Antibiotics for acute bronchitis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and risks of antibiotics for acute bronchitis remain unclear despite it being one of the most common illnesses seen in primary care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics in improving outcomes and to assess adverse effects of antibiotic therapy for people with a clinical diagnosis of acute bronchitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL 2016, Issue 11 (accessed 13 January 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to January week 1, 2017), Embase (1974 to 13 January 2017), and LILACS (1982 to 13 January 2017). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 April 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo or no treatment in acute bronchitis or acute productive cough, in people without underlying pulmonary disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this 2017 update. We included 17 trials with 5099 participants in the primary analysis. The quality of trials was generally good. At follow-up there was no difference in participants described as being clinically improved between the antibiotic and placebo groups (11 studies with 3841 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.15). Participants given antibiotics were less likely to have a cough (4 studies with 275 participants, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6) and a night cough (4 studies with 538 participants, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 7). Participants given antibiotics had a shorter mean cough duration (7 studies with 2776 participants, mean difference (MD) -0.46 days, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.04). The differences in presence of a productive cough at follow-up and MD of productive cough did not reach statistical significance.Antibiotic-treated participants were more likely to be improved according to clinician's global assessment (6 studies with 891 participants, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79; NNTB 11) and were less likely to have an abnormal lung exam (5 studies with 613 participants, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.70; NNTB 6). Antibiotic-treated participants also had a reduction in days feeling ill (5 studies with 809 participants, MD -0.64 days, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13) and days with impaired activity (6 studies with 767 participants, MD -0.49 days, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.04). The differences in proportions with activity limitations at follow-up did not reach statistical significance. There was a significant trend towards an increase in adverse effects in the antibiotic group (12 studies with 3496 participants, RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.36; NNT for an additional harmful outcome 24). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence of clinical benefit to support the use of antibiotics in acute bronchitis. Antibiotics may have a modest beneficial effect in some patients such as frail, elderly people with multimorbidity who may not have been included in trials to date. However, the magnitude of this benefit needs to be considered in the broader context of potential side effects, medicalisation for a self limiting condition, increased resistance to respiratory pathogens, and cost of antibiotic treatment.

Antibiotics for acute bronchitis.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Are antibiotics associated with improved outcomes in patients with acute bronchitis? BOTTOM LINE: Prescribing antibiotics for acute bronchitis was associated with reduced overall and nighttime cough and with an approximately half-day reduction in duration of cough, in days feeling ill, and in days with impaired activities. However, at follow-up, there were no significant differences in patients receiving antibiotics compared with those receiving placebo in overall clinical improvements or limitations in work or other activities. There was a significant increase in adverse effects in the antibiotic group, particularly gastrointestinal symptoms.

Antibiotics for acute bronchitis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and risks of antibiotics for acute bronchitis remain unclear despite it being one of the most common illnesses seen in primary care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics in improving outcomes and assess adverse effects of antibiotic therapy for patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute bronchitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 12, MEDLINE (1966 to January week 1, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to January 2014) and LILACS (1982 to January 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo or no treatment in acute bronchitis or acute productive cough, in patients without underlying pulmonary disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen trials with 3936 participants were included in the primary analysis. The quality of trials was generally good. There was limited evidence to support the use of antibiotics in acute bronchitis. At follow-up, there was no difference in participants described as being clinically improved between antibiotic and placebo groups (11 studies with 3841 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.15; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 22. Participants given antibiotics were less likely to have a cough (four studies with 275 participants, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; NNTB 6); have a night cough (four studies with 538 participants, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 7) and a shorter mean cough duration (seven studies with 2776 participants, mean difference (MD) -0.46 days, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.04). The differences in presence of a productive cough at follow-up and MD of productive cough did not reach statistical significance.Antibiotic-treated patients were more likely to be unimproved according to clinician's global assessment (six studies with 891 participants, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79; NNTB 25); have an abnormal lung exam (five studies with 613 participants, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.70; NNTB 6); have a reduction in days feeling ill (five studies with 809 participants, MD -0.64 days, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13) and a reduction in days with limited activity (six studies with 767 participants MD -0.49 days, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.04). The differences in proportions with activity limitations at follow-up did not reach statistical significance. There was a significant trend towards an increase in adverse effects in the antibiotic group (12 studies with 3496 participants) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.36; NNT for an additional adverse effect 5). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to support the use of antibiotics in acute bronchitis. Antibiotics may have a modest beneficial effect in some patients such as frail, elderly people with multimorbidity who may not have been included in trials to date. However, the magnitude of this benefit needs to be considered in the broader context of potential side effects, medicalisation for a self-limiting condition, increased resistance to respiratory pathogens and cost of antibiotic treatment.

Acetylcysteine and carbocysteine for acute upper and lower respiratory tract infections in paediatric patients without chronic broncho-pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Acetylcysteine and carbocysteine are the most commonly prescribed mucolytic drugs in many European countries. To our knowledge, no systematic review has been published on their efficacy and safety for acute upper and lower respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in children without chronic broncho-pulmonary disease. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the efficacy and safety and to establish a benefit-risk ratio of acetylcysteine and carbocysteine as symptomatic treatments for ARTIs in children without chronic broncho-pulmonary disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, issue 4) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2008), EMBASE (1980 to 2008); Micromedex (2008), Pascal (1987 to 2004), and Science Citation Index (1974 to 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: To study efficacy, we used randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of acetylcysteine or carbocysteine versus placebo either alone or as an add-on therapy.To study safety, we also used trials comparing the use of acetylcysteine or carbocysteine versus active treatment or no treatment and case reports. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. We performed a subgroup analysis of children younger than two years of age. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials involving 497 participants were included to study efficacy. They showed some benefit from mucolytic agents, although differences were of little clinical relevance. No conclusion was drawn about the subgroup of infants younger than two years because the data were unavailable. Thirty-four studies including the previous six trials involving 2064 children were eligible to study safety. Overall safety was good but very few data were available to evaluate safety in infants younger than two years. However, 48 cases of paradoxically increased bronchorrhoea observed in infants were reported to the French pharmacovigilance system. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review have to be interpreted with caution because it was based on a limited number of participants included in studies whose methodological quality is questionable. Acetylcysteine and carbocysteine seem to have a limited efficacy and appear to be safe in children older than two years. These results should take into consideration the fact that acetylcysteine and carbocysteine are prescribed for self-limiting diseases (for example, acute cough, bronchitis). Regarding children younger than two years, given concerns about safety, these drugs should only be used for ARTIs in the context of an RCT.

National Health Service Corps staffing and the growth of the local rural non-NHSC primary care physician workforce.

CONTEXT: Beyond providing temporary staffing, National Health Service Corps (NHSC) clinicians are believed by some observers to contribute to the long-term growth of the non-NHSC physician workforce of the communities where they serve; others worry that NHSC clinicians compete with and impede the supply of other local physicians. PURPOSE: To assess long-term changes in the non-NHSC primary care physician workforce of rural underserved counties that have received NHSC staffing support relative to workforce changes in underserved counties without NHSC support. METHODS: Using data from the American Medical Association and NHSC, we compared changes from 1981 to 2001 in non-NHSC primary care physician to population ratios in 2 subsets of rural whole-county health professional shortage areas: (1) 141 counties staffed by NHSC physicians, nurse practitioners, and/or physician assistants during the early 1980s and for many of the years since and (2) all 142 rural health professional shortage area counties that had no NHSC clinicians from 1979 through 2001. FINDINGS: From 1981 to 2001, counties staffed by NHSC clinicians experienced a mean increase of 1.4 non-NHSC primary care physicians per 10,000 population, compared to a smaller, 0.57 mean increase in counties without NHSC clinicians. The finding of greater non-NHSC primary care physician to population mean ratio increase in NHSC-supported counties remained significant after adjusting for baseline county demographics and health care resources (P < .001). The estimated number of "extra" non-NHSC physicians in NHSC-supported counties in 2001 attributable to the NHSC was 294 additional physicians for the 141 supported counties, or 2 extra physicians, on average, for each NHSC-supported county. Over the 20 years, more NHSC-supported counties saw their non-NHSC primary care workforces grow to more than 1 physician per 3,500 persons, but no more NHSC-supported than nonsupported counties lost their health professional shortage area designations. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the NHSC contributed positively to the non-NHSC primary care physician workforce in the rural underserved counties where its clinicians worked during the 1980s and 1990s.

An evaluation of the Rural Medical Education Program of the State University Of New York Upstate Medical University, 1990-2003.

PURPOSE: The Rural Medical Education Program (RMED) of the State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate Medical University is a 36-week clinical experience in rural communities for medical students that began in 1989. The authors sought to assess RMED's success in providing a valuable educational experience for students that assists rural communities recruit physicians. METHOD: In 2004, the authors used the Physician Masterfiles of the American Medical Association to compare practice locations of SUNY Upstate graduates who completed RMED with those who did not; surveyed former RMED students to assess their satisfaction with their practice location and the importance of RMED in helping them choose a location; interviewed hospital administrators in communities that have hosted RMED students to understand the impact of RMED on host communities; and compared United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 scores of RMED students with those of non-RMED students to evaluate educational attainment. RESULTS: A greater percentage of former RMED students practiced in rural locations [22/86 (26%)] than did non-RMED students [95/1,307 (7%)]. Ninety-one percent (69/76) of former RMED students were satisfied with their location, and 84% (64/76) believed that RMED was important in helping them choose a location. Hospital administrators viewed the program highly because it helped them recruit physicians and benefitted their medical staff. RMED students had higher adjusted mean Step 2 scores than did non-RMED students (212.3 versus 199.1). CONCLUSION: The RMED program has successfully met its goals of providing a valuable educational experience for medical students and assisting rural communities recruit physicians.

A Web-based approach to teaching students about diagnostic reasoning.

BACKGROUND: Web-based curricula can decrease classroom time and provide self-paced, active learning experiences for medical students. INTERVENTION: In our family medicine clerkship, we implemented a Web-based module on applying diagnostic reasoning to determine the likelihood that a patient has Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal pharyngitis based on the history, physical examination, and diagnostic tests. RESULTS: Students rated the module more favorably than other classroom sessions and homework assignments. Most students accurately calculated pretest and posttest probabilities in a write-up of an actual patient with a sore throat. CONCLUSIONS: This Web-based module was well received and effective.

Teaching evidence-based medicine skills through a residency-developed guideline.

Though many residencies have recognized the need for instruction in evidence-based medicine, the best way to teach these skills to resident physicians remains uncertain. We designed a curriculum intended to develop a resident-produced, evidence-based guideline for the care of patients with diabetes. Each resident was supervised going through the steps of evidence-based medicine: asking a clinical question, searching for the evidence to answer that question, appraising that evidence, and producing an evidence-based answer. These answers were then compiled into a guideline distributed in the residency practice. An evaluation of this curriculum using focus group and survey data showed that learners appreciated the skills and knowledge gained in devising guidelines in an evidence-based manner but were uncertain that their searches were complete. The clinical evaluation of the guideline implementation showed improvement in several clinical markers of diabetes care.