User login
Ginkgo ineffective for tinnitus
Although the results of published trials are inconsistent, Ginkgo biloba is probably not effective for the treatment of tinnitus. Positive results of earlier small studies with serious methodological limitations are not supported by larger, more rigorous trials. However, the lack of any established pharmacological treatment for chronic tinnitus, combined with ginkgo’s excellent safety profile, make it an option for patients who desire to try it.
Although the results of published trials are inconsistent, Ginkgo biloba is probably not effective for the treatment of tinnitus. Positive results of earlier small studies with serious methodological limitations are not supported by larger, more rigorous trials. However, the lack of any established pharmacological treatment for chronic tinnitus, combined with ginkgo’s excellent safety profile, make it an option for patients who desire to try it.
Although the results of published trials are inconsistent, Ginkgo biloba is probably not effective for the treatment of tinnitus. Positive results of earlier small studies with serious methodological limitations are not supported by larger, more rigorous trials. However, the lack of any established pharmacological treatment for chronic tinnitus, combined with ginkgo’s excellent safety profile, make it an option for patients who desire to try it.
What are the risks of long-term NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors?
This review presents an interesting new analysis of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor safe-ty, concluding that long-term use results in more serious adverse events than traditional nons-teroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
The nonsystematic and retrospective properties of this analysis limit its validity. However, the fact that an evaluation of long-term data found some small harm to COX-2 inhibitors relative to traditional NSAIDs (number needed to harm=78 over 9 months) should give clinicians pause. Until better meta-analyses or new safety data are published, clinicians should prescribe COX-2 inhibitors long-term only for those patients deemed to be at high risk of ulcer complications.
This review presents an interesting new analysis of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor safe-ty, concluding that long-term use results in more serious adverse events than traditional nons-teroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
The nonsystematic and retrospective properties of this analysis limit its validity. However, the fact that an evaluation of long-term data found some small harm to COX-2 inhibitors relative to traditional NSAIDs (number needed to harm=78 over 9 months) should give clinicians pause. Until better meta-analyses or new safety data are published, clinicians should prescribe COX-2 inhibitors long-term only for those patients deemed to be at high risk of ulcer complications.
This review presents an interesting new analysis of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor safe-ty, concluding that long-term use results in more serious adverse events than traditional nons-teroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
The nonsystematic and retrospective properties of this analysis limit its validity. However, the fact that an evaluation of long-term data found some small harm to COX-2 inhibitors relative to traditional NSAIDs (number needed to harm=78 over 9 months) should give clinicians pause. Until better meta-analyses or new safety data are published, clinicians should prescribe COX-2 inhibitors long-term only for those patients deemed to be at high risk of ulcer complications.
Can a patient information sheet reduce antibiotic use in adult outpatients with acute bronchitis?
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of antibiotics for acute bronchitis can contribute to the growing incidence of bacterial resistance in the community. Although the majority of acute bronchitis cases are viral, patient expectations that antibiotics are required to treat this illness result in frequent prescribing of these drugs. This study investigates the use of written patient education regarding the role of antibiotics for acute bronchitis in an attempt to decrease antibiotic use.
POPULATION STUDIED: The researchers recruited 259 patients aged 16 years and older with acute bronchitis from 3 general practices in Nottingham, England. Patients were required to have acute cough and at least 1 other respiratory tract symptom. Patients were excluded with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, and diabetes. The median age was 44 years; 26% of patients were smokers; and 80% had a clear chest exam.
STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: The patients’ individual physicians used their clinical judgment to divide the patients into 2 groups: those who definitely needed antibiotics and those who did not definitely need antibiotics. Patients in the first group did not participate in the study. Patients in the second group were randomized to receive either a blank sheet of paper or a patient information sheet explaining the natural history of acute bronchitis and discouraging the use of antibiotics (available at http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7329/91/F1). The physician, who was blinded to randomization, distributed the study sheet in a sealed envelope at the office visit; patients were asked to open the envelope after the visit.
OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary endpoint in this study was whether the patient took the prescribed antibiotic. The secondary endpoint was the number of patients requiring a second office visit within a month for the same illness. Other patient-oriented outcomes such as patient satisfaction, number of sick days, and severity of illness were not directly measured, although the authors state that the rate of patient follow-up is a surrogate measure for these outcomes.
RESULTS: Of the 259 eligible patients, 212 entered the randomized trial. Forty-nine (47%) patients who received the information sheet took their antibiotics compared with 63 (62%) control patients (relative risk, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.59-0.97; P = .04). One additional patient did not take the antibiotic for every 7 patients given the information sheet (number needed to treat = 7). Amoxicillin was the prescribed antibiotic in 96% of both study groups. The number of patients scheduling a follow-up visit within 1 month was similar in both groups (11 patients who received the sheet versus 14 who did not).
In this study, a written patient information sheet along with verbal counseling from the physician stopped 1 additional patient of 7 from filling an antibiotic prescription of questionable necessity. There was no change in other patient outcomes. This intervention can decrease the cost of therapy and, theoretically, may contribute to slowing the spread of antibiotic resistance in the community.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of antibiotics for acute bronchitis can contribute to the growing incidence of bacterial resistance in the community. Although the majority of acute bronchitis cases are viral, patient expectations that antibiotics are required to treat this illness result in frequent prescribing of these drugs. This study investigates the use of written patient education regarding the role of antibiotics for acute bronchitis in an attempt to decrease antibiotic use.
POPULATION STUDIED: The researchers recruited 259 patients aged 16 years and older with acute bronchitis from 3 general practices in Nottingham, England. Patients were required to have acute cough and at least 1 other respiratory tract symptom. Patients were excluded with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, and diabetes. The median age was 44 years; 26% of patients were smokers; and 80% had a clear chest exam.
STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: The patients’ individual physicians used their clinical judgment to divide the patients into 2 groups: those who definitely needed antibiotics and those who did not definitely need antibiotics. Patients in the first group did not participate in the study. Patients in the second group were randomized to receive either a blank sheet of paper or a patient information sheet explaining the natural history of acute bronchitis and discouraging the use of antibiotics (available at http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7329/91/F1). The physician, who was blinded to randomization, distributed the study sheet in a sealed envelope at the office visit; patients were asked to open the envelope after the visit.
OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary endpoint in this study was whether the patient took the prescribed antibiotic. The secondary endpoint was the number of patients requiring a second office visit within a month for the same illness. Other patient-oriented outcomes such as patient satisfaction, number of sick days, and severity of illness were not directly measured, although the authors state that the rate of patient follow-up is a surrogate measure for these outcomes.
RESULTS: Of the 259 eligible patients, 212 entered the randomized trial. Forty-nine (47%) patients who received the information sheet took their antibiotics compared with 63 (62%) control patients (relative risk, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.59-0.97; P = .04). One additional patient did not take the antibiotic for every 7 patients given the information sheet (number needed to treat = 7). Amoxicillin was the prescribed antibiotic in 96% of both study groups. The number of patients scheduling a follow-up visit within 1 month was similar in both groups (11 patients who received the sheet versus 14 who did not).
In this study, a written patient information sheet along with verbal counseling from the physician stopped 1 additional patient of 7 from filling an antibiotic prescription of questionable necessity. There was no change in other patient outcomes. This intervention can decrease the cost of therapy and, theoretically, may contribute to slowing the spread of antibiotic resistance in the community.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of antibiotics for acute bronchitis can contribute to the growing incidence of bacterial resistance in the community. Although the majority of acute bronchitis cases are viral, patient expectations that antibiotics are required to treat this illness result in frequent prescribing of these drugs. This study investigates the use of written patient education regarding the role of antibiotics for acute bronchitis in an attempt to decrease antibiotic use.
POPULATION STUDIED: The researchers recruited 259 patients aged 16 years and older with acute bronchitis from 3 general practices in Nottingham, England. Patients were required to have acute cough and at least 1 other respiratory tract symptom. Patients were excluded with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, and diabetes. The median age was 44 years; 26% of patients were smokers; and 80% had a clear chest exam.
STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: The patients’ individual physicians used their clinical judgment to divide the patients into 2 groups: those who definitely needed antibiotics and those who did not definitely need antibiotics. Patients in the first group did not participate in the study. Patients in the second group were randomized to receive either a blank sheet of paper or a patient information sheet explaining the natural history of acute bronchitis and discouraging the use of antibiotics (available at http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7329/91/F1). The physician, who was blinded to randomization, distributed the study sheet in a sealed envelope at the office visit; patients were asked to open the envelope after the visit.
OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary endpoint in this study was whether the patient took the prescribed antibiotic. The secondary endpoint was the number of patients requiring a second office visit within a month for the same illness. Other patient-oriented outcomes such as patient satisfaction, number of sick days, and severity of illness were not directly measured, although the authors state that the rate of patient follow-up is a surrogate measure for these outcomes.
RESULTS: Of the 259 eligible patients, 212 entered the randomized trial. Forty-nine (47%) patients who received the information sheet took their antibiotics compared with 63 (62%) control patients (relative risk, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.59-0.97; P = .04). One additional patient did not take the antibiotic for every 7 patients given the information sheet (number needed to treat = 7). Amoxicillin was the prescribed antibiotic in 96% of both study groups. The number of patients scheduling a follow-up visit within 1 month was similar in both groups (11 patients who received the sheet versus 14 who did not).
In this study, a written patient information sheet along with verbal counseling from the physician stopped 1 additional patient of 7 from filling an antibiotic prescription of questionable necessity. There was no change in other patient outcomes. This intervention can decrease the cost of therapy and, theoretically, may contribute to slowing the spread of antibiotic resistance in the community.