Macrolide overuse for treatment of respiratory tract infections in general practice.

Danish medical bulletin Pub Date : 2011-11-01
Mette Hinnerskov, Julie Maria Therkildsen, Gloria Cordoba, Lars Bjerrum
{"title":"Macrolide overuse for treatment of respiratory tract infections in general practice.","authors":"Mette Hinnerskov,&nbsp;Julie Maria Therkildsen,&nbsp;Gloria Cordoba,&nbsp;Lars Bjerrum","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>High consumption of macrolides has been linked to increased macrolide resistance in the common pathogens of respiratory tract infections (RTIs). According to Danish recommendations, penicillin is the first-choice treatment for RTIs and macrolides should only be prescribed when a patient is allergic to penicillin or for treatment of mycoplasma pneumonias. The aim of the present study was to explore the prescription of macrolides for different RTIs to patients without penicillin allergy in general practice in Denmark.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study. Data were collected during a three-week period in January 2008 as part of the EU-funded project Health Alliance for Prudent Prescribing, Yield and Use of Antimicrobial Drugs in the Treatment of Respiratory Tract Infections (HAPPY AUDIT). A total of 102 Danish general practitioners participated and registered patients with RTIs according to the Audit Project Odense method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3,904 patients with RTIs were registered and 1,351 patients received antibiotics. Among these, 198 patients received a macrolide. In all, 136 patients received a macrolide without being allergic to penicillin. This proportion was highest for patients diagnosed with acute otitis media (71%), acute bronchitis (71%) or pneumonia (76%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, there was a considerable overuse of macrolide for treatment of all types of RTIs. The macrolide overuse found in this study cannot be explained by the aetiology of Mycoplasma pneumoniae since there was no epidemic in 2008.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>Data for the macrolide study were collected from the HAPPY AUDIT study which was funded by the EU. The two first-authors each received DKK 30,000 from the PLU foundation for their work on the article.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The HAPPY AUDIT method was registered and published in the BioMed Central.</p>","PeriodicalId":11019,"journal":{"name":"Danish medical bulletin","volume":"58 11","pages":"A4356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Danish medical bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: High consumption of macrolides has been linked to increased macrolide resistance in the common pathogens of respiratory tract infections (RTIs). According to Danish recommendations, penicillin is the first-choice treatment for RTIs and macrolides should only be prescribed when a patient is allergic to penicillin or for treatment of mycoplasma pneumonias. The aim of the present study was to explore the prescription of macrolides for different RTIs to patients without penicillin allergy in general practice in Denmark.

Material and methods: This was a cross-sectional study. Data were collected during a three-week period in January 2008 as part of the EU-funded project Health Alliance for Prudent Prescribing, Yield and Use of Antimicrobial Drugs in the Treatment of Respiratory Tract Infections (HAPPY AUDIT). A total of 102 Danish general practitioners participated and registered patients with RTIs according to the Audit Project Odense method.

Results: A total of 3,904 patients with RTIs were registered and 1,351 patients received antibiotics. Among these, 198 patients received a macrolide. In all, 136 patients received a macrolide without being allergic to penicillin. This proportion was highest for patients diagnosed with acute otitis media (71%), acute bronchitis (71%) or pneumonia (76%).

Conclusion: Overall, there was a considerable overuse of macrolide for treatment of all types of RTIs. The macrolide overuse found in this study cannot be explained by the aetiology of Mycoplasma pneumoniae since there was no epidemic in 2008.

Funding: Data for the macrolide study were collected from the HAPPY AUDIT study which was funded by the EU. The two first-authors each received DKK 30,000 from the PLU foundation for their work on the article.

Trial registration: The HAPPY AUDIT method was registered and published in the BioMed Central.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一般情况下大环内酯类药物治疗呼吸道感染的过度使用。
大环内酯类药物的高消费与呼吸道感染(RTIs)常见病原体大环内酯类药物耐药性增加有关。根据丹麦的建议,青霉素是呼吸道感染的首选治疗药物,大环内酯类药物只有在患者对青霉素过敏或治疗肺炎支原体时才应开处方。本研究的目的是探讨大环内酯类药物的处方不同的RTIs患者在丹麦的一般做法没有青霉素过敏。材料和方法:本研究为横断面研究。数据是在2008年1月为期三周的时间内收集的,这是欧盟资助的用于治疗呼吸道感染的抗菌药物谨慎处方、产量和使用卫生联盟项目(HAPPY AUDIT)的一部分。根据审计项目欧登塞方法,共有102名丹麦全科医生参与并登记了rti患者。结果:共登记了3904例RTIs患者,其中1351例患者接受了抗生素治疗。其中,198例患者接受大环内酯类药物治疗。总共有136名患者接受了大环内酯治疗,但没有对青霉素过敏。在诊断为急性中耳炎(71%)、急性支气管炎(71%)或肺炎(76%)的患者中,这一比例最高。结论:总的来说,大环内酯类药物在治疗所有类型的RTIs中存在相当大的过度使用。本研究中发现的大环内酯类药物的过度使用不能用肺炎支原体的病原学来解释,因为2008年没有流行。资金:大环内酯研究的数据来自欧盟资助的HAPPY AUDIT研究。两位第一作者每人从PLU基金会获得了30,000丹麦克朗的报酬。试验注册:HAPPY审核方法已注册并在BioMed Central上发布。
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
Danish medical bulletin
Danish medical bulletin 医学-医学:内科
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Impact of new advances in sex research on psychoanalytic theory. Global Mental Health : Anthropological Perspectives Cancer rates after kidney transplantation. Need for thyroidectomy in patients treated with radioactive iodide for benign thyroid disease. Stagnation in body mass index in Denmark from 1997/1998 to 2004/2005, but with geographical diversity.
×
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