ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2020
The potential negative impact of antibiotic pack on antibiotic stewardship in primary care in Switzerland: a modelling study.
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrepancy between antibiotic pack sizes and guideline recommendations: a real-world analysis based on claims data.Infection · 2025Observational
- Antibiotic use in Barcelona in 2023 in primary care and the potential reduction by adjusting box sizes to current guidelines.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2024Article
- Infection control in long term care institutions for the elderly: A reflection document on the situation in Spain.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2023Review
- Registered Drug Packs of Antimicrobials and Treatment Guidelines for Prostatitis: Are They in Accordance?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Switzerland, oral antibiotics are dispensed in packs rather than by exact pill-count. We investigated whether available packs support compliance with recommended primary care treatment regimens for common infections in children and adults.
methodsHospital-based guidelines for oral community -based treatment of acute otitis media, sinusitis, tonsillopharyngitis, community-acquired pneumonia and afebrile urinary tract infection were identified in 2017 in an iterative process by contacting hospital pharmacists and infectious diseases specialists. Furthermore, newly available national guidelines published in 2019 were reviewed. Available pack sizes for recommended solid, dispersible and liquid antibiotic formulations were retrieved from the Swiss pharmaceutical register and compared with recommended regimens to determine optimal (no leftovers) and adequate (optimal +/- one dose) matches.
resultsA large variety of recommended regimens were identified. For adults, optimal and adequate packs were available for 25/70 (36%) and 8/70 (11%) regimens, respectively. Pack-regimen matching was better for WHO Watch (optimal: 15/24, 63%) than Access antibiotics (optimal: 7/39, 18%). For the four paediatric weight-examples and 42 regimens involving child-appropriate formulations, optimal and adequate packs were available for only 14/168 (8%) and 27/168 (16%), respectively. Matching was better for older children with higher body and for longer treatment courses > 7 days.
conclusionsFixed antibiotic packs often do not match recommended treatment regimens, especially for children, potentially resulting in longer than necessary treatments and leftover doses in the community. As part of national stewardship, a move to an exact pill-count system, including for child-appropriate solid formulations, should be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.