Study protocol for statin web-based investigation of side effects (StatinWISE): a series of randomised controlled N-of-1 trials comparing atorvastatin and placebo in UK primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Statins are effective at preventing cardiovascular disease, widely prescribed and their use is growing. Uncertainty persists about whether they cause symptomatic muscle adverse effects, such as pain and weakness, in the absence of statin myopathy. Discrepancies between data from observational studies, which suggest statins are associated with excess muscle symptoms, and from randomised trials, which suggest no such excess, have caused confusion. N-of-1 trials offer the opportunity to establish whether muscle symptoms during statin use are caused by statins in particular individuals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This series of 200 randomised, double-blinded N-of-1 trials in primary care will determine (1) the effect of statins on all muscle symptoms and (2) the effect of statins on muscle pain that is perceived to be statin related. Patients who are considering discontinuing statin use due to muscle symptoms and those who have discontinued in the last 3 years due to such symptoms will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to a sequence of six 2-month treatment periods during which they will receive atorvastatin 20 mg per day or matched placebo. On each of the last 7 days of each treatment period, participants will rate their muscle symptoms on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).At the end of their trial, participants will be shown numerical and graphical summaries of their own symptom data during statin and placebo periods. The primary analysis on the aggregate data from all participants will be a linear mixed model for VAS muscle symptom score, comparing scores during treatment with statin and placebo. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial received a favourable opinion from South Central-Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Dissemination of results to patients will take place via the media, website (statinwise.lshtm.ac.uk) and patient organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30952488.

Continued high rates of antibiotic prescribing to adults with respiratory tract infection: survey of 568 UK general practices.

OBJECTIVES: Overutilisation of antibiotics may contribute to the emergence of antimicrobial drug resistance, a growing international concern. This study aimed to analyse the performance of UK general practices with respect to antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) among young and middle-aged adults. SETTING: Data are reported for 568 UK general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults aged 18-59 years. Consultations were identified for acute upper RTIs including colds, cough, otitis-media, rhino-sinusitis and sore throat. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: For each consultation, we identified whether an antibiotic was prescribed. The proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotics prescribed was estimated. RESULTS: There were 568 general practices analysed. The median general practice prescribed antibiotics at 54% of RTI consultations. At the highest prescribing 10% of practices, antibiotics were prescribed at 69% of RTI consultations. At the lowest prescribing 10% of practices, antibiotics were prescribed at 39% RTI consultations. The median practice prescribed antibiotics at 38% of consultations for 'colds and upper RTIs', 48% for 'cough and bronchitis', 60% for 'sore throat', 60% for 'otitis-media' and 91% for 'rhino-sinusitis'. The highest prescribing 10% of practices issued antibiotic prescriptions at 72% of consultations for 'colds', 67% for 'cough', 78% for 'sore throat', 90% for 'otitis-media' and 100% for 'rhino-sinusitis'. CONCLUSIONS: Most UK general practices prescribe antibiotics to young and middle-aged adults with respiratory infections at rates that are considerably in excess of what is clinically justified. This will fuel antibiotic resistance.

Impact of clinical trial findings on Bell's palsy management in general practice in the UK 2001-2012: interrupted time series regression analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the incidence of Bell's palsy and determine the impact of clinical trial findings on Bell's palsy management in the UK. DESIGN: Interrupted time series regression analysis and incidence measures. SETTING: General practices in the UK contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥16 years with a diagnosis of Bell's palsy between 2001 and 2012. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Publication of the 2004 Cochrane reviews of clinical trials on corticosteroids and antivirals for Bell's palsy, which made no clear recommendation on their use and (2) publication of the 2007 Scottish Bell's Palsy Study (SBPS), which made a clear recommendation that treatment with prednisolone alone improves chances for complete recovery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of Bell's palsy per 100 000 person-years. Changes in the management of Bell's palsy with either prednisolone therapy, antiviral therapy, combination therapy (prednisolone with antiviral therapy) or untreated cases. RESULTS: During the 12-year period, 14 460 cases of Bell's palsy were identified with an overall incidence of 37.7/100 000 person-years. The 2004 Cochrane reviews were associated with immediate falls in prednisolone therapy (-6.3% (-11.0 to -1.6)), rising trends in combination therapy (1.1% per quarter (0.5 to 1.7)) and falling trends for untreated cases (-0.8% per quarter (-1.4 to -0.3)). SBPS was associated with immediate increases in prednisolone therapy (5.1% (0.9 to 9.3)) and rising trends in prednisolone therapy (0.7% per quarter (0.4 to 1.2)); falling trends in combination therapy (-1.7% per quarter (-2.2 to -1.3)); and rising trends for untreated cases (1.2% per quarter (0.8 to 1.6)). Despite improvements, 44% still remain untreated. CONCLUSIONS: SBPS was clearly associated with change in management, but a significant proportion of patients failed to receive effective treatment, which cannot be fully explained. Clarity and uncertainty in clinical trial recommendations may change clinical practice. However, better ways are needed to understand and circumvent barriers in implementing clinical trial findings.