Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an ongoing increase in the use of remote consultations in general practice in England. Though the evidence is limited, there are concerns that the increase in remote consultations could lead to more antibiotic prescribing.
Methods We used patient-level primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink to estimate the association between consultation mode (remote vs face-to-face) and antibiotic prescribing in England for acute respiratory infections (ARI) between April 2021 – March 2022. We used targeted maximum likelihood estimation, a causal machine learning method with adjustment for patient-, clinician- and practice-level factors.
Findings There were 45,997 ARI consultations (34,555 unique patients), of which 28,127 were remote and 17,870 face-to-face. For children, 48% of consultations were remote whereas for adults 66% were remote. For children, 42% of remote and 43% face-to-face consultations led to an antibiotic prescription; the equivalent in adults was 52% of remote and 42% face-to-face. Adults with a remote consultation had 23% (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.23 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.18-1.29) higher chance of being prescribed antibiotics compared to if they had been seen face-to-face. We found no significant association between consultation mode and antibiotic prescribing in children (OR 1·04 95% CI 0·98-1·11).
Interpretation This study uses rich patient-level data and robust statistical methods and represents an important contribution to the evidence base on antibiotic prescribing in post-COVID primary care. The higher rates of antibiotic prescribing in remote consultations for adults are cause for concern. We see no significant difference in antibiotic prescribing between consultation mode for children. These findings should inform antimicrobial stewardship activities for health care professionals and policy makers. Future research should examine differences in guideline-compliance between remote and face-to-face consultations to understand the factors driving antibiotic prescribing in different consultation modes.
Funding No external funding.
Evidence before this study Use of remote consultations in general practice has increased rapidly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerns have been raised that antibiotic prescribing rates may be higher in remote compared with face-to-face consultations. Acute respiratory infection (ARI) is the most common reason for an antibiotic prescription in adults making it one of the most important areas of prescription practice for antibiotic use. Empirical studies investigating the differences in antibiotic prescribing rates between online and remote consultations have produced mixed findings, in general and for ARIs specifically. Recent review-type articles on the topic - including a 2020 qualitative systematic review and a 2021 meta-analytic systematic review – have reported mixed results when comparing online and face-to-face consultations with some showing higher and others lower antibiotic prescribing in remote consultations. Furthermore, many of the studies that were included in the reviews were at risk of bias due to a failure to control for demographic and clinical differences between patients in remote versus face-to-face consultations.
Added value of this study This is the first England wide study estimating the difference in antibiotic prescribing between consultations modes in the post-covid setting where remote consultations are as common as face-to-face consultations. It is also the first study in this setting to apply TMLE – doubly robust causal machine learning method. We found that an adult was 23% more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic for an ARI in a remote compared with a face-to-face consultation with a general practitioner in England. There was no evidence for a difference in children. Our findings are based on an analysis of a representative sample of almost 46,000 GP consultations for ARIs in general practice in England and controls for patient-, clinician- and practice-level factors that are associated with both consultation mode and with antibiotic prescribing. As such, our findings are at a smaller risk of bias from unobserved confounding than the previous research examining this issue and therefore represent an important contribution to the evidence base.
Implications of the available evidence Taken together with the existing body of evidence on this topic, our results showing higher prescribing in remote consultations are cause for concern. The factors affecting antibiotic prescribing and the interaction with consultation mode are complex and will require further research to unpick. The existing evidence including this study have largely focused on prescribing rates, and do not investigate the appropriateness of antibiotics prescribing in remote compared to face-to-face consultations. Further investigation is required to explain the discrepancy between consultation modes. The growing body of evidence in this area has relevance for future antimicrobial stewardship activities and should be used to inform the ongoing development of antibiotic prescribing guidelines for remote consultations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
CPRD has ethics approval from the Health Research Authority to support research using anonymised patient data. Requests by researchers to access the data are reviewed via the CPRD Research Data Governance (RDG) and the protocol number for this study is : 21_000357. The RDG process is to ensure that the proposed research is of benefit to patients and public health. The data used in this study were obtained from practices that had consented to participate in CPRD research, and all data were handled in accordance with CPRD guidelines for data management and confidentiality.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
We used deidentified primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). For more information, please visit: https://www.cprd.com/Data-access, and enquiries can be emailed to enquiries{at}cprd.gov.uk. Scientific approval for this study was given by the CPRD Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC). The study was approved by the ISAC for CPRD research (20_143). The data are provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. The primary care data can be requested via application to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.
