Can we achieve shorter antibiotic courses in primary care?

BackgroundChildhood antibiotic exposure has important clinically relevant implications. These include disruption to the microbiome, antibiotic resistance, and clinical workload manifesting as treatment ‘failure’.AimTo examine the relationship between the number of antibiotic courses prescribed to preschool children for acute respiratory tract infections (RTI), in the preceding year, and subsequent RTIs that failed to respond to antibiotic treatment (‘response failures’).Design and settingA cohort study using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, 2009 to 2016.MethodChildren aged 12 to 60 months (1 to 5 years) who were prescribed an antibiotic for an acute RTI (upper and lower RTI or otitis media) were included. One random index antibiotic course for RTI per child was selected. Exposure was the number of antibiotic prescriptions for acute RTI up to 12 months before the index antibiotic prescription. The outcome was ‘response failure’ up to 14 days after index antibiotic prescription, defined as: subsequent antibiotic prescription; referral; hospital admission; death; or emergency department attendance within 3 days. The authors used logistic regression models to estimate the odds between antibiotic exposure and response failure.ResultsOut of 114 329 children who were prescribed an antibiotic course for acute RTI, children who received ≥2 antibiotic courses for acute RTIs in the preceding year had greater odds of response failure; one antibiotic course: adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.88 to 1.21), P = 0.67, n = 230 children; ≥2 antibiotic courses: adjusted OR 1.32 (CI = 1.04 to 1.66), P = 0.02, n = 97.ConclusionChildhood antibiotic exposure for acute RTI may be a good predictor for subsequent response failure (but not necessarily because of antibiotic treatment failure). Further research is needed to improve understanding of the mechanisms underlying response failure.

Download Full-text

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

American Journal of Law & Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0098858800002586 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 489-524

Author(s):

Brent Pollitt

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Mental Illness ◽

Nurse Practitioners ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

American Psychological Association ◽

The United States ◽

Psychotropic Medications ◽

American Psychological ◽

Training Requirements ◽

Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

Download Full-text