Evidence Hub

Clinical relevance of bacterial resistance in lower respiratory tract infection in primary care: secondary analysis of a multicentre European trial

Teepe J, Broekhuizen BD, Goossens H, Hordijk PM, Loens K, Lammens C, Ieven M, Little P et al.

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2018

2,061 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background: The impact of antimicrobial resistance on clinical outcomes in patients with lower respiratory tract infection in primary care is largely unknown.

Aim: To determine the illness course of infections with resistant bacteria in adults presenting to primary care with acute cough.

Design and setting: Secondary analysis of a multicentre European trial in primary care.

Method: A total of 2061 adults with acute cough (lasting ≤28 days) were recruited from primary care and randomised to amoxicillin or placebo. To reflect the natural course of disease, only patients in the placebo group (n = 1021) were eligible. Nasopharyngeal flocked swabs and/or sputa (when available) were analysed at baseline and Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae isolates underwent susceptibility testing. Patients recorded their symptoms in a diary every day for 4 weeks. Patients with and without resistant bacterial infection were compared with regards to symptom severity, duration of symptoms, worsening of illness, and duration of interference with normal activities or work.

Results: Of the 834 patients with diary records, 104 showed S. pneumoniae and/or H. influenzae infection. Of this number, 54 (52%) were resistant to antibiotics, while seven (7%) were resistant to penicillin. For the duration of symptoms rated 'moderately bad or worse' (hazard ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67 to 2.44), mean symptom severity (difference -0.48, 95% CI = -1.17 to 0.21), and worsening…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,061 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free