Likopa Zane, Kivite-Urtane Anda, Strele Ieva, Pavare Jana
Children's Clinical University Hospital, Vienibas Gatve 45, LV-1004 Riga, Latvia.
Department of Paediatrics, Riga Stradins University, Vienības Gatve 45, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2024 Sep 10;13(9):867. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics13090867.
Antibiotics are often overprescribed in children in general practice. We investigated whether the availability of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing (CRP POCT) in daily practice and general practitioner (GP) education reduces antibiotic prescribing for children with acute infections and whether GP education has a long-term effect on antibiotic prescribing.
This was a randomized controlled intervention study with randomization at the GP practice level. Eligible patients were children aged 1 month to 17 years presenting to general practice with an acute infection.
In the first study period, one GP group received combined interventions (CRP POCT was provided for daily use in combination with a live educational session), while the second GP group continued usual care. During the second study period, the GP groups were switched. During this period, the long-term education effect was evaluated in the GP group, which had previously received both interventions: the CRP POCT was no longer available in their practices in accordance with the study protocol, but education could have a lasting effect.
Antibiotic prescribing at index consultation.
GP with combined intervention enrolled 1784 patients, GP with usual care enrolled 886 patients, and GP with long-term education effect enrolled 647 patients. Most of the patients had upper (76.8%) and lower (18.8%) respiratory infections. In total, 29.3% of the study patients received antibiotic prescriptions. Adjusted binary logistic regression analysis showed no differences for the primary outcome between GPs with usual care and GPs with combined intervention (aOR 0.89 (0.74-1.07), = 0.20), but significantly lower antibiotic prescribing was observed for GPs with long-term education in comparison with GPs with usual care (aOR 0.75 (0.59-0.96), = 0.02); however, after multilevel analyses, any differences in the antibiotic prescription between intervention groups became non-significant. GPs widely used CRP POCT when it was available in practice (for 69.1% of patients in the combined intervention group), but rarely measured CRP in the laboratory in the usual care group (8.8% (n = 78)) or long-term education group (14.8% (n = 98)). The majority of the tested patients had low CRP levels (below 20 mg/L); despite this, up to 35.4% of them received antibiotic prescriptions.
Our results show that the availability of CRP POCT and educational training for GPs together did not reduce antibiotic prescribing, and one-time education did not have a long-term effect on antibiotic prescribing.
在全科医疗中,抗生素在儿童中常常被过度开具处方。我们调查了在日常实践中提供C反应蛋白即时检测(CRP POCT)以及对全科医生(GP)进行教育是否能减少急性感染儿童的抗生素处方开具,以及全科医生教育对抗生素处方开具是否有长期影响。
这是一项在全科医生诊所层面进行随机分组的随机对照干预研究。符合条件的患者为年龄在1个月至17岁、因急性感染前往全科医疗就诊的儿童。
在第一个研究阶段,一个全科医生组接受联合干预(提供CRP POCT以供日常使用,并结合一次现场教育课程),而第二个全科医生组继续常规护理。在第二个研究阶段,两个全科医生组进行了切换。在此期间,对之前接受过两种干预的全科医生组评估长期教育效果:根据研究方案,他们的诊所不再提供CRP POCT,但教育可能会有持久影响。
首次就诊时的抗生素处方开具情况。
接受联合干预的全科医生纳入了1784例患者,接受常规护理的全科医生纳入了886例患者,评估长期教育效果的全科医生纳入了647例患者。大多数患者患有上呼吸道(76.8%)和下呼吸道(18.8%)感染。总体而言,29.3%的研究患者接受了抗生素处方。调整后的二元逻辑回归分析显示,接受常规护理的全科医生和接受联合干预的全科医生在主要结局方面没有差异(调整后比值比[aOR]为0.89[0.74 - 1.07],P = 0.20),但与接受常规护理的全科医生相比,接受长期教育的全科医生的抗生素处方开具显著更低(aOR为0.75[0.59 - 0.96],P = 0.02);然而,经过多水平分析后,干预组之间在抗生素处方方面的任何差异都变得不显著。当诊所提供CRP POCT时,全科医生广泛使用它(联合干预组中69.1%的患者),但在常规护理组(8.8%[n = 78])或长期教育组(14.8%[n = 98])中,很少在实验室检测CRP。大多数检测患者的CRP水平较低(低于20 mg/L);尽管如此,其中高达35.4%的患者接受了抗生素处方。
我们的结果表明,CRP POCT的可用性以及对全科医生的教育培训共同作用并未减少抗生素处方开具,并且一次性教育对抗生素处方开具没有长期影响。