized trials may be implemented efficiently in large samples from routine care settings by using primary care electronic health records. Future studies should develop and test multicomponent methods for remotely delivered intervention.

BackgroundThe study aimed to conduct a process evaluation for a cluster randomised trial of a computer-delivered, point-of-care intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care. The study aimed to evaluate both the intervention and implementation of the trial.MethodsThe intervention comprised a set of electronic educational and decision support tools that were remotely installed and activated during consultations with patients with acute respiratory infections over a 12 month intervention period. A mixed method evaluation was conducted with 103 general practitioners (GPs) who participated in the trial. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 GPs who had been in the intervention group of the trial and 4 members of the implementation staff. Questionnaires, consisting of both intervention evaluation and theory-based measures, were self-administered to 83 GPs (56 control group and 27 intervention group).ResultsInterviews suggested that a key factor influencing GPs’ use of the intervention appeared to be their awareness of the implementation of the system into their practice. GPs who were aware of the implementation of the intervention reported feeling confident in using it if they chose to and understood the purpose of the intervention screens. However, GPs who were unaware that the intervention would be appearing often reported feeling confused when they saw the messages appear on the screen and not fully understanding what they were for or how they could be used. Intervention evaluation questionnaires indicated that GPs were satisfied with the usability of the prompts, and theory-based measures revealed that intervention group GPs reported higher levels of self-efficacy in managing RTI patients according to recommended guidelines compared to GPs in the control group.ConclusionsRemote installation of a computer-delivered intervention for use at the point-of-care was feasible and acceptable. Additional measures to promote awareness of the intervention may be required to promote health care professionals’ utilisation of the intervention and these might sometimes compromise the pragmatic intention of a trial.Trial registrationISRCTN47558792 (registered on 17 March 2010).