Antimicrobial resistance is a global public health challenge, which has accelerated by the overuse of antibiotics worldwide. Increased antimicrobial resistance is the cause of severe infections, complications, longer hospital stays and increased mortality. Overprescribing of antibiotics is associated with an increased risk of adverse effects, more frequent re-attendance and increased medicalization of self-limiting conditions. Antibiotic overprescribing is a particular problem in primary care, where viruses cause most infections. About 90% of all antibiotic prescriptions are issued by general practitioners, and respiratory tract infections are the leading reason for prescribing. Multifaceted interventions to reduce overuse of antibiotics have been found to be effective and better than single initiatives. Interventions should encompass the enforcement of the policy of prohibiting the over-the-counter sale of antibiotics, the use of antimicrobial stewardship programmes, the active participation of clinicians in audits, the utilization of valid rapid point-of-care tests, the promotion of delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies, the enhancement of communication skills with patients with the aid of information brochures and the performance of more pragmatic studies in primary care with outcomes that are of clinicians’ interest, such as complications and clinical outcomes.

Although uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) are often self-limiting, most patients will be prescribed antibiotic treatment. We assessed whether treatment with ibuprofen was non-inferior to pivmecillinam in achieving symptomatic resolution by day 4, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind non-inferiority trial. We recruited patients from 16 sites in a general practice setting in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Non-pregnant women aged 18–60 years presenting with symptoms of uncomplicated UTI were screened for eligibility from 11 April 2013 to 22 April 2016. Patients with informed consent were randomized (1:1 ratio) to treatment with either 600 mg ibuprofen or 200 mg pivmecillinam 3 times a day for 3 days. The patient, treating physician, and study personnel were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who felt cured by day 4, as assessed from a patient diary. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients in need of secondary treatment with antibiotics and cases of pyelonephritis. A total of 383 women were randomly assigned to treatment with either ibuprofen (n = 194, 181 analyzed) or pivmecillinam (n = 189, 178 analyzed). By day 4, 38.7% of the patients in the ibuprofen group felt cured versus 73.6% in the pivmecillinam group. The adjusted risk difference with 90% confidence interval was 35% (27% to 43%) in favor of pivmecillinam, which crossed the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Secondary endpoints were generally in favor of pivmecillinam. After 4 weeks’ follow-up, 53% of patients in the ibuprofen group recovered without antibiotic treatment. Seven cases of pyelonephritis occurred, all in the ibuprofen group, giving a number needed to harm of 26 (95% CI 13 to 103). Five of these patients were hospitalized and classified as having serious adverse events; 2 recovered as outpatients. A limitation of the study was the extensive list of exclusion criteria, eliminating almost half of the patients screened. We did not register symptoms in the screening process; hence, we do not know the symptom burden for those who declined to participate. This might make our results less generalizable. Ibuprofen was inferior to pivmecillinam for treating uncomplicated UTIs. More than half of the women in the ibuprofen group recovered without antibiotics. However, pyelonephritis occurred in 7 out of 181 women using ibuprofen. Until we can identify those women who will develop complications, we cannot recommend ibuprofen alone as initial treatment to women with uncomplicated UTIs. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01849926 EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR), EudraCT Number 2012-002776-14

Harmful drug interactions may occur if one drug alters the effect of another drug. During the course of one year, about one-third of the population are exposed to the concurrent use of two or more drugs (polypharmacy). On average, 15% of individuals with polypharmacy are exposed to drugs carrying a risk of potential interactions. Elderly patients exposed to polypharmacy are at highest risk and should therefore be kept under intensified monitoring. Objective - To analyse the prevalence of potential drug interactions, and to identify patients particularly prone to drug interaction. Design - Database study (Odense University Pharmacoepidemiologic Database). Setting - Individuals exposed to polypharmacy in 1999 were examined for potential drug interactions. Subjects - Inhabitants of the County of Funen (n=471 t 732). Main outcome measures - Prevalence of potential drug interactions. Results - One-third of the population were exposed to polypharmacy and among these 15% were exposed to drugs carrying a risk of harmful interaction. Among the elderly with polypharmacy, 25% aged 60-79 years and 36% over 80 years received drugs carrying the risk of interaction. Among individuals exposed to potential drug interaction, 62% were exposed only to one drug interaction and 38% to two or more different drug interactions. The drugs accounting for the highest number of potential interactions were diuretics, NSAIDs, ACE-inhibitors, digoxin, oral antidiabetics, calcium channel blockers, anticoagulants and beta-blockers. When focusing only on major drug interactions, potassium-sparing diuretics and oral anticoagulants were the most frequently involved drugs. Conclusion - Elderly patients exposed to polypharmacy should be kept under intensified monitoring as they are at increased risk of clinically significant drug interactions.