The early use of Antibiotics for At-risk children with InfluEnza in Primary Care (the ARCHIE programme)

Kay Wang, Sharon Tonner, Malcolm G Semple, Jane Wolstenholme, Rafael Perera, Anthony Harnden
{"title":"The early use of Antibiotics for At-risk children with InfluEnza in Primary Care (the ARCHIE programme)","authors":"Kay Wang, Sharon Tonner, Malcolm G Semple, Jane Wolstenholme, Rafael Perera, Anthony Harnden","doi":"10.3310/wdfr7331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Influenza and influenza-like illness place significant burden on the NHS. Children with underlying health conditions are vulnerable to developing bacterial complications. Objective To strengthen the evidence base underlying antibiotic use in at-risk children with influenza-like illness. Design This programme comprised five separate work packages. Work package A investigated published and unpublished data from previously published literature and work package B explored attitudes of parents and general practitioners to influenza-like illness and antibiotics in at-risk children. This was followed by a clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of early co-amoxiclav (Augmentin ® , GlaxoSmithKline UK) use at reducing reconsultation due to clinical deterioration (work package C), a nested sub-study to examine bacterial carriage indicators of antibiotic resistance (work package D) and a within-trial economic evaluation and clinical risk prediction analysis (work package E). Setting Interviews were conducted by telephone with general practitioners across the UK and parents/guardians in England (work package B). We conducted the clinical trial (work package C and nested work packages D and E) in general practices and ambulatory care services in England and Wales. Participants General practitioners and parents/guardians of at-risk children who previously had influenza-like illness participated in work package B. At-risk children with influenza-like illness aged 6 months to 12 years participated in work packages C and E and optionally in work package D. Interventions The intervention for the clinical trial was a 5-day course of co-amoxiclav 400/57 with dosing regimens based on British National Formulary guidance. Main outcome measures Hospital admission (work package A); findings from semi-structured interviews with patients and health-care professionals (work package B); proportion of patients who reconsulted owing to clinical deterioration (work package C); respiratory bacterial carriage and antibiotic resistance of potentially pathogenic respiratory tract bacteria at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months (work package D); and risk factors for reconsultation owing to clinical deterioration, quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level youth version), symptoms (Canadian Acute Respiratory Infection and Flu Scale), health-care use and costs (work package E). Review methods For work package A, we searched the MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases until 3 April 2013 with no language restrictions and requested unpublished data from authors of studies which had collected but not published relevant data. We included studies involving children up to 18 years of age with influenza or influenza-like illness from primary or ambulatory care settings. We used univariable meta-analysis methods to calculate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for individual risk factors. We reported our systematic review according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2009 statement. Results Work package A analysed data from 28 articles reporting data from 27 studies. Neurological disorders, sickle cell disease, immunosuppression, diabetes and an age of <2 years were risk factors for hospital admission. Work package B interviewed 41 general practitioners and found that decision-making in at-risk children with influenza-like illness varies considerably. Parents/guardians were interviewed for work package B and spoke of how quickly their at-risk child could deteriorate. They were supportive of antibiotic use while being aware of antibiotic resistance. The trial (work package C) recruited 271 at-risk children. Primary outcome data were available for 265 children. There was no evidence of benefit from treatment with co-amoxiclav versus placebo (adjusted risk ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.80). Work package D collected 285 additional throat swabs over 12 months. At 3 months, the proportion of Haemophilus influenzae isolates was greater in the placebo than co-amoxiclav group (29% vs. 18%). No association was found between antibiotic resistance and early co-amoxiclav use. No clinical features were significantly associated with risk of reconsultation due to clinical deterioration except respiratory rate (coefficient 0.046, 95% confidence interval 0.010 to 0.081). Work package E found no evidence that early co-amoxiclav treatment improves quality of life or reduces health-care use and costs. Total costs per patient were highly skewed in both groups (co-amoxiclav: median £4, range £4–5258; placebo: median £0, range £0–5177). Limitations We were not able to recruit our target sample size for the trial. This impacted the data available for microbiology, health economics and risk reduction score analyses. Conclusions Our results do not support early antibiotic prescribing to at-risk children with influenza-like illness during influenza season. Future work Further research is required to determine if antibiotic treatment would be beneficial during periods of higher influenza activity such as influenza pandemics, to identify children who would gain most clinical benefit and to better understand families’ reconsultation decisions. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN70714783 and EudraCT 2013-002822-21. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research ; Vol. 11, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.","PeriodicalId":32307,"journal":{"name":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/wdfr7331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Influenza and influenza-like illness place significant burden on the NHS. Children with underlying health conditions are vulnerable to developing bacterial complications. Objective To strengthen the evidence base underlying antibiotic use in at-risk children with influenza-like illness. Design This programme comprised five separate work packages. Work package A investigated published and unpublished data from previously published literature and work package B explored attitudes of parents and general practitioners to influenza-like illness and antibiotics in at-risk children. This was followed by a clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of early co-amoxiclav (Augmentin ® , GlaxoSmithKline UK) use at reducing reconsultation due to clinical deterioration (work package C), a nested sub-study to examine bacterial carriage indicators of antibiotic resistance (work package D) and a within-trial economic evaluation and clinical risk prediction analysis (work package E). Setting Interviews were conducted by telephone with general practitioners across the UK and parents/guardians in England (work package B). We conducted the clinical trial (work package C and nested work packages D and E) in general practices and ambulatory care services in England and Wales. Participants General practitioners and parents/guardians of at-risk children who previously had influenza-like illness participated in work package B. At-risk children with influenza-like illness aged 6 months to 12 years participated in work packages C and E and optionally in work package D. Interventions The intervention for the clinical trial was a 5-day course of co-amoxiclav 400/57 with dosing regimens based on British National Formulary guidance. Main outcome measures Hospital admission (work package A); findings from semi-structured interviews with patients and health-care professionals (work package B); proportion of patients who reconsulted owing to clinical deterioration (work package C); respiratory bacterial carriage and antibiotic resistance of potentially pathogenic respiratory tract bacteria at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months (work package D); and risk factors for reconsultation owing to clinical deterioration, quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level youth version), symptoms (Canadian Acute Respiratory Infection and Flu Scale), health-care use and costs (work package E). Review methods For work package A, we searched the MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases until 3 April 2013 with no language restrictions and requested unpublished data from authors of studies which had collected but not published relevant data. We included studies involving children up to 18 years of age with influenza or influenza-like illness from primary or ambulatory care settings. We used univariable meta-analysis methods to calculate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for individual risk factors. We reported our systematic review according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2009 statement. Results Work package A analysed data from 28 articles reporting data from 27 studies. Neurological disorders, sickle cell disease, immunosuppression, diabetes and an age of <2 years were risk factors for hospital admission. Work package B interviewed 41 general practitioners and found that decision-making in at-risk children with influenza-like illness varies considerably. Parents/guardians were interviewed for work package B and spoke of how quickly their at-risk child could deteriorate. They were supportive of antibiotic use while being aware of antibiotic resistance. The trial (work package C) recruited 271 at-risk children. Primary outcome data were available for 265 children. There was no evidence of benefit from treatment with co-amoxiclav versus placebo (adjusted risk ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.80). Work package D collected 285 additional throat swabs over 12 months. At 3 months, the proportion of Haemophilus influenzae isolates was greater in the placebo than co-amoxiclav group (29% vs. 18%). No association was found between antibiotic resistance and early co-amoxiclav use. No clinical features were significantly associated with risk of reconsultation due to clinical deterioration except respiratory rate (coefficient 0.046, 95% confidence interval 0.010 to 0.081). Work package E found no evidence that early co-amoxiclav treatment improves quality of life or reduces health-care use and costs. Total costs per patient were highly skewed in both groups (co-amoxiclav: median £4, range £4–5258; placebo: median £0, range £0–5177). Limitations We were not able to recruit our target sample size for the trial. This impacted the data available for microbiology, health economics and risk reduction score analyses. Conclusions Our results do not support early antibiotic prescribing to at-risk children with influenza-like illness during influenza season. Future work Further research is required to determine if antibiotic treatment would be beneficial during periods of higher influenza activity such as influenza pandemics, to identify children who would gain most clinical benefit and to better understand families’ reconsultation decisions. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN70714783 and EudraCT 2013-002822-21. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research ; Vol. 11, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在初级保健中对有流感风险的儿童早期使用抗生素(ARCHIE方案)
背景:流感和流感样疾病给NHS带来了沉重的负担。有潜在健康问题的儿童容易出现细菌并发症。目的加强流感样疾病高危儿童抗生素使用的证据基础。该方案包括五个独立的工作包。工作包A调查了以前发表的文献中已发表和未发表的数据,工作包B探讨了父母和全科医生对高危儿童流感样疾病和抗生素的态度。随后进行了一项临床试验,以评估早期使用联合阿莫昔拉(Augmentin®,GlaxoSmithKline UK)减少因临床恶化而再次就诊的有效性(工作包C)。检查细菌携带抗生素耐药性指标的嵌套子研究(工作包D)和试验内经济评估和临床风险预测分析(工作包E)。设置通过电话采访英国各地的全科医生和英格兰的父母/监护人(工作包B)。我们在英格兰和威尔士的全科医生和门诊护理服务中进行了临床试验(工作包C和嵌套工作包D和E)。参与者以前患有流感样疾病的高危儿童的全科医生和父母/监护人参加工作包b。患有流感样疾病的6个月至12岁的高危儿童参加工作包C和E,并可选择参加工作包d。干预措施临床试验的干预措施是一个为期5天的联合阿莫昔拉400/57疗程,其给药方案基于英国国家处方指南。住院(工作包A);对患者和保健专业人员进行半结构化访谈的结果(工作包B);因临床恶化而重新咨询的患者比例(工作包C);3、6、9和12个月时呼吸道细菌携带情况和潜在致病性呼吸道细菌耐药性(工作包D);由于临床恶化、生活质量(EuroQol-5维度,三级青年版)、症状(加拿大急性呼吸道感染和流感量表)、医疗保健使用和费用(工作包E)而导致复诊的危险因素。截至2013年4月3日的科学引文索引和CINAHL(护理和相关健康文献累积索引)数据库,没有语言限制,并要求收集但未发表相关数据的研究作者提供未发表的数据。我们纳入了来自初级或门诊护理机构的18岁以下流感或流感样疾病儿童的研究。我们使用单变量荟萃分析方法计算个体危险因素的比值比,置信区间为95%。我们根据2009年PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目)声明报告了我们的系统评价。工作包A分析了28篇文章的数据,报告了27项研究的数据。神经系统疾病、镰状细胞病、免疫抑制、糖尿病和2岁是住院的危险因素。工作包B采访了41名全科医生,发现患流感样疾病的高危儿童的决策差异很大。父母/监护人接受了工作包B的采访,并谈到了他们处于危险中的孩子可能会多快恶化。他们支持使用抗生素,同时也意识到抗生素耐药性。试验(工作包C)招募了271名高危儿童。265名儿童的主要结局数据可用。没有证据表明联合阿莫昔拉夫治疗与安慰剂治疗有获益(调整后的风险比为1.16,95%可信区间为0.75至1.80)。工作包D在12个月内额外收集了285份咽拭子。在3个月时,安慰剂组中流感嗜血杆菌分离株的比例高于联合阿莫昔拉夫组(29%对18%)。未发现抗生素耐药性与早期使用共阿莫昔拉夫之间存在关联。除了呼吸频率(系数0.046,95%可信区间0.010 ~ 0.081)外,没有其他临床特征与因临床恶化而再次就诊的风险显著相关。工作包E未发现任何证据表明早期联合阿莫昔拉夫治疗可改善生活质量或减少保健使用和费用。在两组中,每位患者的总成本高度倾斜(联合阿莫昔拉夫:中位数为4英镑,范围为4 - 5258英镑;安慰剂:中位数为0英镑,范围为0 - 5177英镑)。我们无法招募到试验的目标样本量。这影响了微生物学、卫生经济学和风险降低评分分析的可用数据。 结论我们的研究结果不支持在流感季节对流感样疾病的高危儿童早期开抗生素处方。未来的工作需要进一步的研究来确定抗生素治疗在流感高活动性时期(如流感大流行)是否有益,以确定哪些儿童将获得最大的临床益处,并更好地了解家庭的重新咨询决定。本试验注册号为ISRCTN70714783, EudraCT 2013-002822-21。本项目由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)应用研究方案资助,并将全文发表在应用研究方案资助上;第11卷第1期请参阅NIHR期刊图书馆网站了解更多项目信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Collaborative care intervention for individuals with severe mental illness: the PARTNERS2 programme including complex intervention development and cluster RCT Developing primary care services for stroke survivors: the Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) research programme Improving the understanding and management of back pain in older adults: the BOOST research programme including RCT and OPAL cohort A casemix classification for those receiving specialist palliative care during their last year of life across England: the C-CHANGE research programme Peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care: the ENRICH research programme
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1