F Christiaan K Dolk1,2, Koen B Pouwels1,2,3, David R M Smith1, Julie V Robotham1, Timo Smieszek1,3. 1. Modelling and Economics Unit, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK. 2. PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology & -Economics, Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College School of Public Health, London, UK.
Abstract
Objectives: To analyse antibiotic prescribing behaviour in English primary care with particular regard to which antibiotics are prescribed and for which conditions. Methods: Primary care data from 2013-15 recorded in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database were analysed. Records with a prescription for systemic antibiotics were extracted and linked to co-occurring diagnostic codes, which were used to attribute prescriptions to clinical conditions. We further assessed which antibiotic classes were prescribed and which conditions resulted in the greatest share of prescribing. Results: The prescribing rate varied considerably among participating practices, with a median of 626 prescriptions/1000 patients (IQR 543-699). In total, 69% of antibiotic prescriptions (n = 3 156 507) could be linked to a body system and/or clinical condition. Of these prescriptions, 46% were linked to conditions of the respiratory tract, including ear, nose and throat (RT/ENT); leading conditions within this group were cough symptoms (22.7%), lower respiratory tract infection (RTI) (17.9%), sore throat (16.7%) and upper RTI (14.5%). After RT/ENT infections, infections of the urogenital tract (22.7% of prescriptions linked to a condition) and skin/wounds (16.4%) accounted for the greatest share of prescribing. Penicillins accounted for 50% of all prescriptions, followed by macrolides (13%), tetracyclines (12%) and trimethoprim (11%). Conclusions: The majority of antibiotic prescriptions in English primary care were for infections of the respiratory and urinary tracts. However, in almost one-third of all prescriptions no clinical justification was documented. Antibiotic prescribing rates varied substantially between practices, suggesting that there is potential to reduce prescribing in at least some practices.
Objectives: To analyse antibiotic prescribing behaviour in English primary care with particular regard to which antibiotics are prescribed and for which conditions. Methods: Primary care data from 2013-15 recorded in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database were analysed. Records with a prescription for systemic antibiotics were extracted and linked to co-occurring diagnostic codes, which were used to attribute prescriptions to clinical conditions. We further assessed which antibiotic classes were prescribed and which conditions resulted in the greatest share of prescribing. Results: The prescribing rate varied considerably among participating practices, with a median of 626 prescriptions/1000 patients (IQR 543-699). In total, 69% of antibiotic prescriptions (n = 3 156 507) could be linked to a body system and/or clinical condition. Of these prescriptions, 46% were linked to conditions of the respiratory tract, including ear, nose and throat (RT/ENT); leading conditions within this group were cough symptoms (22.7%), lower respiratory tract infection (RTI) (17.9%), sore throat (16.7%) and upper RTI (14.5%). After RT/ENT infections, infections of the urogenital tract (22.7% of prescriptions linked to a condition) and skin/wounds (16.4%) accounted for the greatest share of prescribing. Penicillins accounted for 50% of all prescriptions, followed by macrolides (13%), tetracyclines (12%) and trimethoprim (11%). Conclusions: The majority of antibiotic prescriptions in English primary care were for infections of the respiratory and urinary tracts. However, in almost one-third of all prescriptions no clinical justification was documented. Antibiotic prescribing rates varied substantially between practices, suggesting that there is potential to reduce prescribing in at least some practices.
Authors: Timo Smieszek; Koen B Pouwels; F Christiaan K Dolk; David R M Smith; Susan Hopkins; Mike Sharland; Alastair D Hay; Michael V Moore; Julie V Robotham Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Martin Gulliford; Radoslav Latinovic; Judith Charlton; Paul Little; Tjeerd van Staa; Mark Ashworth Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2009-09-04 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Mark Ashworth; Radoslav Latinovic; Judith Charlton; Kate Cox; Gill Rowlands; Martin Gulliford Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Laura Shallcross; Nick Beckley; Greta Rait; Andrew Hayward; Irene Petersen Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Jeremy I Hawker; Sue Smith; Gillian E Smith; Roger Morbey; Alan P Johnson; Douglas M Fleming; Laura Shallcross; Andrew C Hayward Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Koen B Pouwels; F Christiaan K Dolk; David R M Smith; Julie V Robotham; Timo Smieszek Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Timo Smieszek; Koen B Pouwels; F Christiaan K Dolk; David R M Smith; Susan Hopkins; Mike Sharland; Alastair D Hay; Michael V Moore; Julie V Robotham Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Kevin L Schwartz; Bradley J Langford; Nick Daneman; Branson Chen; Kevin A Brown; Warren McIsaac; Karen Tu; Elisa Candido; Jennie Johnstone; Valerie Leung; Jeremiah Hwee; Michael Silverman; Julie H C Wu; Gary Garber Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-05-07
Authors: David R M Smith; F Christiaan K Dolk; Koen B Pouwels; Morag Christie; Julie V Robotham; Timo Smieszek Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Koen B Pouwels; F Christiaan K Dolk; David R M Smith; Timo Smieszek; Julie V Robotham Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 5.790