Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
a Primary Medical Care Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Biological Sciences Aldermoor Health Centre Southampton University Southampton SO16 5ST, b Nightingale Surgery Romsey Hants SO16 5ST
Correspondence to: Dr Little
| 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
|
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A systematic review showed only marginal benefit from antibiotics for sore throat,1 which must be balanced against side effects, including "medicalisation"2 making people more likely to seek medical care for future illness. Assessing medicalisation requires open randomised trials.3 We previously reported that antibiotic prescribing increases patients' belief in antibiotics and intention to reconsult, compared with either not prescribing or offering a delayed prescription.3 Immediate prescribing should, therefore, increase reattendance. We report here a comparison of the complication and reattendance rates of patients given immediate prescriptions and those managed by other strategies and report other predictors of reattendance.
| Method |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The methods have been fully reported:3 716 patients with sore throat and an abnormal physical sign were randomised to three prescribing approaches supported by advice sheets. These approaches were: (a) a 10 day prescription of phenyoxymethylpenicillin, (b) no antibiotics, and (c) a 10 day prescription of antibiotics to collect if the sore throat had not started to settle after three days. Groups were well differentiated in reported antibiotic use, attitude, and intention.3
Outcome assessment
Notes reviewAll patients had their notes inspected in
summer 1996 (follow up 2 months to 2.5 years after trial entry) for subsequent presentations. We
counted all entries where sore throat, pharyngitis, tonsillitis, otitis media, or quinsy was noted
either
in the main complaint or in the clinical description. Attendances before randomisation were also
noted, and whether antibiotics had been prescribed.
Observer biasDetails of the randomised episode were removed from photocopies of 75 randomly chosen sets of notes from the largest practice, the notes reassessed, and the data re-entered. The original assessment was compared with the blinded assessment.
Sample size calculation (for 80% power, 95% confidence using the epi info program)For the principal comparison (the initial antibiotic group versus the other two groups) a 40% relative increase in reattendances2 or a 15% absolute increase (antibiotics 40%, others 55%; hazard ratio 1.38)required 417 patients, or 596 allowing for 30% loss to follow up.
Data entry and analysisData were entered and analysed
on an intention to treat basis using SPSS and
STATA for windows. Cox proportional hazard regression was
used
to estimate hazard ratio of first return to the surgery for sore throat, pharyngitis, or tonsillitis (a
"failure"), data being censored then or at the end of follow up. We tested
predictive
features in the model using the likelihood ratio
2 test by forward
selection of significant terms (at the 5% level), terms being retained if there was no
evidence
of significant multi-collinearity. The proportional hazards assumptionthat the
effect
of regressors does not vary with timewas assessed using interaction terms according to
three
follow up periods (0-45, 46-179, >179 days) defined by tertiles of the distribution
of returns to the surgery.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Notes were reviewed for 675 (94%) subjects. Results are presented for the intial
antibiotic group versus the other two groups. Group characteristics (table 1) and mean follow up time were similar (1.07, 1.03 years
respectively, P=0.2). Prescribing antibiotics increased return to the surgery (38%
versus 27%), with an additional effect from previous prescribing (see table 2). A longer duration of illness increased the return rate, confined
to
the first follow up period (hazard ratios for 0-45, 46-179, and >179 days
respectively 2.86, 0.83, 1.13, likelihood ratio
2 (2 df) 11.05,
P=0.0004); 23 of these 34 returns (68%) occurred within two weeks and
17/34
(50%) within eight days. Increasing prior attendance with upper respiratory illness was
also
associated with future reattendance for sore throat (z test
for
trend 2.03, P=0.04); this effect was not confounded by the frequency of sore throats, as
reported by patients in the end of study questionnaire. There was no difference between the
antibiotic
and other groups in the proportion of early returns (respectively 13/238 (5.5%)
v 27/437 (6%)) or complications (otitis media,
sinusitis, quinsy: 2/236 (0.8%) v3/434
(0.7%)). Sociodemographic or psychosocial factors measured at the index consultation did
not predict future reattendance (table 3).
|
|
|
Although the principal analysis compared the initial antibiotics groups with the other two groups, the "delayed" group had the lowest rates of reattendence (hazard ratio of reattendence: delayed 1.00, no antibiotic 1.3 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.97), antibiotic 1.61 (1.09 to 2.38)).
General practitioners' attitude to prescribing antibiotics at the end of the study (very, moderately, slightly, not at all comfortable prescribing antibiotics immediately) did not significantly predict reattendence (hazard ratio 1, 1.24, 0.77, 0.90; z trend -0.88, P=0.39).
Outcome documentation biasWe minimised possible bias from general practitioners' relabelling episodes of sore throat by assessing the main text of the consultation and not just the problem summary. If relabelling bias was significant the difference between antibiotic and other groups should have disappeared when all other upper respiratory illnesses were included (sore throat, pharyngitis, tonsillitis, quinsy, and other upper respiratory labelsURTI, cold, otitis media, sinusitiswhere no sore throat was documented), but it did not (respectively 106/238 (45%) and 146/437 (33%)).
Observer biasOnly 5/73 (7%)
disagreements
occurred between the unblinded and blinded assessment of notes (agreement 68/73
(93%),
0.83), all in the no antibiotics or delayed group, and there was no
evidence
of systematic bias (three attendances coded unblinded as no sore throat became sore throat, and
two
were recoded in the opposite direction).
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This trial confirms that complications of sore throat are rare, and that prescribing antibiotics increases reattendance.2 8 We have shown that trial groups were similar, well differentiated,3 and that selection,3 non-response, relabelling, general practitioners' attitude, and outcome assessment variation are not likely to bias the results.
Consultations for respiratory conditions in British general practice have increased by 14% in 10 years.9 Since the pathogenic basis is not likely to be changing,1 10 11 psychosocial factors may explain changes in attendancefor example, patient expectations, altered social support networks, employers' attitudes, or changes in doctors' behaviour.12 This study suggests that an effective way of counteracting increased consulting is for general practitioners not to prescribe antibioticsor delay prescribing themfor self limiting illness in individuals who are not very ill and where complications are rare.
Prolonged duration of sore throat also increased the rate of return within six weeks of the original illness, and half the subjects with a longer duration of illness who returned did so within eight days. This suggests that explanation of the natural historythat the average duration is five days after consultation and that almost 40% of people have a sore throat for longer than five daysmay reduce expectations and possibly alter subsequent attendance behaviour. General practitioners should consider careful counselling in subjects who have attended with upper respiratory illness twice or more in the past year, as this is a marker for reattendance.
| Acknowledgements |
|---|
We thank these general practitioners for their help in recruitment, advice, and enthusiasm: Nigel Dickson, Graham Newman, Peter Willicombe, Peter White, Sue Tippett, Richard Peace, Julie Chinn, Katie Warner, Neil Ball, Tim Taylor, Deidre Durrant, Mark Rickenbach, Sally Bacon, Tim Whelan, Peter Markby, Simon Goodison, D Traynor, R Briggs, Evelyn Beale, Fiona Bradley, Simon Smith, and Stephen Morgan.
Funding: Wessex NHS regional research and development funds. PL is supported by the Wellcome Trust.
Conflict of interest: None.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|