Objective To describe primary health care (consultation characteristics and management) for patients contacting their general practitioner (GP) with a respiratory tract infection (RTI) early on in the COVID-19 pandemic in contrasting European countries, with comparison to prepandemic findings. Setting Primary care in 16 countries (79 practices), when no routine SARS-CoV-2 testing was generally available. Design and participants Before (n=4376) and early in the pandemic (n=3301), patients with RTI symptoms were registered in this prospective audit study. Outcome measures Consultation characteristics (type of contact and use of PPE) and management characteristics (clinical assessments, diagnostic testing, prescribing, advice and referral) were registered. Differences in these characteristics between countries and between pandemic and prepandemic care are described. Results Care for patients with RTIs rapidly switched to telephone/video consultations (10% in Armenia, 91% in Denmark), and when consultations were face-to-face, GPs used PPE during 97% (95% CI 96% to 98%) of contacts. Laboratory testing for SARS-CoV-2 in primary care patients with RTIs was rapidly implemented in Denmark (59%) and Germany (31%), while overall testing for C reactive protein decreased. The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics varied considerably between countries (3% in Belgium, 48% in UK) and was lower during the pandemic compared with the months before, except for Greece, Poland and UK. GPs provided frequent and varied COVID-related advice and more frequently scheduled a follow-up contact (50%, 95% CI 48% to 52%). GPs reported a slightly higher degree of confidence in the likely effectiveness of their management in face-to-face (73% (very) confident, 95% CI 71% to 76%) than in virtual consultations (69%, 95% CI 67% to 71%). Conclusions Despite between-country variation in consultation characteristics, access to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing and medication prescribing, GPs reported a high degree of confidence in managing their patients with RTIs in the emerging pandemic. Insight in the highly variable pandemic responses, as measured in this multicountry audit, can aid in fine-tuning national action and in coordinating a pan-European response during future pandemic threats.

To evaluate the effect of effervescent paracetamol on office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) compared with noneffervescent paracetamol in hypertensive patients. This was a multicenter open crossover randomized clinical trial. Primary care centers in Catalonia and the Basque Country. Inclusion criteria were office BP 150/95 mmHg or less and daytime ambulatory BP 140/90 mmHg or less, stable pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic antihypertensive treatment, and concomitant chronic osteoarticular pain. Baseline randomized assignment to 3-week periods of effervescent paracetamol (1 g three times a day) first and noneffervescent paracetamol later, or inversely, during a 7-week study period. At the start and end of each treatment period, 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring was performed. Differences in 24-h SBP between baseline and end of both treatment periods. The main analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. In intention-to-treat analysis, 46 patients were analyzed, 21 were treated with paracetamol effervescent and noneffervescent later, and 25 followed the opposite sequence. The difference in 24-h SBP between the two treatments was 3.99 mmHg (95% confidence interval 1.35-6.63; P = 0.004), higher in the effervescent paracetamol treatment period. Similarly, the per-protocol analysis showed a difference in 24-h SBP between the two groups of 5.04 mmHg (95% confidence interval 1.80-8.28; P = 0.004), higher in the effervescent paracetamol treatment period. Self-reported pain levels did not differ between groups and did not vary by treatment period. No serious adverse events were reported in either study arm. Effervescent paracetamol tablets are responsible for a significant daytime and overall increase in ambulatory 24-h SBP. NCT: 02514538 EudraCT: 2010-023485-53.

We examined the correlation between previous antibiotic exposure and COVID-19 severity using a population-based observational matched cohort study with patient level data obtained for more than 5.8 million people registered in SIDIAP in Catalonia, Spain. We included all patients newly diagnosed with COVID-19 from March to June 2020 and identified all their antibiotic prescriptions in the previous two years. We used a composite severity endpoint, including pneumonia, hospital admission and death due to COVID-19. We examined the influence of high antibiotic exposure (>4 regimens), exposure to highest priority critically important antimicrobials (HPCIA) and recent exposure. Potential confounders were adjusted by logistic regression. A total of 280,679 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, 146,656 of whom were exposed to at least one antibiotic course (52.3%) during the preceding two years. A total of 25,222 presented severe COVID-19 infection (9%), and the risk of severity was highest among those exposed to antibiotics (OR 1.12; 95% CI: 1.04–1.21). Among all individuals exposed to antibiotics, high, recent and exposure to HPCIAs were correlated with increased COVID severity (OR 1.19; 95% CI: 1.14–1.26; 1.41; 95% CI: 1.36–1.46; and 1.35; 95% CI: 1.30–1.40, respectively). Our findings confirm a significant correlation between previous antibiotic exposure and increased severity of COVID-19 disease.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is treated with penicillin in some northern European countries. To evaluate whether high-dose penicillin V is as effective as high-dose amoxicillin for the treatment of non-severe CAP. Multicentre, parallel, double-blind, controlled, randomized clinical trial. 31 primary care centers in Spain. Patients from 18 to 75 years of age with no significant associated comorbidity and with symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection and radiological confirmation of CAP were randomized to receive either penicillin V 1.6 million units, or amoxicillin 1000mg three times per day for 10 days. The main outcome was clinical cure at 14 days, and the primary hypothesis was that penicillin V would be non-inferior to amoxicillin with regard to this outcome, with a margin of 15% for the difference in proportions. EudraCT register 2012-003511-63. A total of 43 subjects (amoxicillin: 28; penicillin: 15) were randomized. Clinical cure was observed in 10 (90.9%) patients assigned to penicillin and in 25 (100%) patients assigned to amoxicillin with a difference of -9.1% (95% CI, -41.3% to 6.4%; p=.951) for non-inferiority. In the intention-to-treat analysis, amoxicillin was found to be 28.6% superior to penicillin (95% CI, 7.3-58.1%; p=.009 for superiority). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups. There was a trend favoring high-dose amoxicillin versus high-dose penicillin in adults with uncomplicated CAP. The main limitation of this trial was the low statistical power due to the low number of patients included.

To describe baseline socio-demographic and clinical characteristics and drugs prescribed for secondary prevention after a first episode of ACS and to assess differences between men and women. PHC in Catalonia. Data source: SIDIAP (Information System for Research in Primary Care). Patients who suffered an ACS during 2009–2016 and followed-up in PHC centres of the Catalan Health Institute in Catalonia. Not applicable. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline: sex, age, socioeconomic index, toxic habits, comorbidities, study drugs (prescribed for cardiovascular secondary prevention: antiplatelets, betablockers, statins, drugs acting on the renin–angiotensin system) and comedications. 8071 patients included, 71.3% of them were men and 80.2% had an acute myocardial infarction. Their mean age was 65.3 and women were older than men. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension, dyslipidaemia and diabetes and they were more common in women. Antiplatelets (91.3%) and statins (85.7%) were the study drugs most prescribed. The uses of all comedications were significantly higher in women, except for nitrates. The combination of four study groups was initially prescribed in 47.7% of patients and combination of beta-blockers, statins and antiplatelets was prescribed in 18.4%. More men than women received all recommended pharmacological groups. Women were older, had more comorbidities and received more comedications. Most patients were treated with a combination of four or three study drugs for secondary prevention. Men initiated more drug treatments for secondary prevention and dual antiplatelet therapy than women. EUPAS19017.

Up to 80% of antibiotics are prescribed in the community. An assessment of prescribing by indication will help to identify areas where improvement can be made. A point prevalence audit study (PPAS) of consecutive respiratory tract infection (RTI) consultations in general practices in 13 European countries was conducted in January–February 2020 (PPAS-1) and again in 2022 (PPAS-4). The European Surveillance of Antibiotic Consumption quality indicators (ESAC-QI) were calculated to identify where improvements can be made. A total of 3618 consultations were recorded for PPAS-1 and 2655 in PPAS-4. Bacterial aetiology was suspected in 26% (PPAS-1) and 12% (PPAS-4), and an antibiotic was prescribed in 30% (PPAS-1) and 16% (PPAS-4) of consultations. The percentage of adult patients with bronchitis who receive an antibiotic should, according to the ESAC-QI, not exceed 30%, which was not met by participating practices in any country except Denmark and Spain. For patients (≥1) with acute upper RTI, less than 20% should be prescribed an antibiotic, which was achieved by general practices in most countries, except Ireland (both PPAS), Croatia (PPAS-1), and Greece (PPAS-4) where prescribing for acute or chronic sinusitis (0–20%) was also exceeded. For pneumonia in adults, prescribing is acceptable for 90–100%, and this is lower in most countries. Prescribing for tonsillitis (≥1) exceeded the ESAC-QI (0–20%) in all countries and was 69% (PPAS-1) and 75% (PPAS-4). In conclusion, ESAC-QI applied to PPAS outcomes allows us to evaluate appropriate antibiotic prescribing by indication and benchmark general practices and countries.