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.
I Petersen, statistician1, A M Johnson, head of department1, A Islam, database manager1, G Duckworth, consultant epidemiologist2, D M Livermore, microbiologist2, A C Hayward, senior lecturer infectious disease epidemiology1
1 UCL Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College London, London NW3 2PQ, 2 Health Protection Agency, Centre for Infections, London NW9 5EQ
Correspondence to: A Hayward a.hayward{at}pcps.ucl.ac.uk
Design Retrospective cohort study.
Setting UK primary care practices contributing to the general practice research database.
Data source 3.36 million episodes of respiratory tract infection.
Main outcome measures Risk of serious complications in treated and untreated patients in the month after diagnosis: mastoiditis after otitis media, quinsy after sore throat, and pneumonia after upper respiratory tract infection and chest infection. Number of patients needed to treat to prevent one complication.
Results Serious complications were rare after upper respiratory tract infections, sore throat, and otitis media, and the number needed to treat was over 4000. The risk of pneumonia after chest infection was high, particularly in elderly people, and was substantially reduced by antibiotic use, with a number needed to treat of 39 for those aged
65 and 96-119 in younger age groups.
Conclusion Antibiotics are not justified to reduce the risk of serious complications for upper respiratory tract infection, sore throat, or otitis media. Antibiotics substantially reduce the risk of pneumonia after chest infection, particularly in elderly people in whom the risk is highest.
A national campaign in the United Kingdom targeting doctors and the public aimed to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing.9 Whether in response to these campaigns or to a declining incidence of disease, rates of antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in UK general practice declined by 45% between 1994 and 2000.10 Despite this, in 2000 antibiotics were still prescribed to 67% of patients presenting to general practice with respiratory infection, including over 90% of those with chest infection, 80% with ear infections, 60% with sore throat, and 47% with upper respiratory tract infections.10 The decisions to prescribe antibiotics are complex but on the basis of this evidence there seems to be a substantial gap between evidence based guidance and general practitioners' prescribing behaviour.
Continuing high rates of prescribing may relate to patients' expectations and to fears about serious complications of infection.11 Research has suggested that low rates of antibiotic prescribing in primary care might be associated with higher rates of complications of infection,12 and decreases in prescribing might have led to increases in mastoiditis13 and increased hospital admissions for respiratory infection in the UK14 and the United States.15 These studies cannot determine whether adverse events are occurring less frequently in those people who received antibiotics for minor infections than in those who did not. Meanwhile, randomised controlled trials generally have insufficient power to examine the effect of interventions on rare outcomes, and the patients included might not be representative of those seen in routine clinical practice.
We used a large primary care database to describe the effect of antibiotics in routine practice on the risk of serious complications after common respiratory tract infections.
|
|
|
|
We found a substantial risk of pneumonia after chest infection, which was greatly reduced by antibiotic use, with a relatively low number of courses of antibiotic needed to prevent one diagnosis of pneumonia (39 in those aged 65 and over and between 96 and 119 in younger age groups). The risks of pneumonia after chest infection and the number of antibiotic courses needed to prevent one case of pneumonia were not appreciably different in smokers, those with chronic respiratory disease, or those with cardiac disease.
Strengths and weaknesses of the study
This was a large study of complications after common respiratory tract infections. The patients included in the study are probably highly representative of those seen in primary care. The cohort design allowed us to estimate the absolute risk of rare outcomes, the effect of antibiotics on this risk, and the number of antibiotic courses needed to prevent one complication.
The non-randomised design means that it is likely that patients with more severe disease will be treated with antibiotics. If those with severe disease have a higher risk of complications then this would tend to lead to an underestimation of the protective effect of antibiotics. For upper respiratory tract infection, sore throat, and otitis media the number needed to treat would be lowered but would remain high, while for chest infection this further emphasises the benefit of antibiotic prescribing.
Studies that use routine primary care databases need to rely on the Read and OXMIS codes that general practitioners have assigned to conditions. In routine practice doctors are unlikely to apply strict case definitions when allocating diagnostic codes. For example, the term "chest infection" potentially includes both acute bronchitis and pneumonia. We excluded those with a code for pneumonia at the initial consultation for chest infection but some patients probably already had undiagnosed pneumonia.
The more specific term of "acute bronchitis" was rarely coded, precluding separate analysis of this entity. In reality the only way to distinguish reliably between acute bronchitis and early pneumonia is with chest radiography. As chest radiography is not readily available in primary care there may be some misclassification of chest infection and pneumonia. This misclassification could lead to an overestimation of the risk of pneumonia after chest infection. When patients return with an unresolved chest infection there may be more pressure to prescribe and some doctors who know that guidance advises against prescription in chest infection may label the condition as pneumonia to justify their prescribing decision. This may have led to overestimation of the apparent risk of pneumonia after chest infection and the protective effect of antibiotics. Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that general practitioners are unlikely to use the term pneumonia lightly as it is a serious condition.
Other biases may have led to underestimation of the risk of pneumonia. For example, pneumonia may be more likely to be treated in secondary care or during out of hours home visits and therefore under-recording may have occurred. General practitioners contributing to the database are, however, asked to record events that occur outside the surgery when they become aware of them. Several biases working in different directions may have influenced the findings, though they would need to be extreme to alter our main conclusions substantially. For sore throat, otitis media, and upper respiratory tract infection the number of antibiotic courses needed to prevent serious complications is high. For chest infection, however, the number needed to prevent one case of pneumonia is relatively modest, especially in elderly patients. Antibiotics for chest infection might also reduce the risk of other serious complications of chest infection, such as admissions to hospital for reasons other than pneumonia, but we did not assess this.
Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies
Observational studies using large datasets of routinely collected primary care data are the only practicable way to examine the effect of antibiotic prescribing on rare complications of common infection. Randomised controlled trials could theoretically overcome some of the biases discussed but have insufficient power and are highly selective about the patients involved. Meta-analyses have had insufficient power to examine the protective effect of antibiotics for pneumonia after upper respiratory tract infection7 or for mastoiditis after otitis media.5 With sample sizes of more than a million patients with upper respiratory tract infection (compared with 1495 participants in the meta-analysis)7 and nearly half a million with otitis media (compared with 1669 participants in the meta-analysis),8 we were able to show that, while antibiotics have a protective effect in these conditions, the number needed to treat to prevent complications is high.
Meta-analyses have shown that antibiotics can reduce the risk of quinsy after sore throat,6 but this conclusion is primarily related to one large study in the 1950s, when the population incidence of quinsy was much higher than today.19 We included over a million cases of sore throat treated in the 1990s (compared with 10 101 participants included in the meta-analysis)6 and showed that antibiotics do indeed reduce the risk of quinsy. As with upper respiratory tract infections and otitis media, however, the number needed to treat to prevent one serious complication is high.
Our analysis focuses on the main serious complications of common respiratory infections, particularly those complications that are rare and therefore difficult to assess through randomised controlled trials or meta-analyses. We did not include length of illness, cough, days off work, or fever for this reason and also because the database includes consultations and therefore has virtually no information on these outcomes. Similarly, we have not included need for steroids in patients with asthma because this is likely to involve them taking additional doses of a previously prescribed medication that they already have at home. We have no way of assessing such use.
Many of these less serious outcomes have previously been examined by randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses that have emphasised the minimal benefits of prescribing for upper respiratory tract infection, sore throat, and otitis media.5 6 7 Antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infection did reduce the risk of consultations for chest infection in the following month but the number needed to treat (161) to prevent such a consultation was relatively high considering that chest infection is not a particularly serious condition. This reduction in consultation needs to be balanced against other research that has shown that prescribing for minor infections may make patients more likely to consult the next time they have such an infection.20
We identified a higher risk of pneumonia after chest infection than observed in randomised control trials for treatment of acute bronchitis.8 In such trials great care is taken to exclude pneumonia through use of chest radiography either for all patients or all those with focal chest signs. These procedures are likely to be less stringent in routine practice. This is one of the factors likely to account for the considerably higher risk of pneumonia in our study compared with the risk in randomised control trials. Given that chest radiography is not routinely available in primary care outside the context of trials it is arguable that our findings are more pertinent to general practitioners' treatment decisions than the results of randomised control trials.
Implications of the study
There are legitimate concerns about the overuse of antibiotics in primary care and the development of resistance. For example, a recent randomised controlled trial has clearly shown increased carriage in resistant organisms after macrolide administration but not after placebo.21 General practitioners should not base their prescribing for sore throat, otitis media, or upper respiratory tract infections on a fear of serious complications. There is also broad consensus that the benefit in terms of more minor outcomes such as duration and severity of illness does not justify antibiotic use for these conditions.2 3 4 5 6 7 Nevertheless, many general practitioners continue to prescribe for these conditions.10
In contrast, antibiotics substantially reduce the risk of a diagnosis of pneumonia after chest infection. Prescribing guidance from the UK2 and the US4 recognises the difficulty in distinguishing between acute bronchitis, where doctors are advised not to prescribe antibiotics, and early pneumonia, where they are advised to prescribe. The guidance notes that in otherwise healthy, non-elderly adult patients who present with cough, pneumonia is unlikely if there are no new focal chest signs and all vital signs are normal2 4 and emphasises the importance of a thorough clinical examination before the decision to withhold antibiotics from patients with chest infection. Community acquired pneumonia is a serious condition with mortality ranging from 5% in ambulatory and hospitalised patients to 37% among those in intensive care.22 General practitioners already prescribe antibiotics to nearly all patients with chest infection10 but are often criticised for doing so. We have shown that antibiotic prescribing to reduce the risk of pneumonia after chest infection is justifiable, particularly in elderly patients.
Unanswered questions and future research
We could not evaluate the effect of antibiotics on resolution of symptoms. Randomised controlled trials have consistently found these benefits to be small,5 6 7 8 and they need to be balanced against the risk of side effects and the development of antibiotic resistance. It is now unlikely that randomised controlled trials that are sufficiently large to accurately measure the protective effect of antibiotics on serious complications of common respiratory tract infection will ever be conducted. For upper respiratory tract infection, sore throat, and otitis media research should focus on effective interventions to reduce prescribing. For chest infection research should focus on developing clinical algorithms and diagnostic technology that can be easily applied in primary care to enable confident distinction between acute bronchitis and early pneumonia and to identify those who are most likely to develop pneumonia.
|
Funding: Department of Health.
Competing interests: DML has various shareholdings and grants from pharmaceutical companies. AMJ has undertaken brief consultancy for GlaxoSmithKline in HPV epidemiology.
Ethical approval: GPRD scientific and ethical advisory committee.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses