Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

Mycoplasma pneumoniae detection causes excess antibiotic use in Norwegian general practice: a retrospective case–control study

Mats Foshaug, Maria Vandbakk-Rüther, Dagfinn Skaare, Nils Grude and Morten Lindbæk
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (631): e82-e88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X683509
Mats Foshaug
Stokke Centre of Primary Care, Stokke, Norway.
MD
Roles: Consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria Vandbakk-Rüther
Department of Internal Medicine; Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.
MD
Roles: Consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dagfinn Skaare
Department of Microbiology, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.
MD
Roles: Consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nils Grude
Department of Microbiology, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.
MD
Roles: Head of department
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Morten Lindbæk
Antibiotic Centre for Primary Care, University of Oslo, Norway.
MD
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background The 2011 Mycoplasma pneumoniae epidemic in Norway resulted in many GP consultations and significantly increased the prescription of macrolide antibiotics.

Aim To investigate the signs, symptoms, course, and prescription patterns of antibiotics in patients positive for M. pneumoniae compared with patients negative for M. pneumoniae.

Design and setting A retrospective case–control study using questionnaires collected from GPs in a county in Norway. A total of 212 M. pneumoniae positive and 202 control patients were included.

Method Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were performed on the reported findings.

Results Forty-eight per cent of patients positive for M. pneumoniae received an antibiotic at first consultation. Another 45% in the same group received antibiotics after the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result was known, although these patients were not clinically different from all other patients not receiving an antibiotic at first consultation. Logistic regression analysis to evaluate independent predictors for prescription of antibiotics at first consultation showed that the following factors were significantly associated: elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level, temperature >38.0°C, pathological findings on pulmonary auscultation, and impaired general condition. Elevated CRP level, younger age, temperature >38.0°C, short duration of symptoms, and absence of rhinitis were found to be positive predictors for M. pneumoniae infection.

Conclusion A positive PCR test for M. pneumoniae tends to trigger an antibiotic prescription, irrespective of the severity of the patient’s condition at first consultation. New guidelines for treatment and possibly PCR testing should be established.

  • antibiotics
  • epidemic
  • general practice
  • macrolide antibiotics
  • Mycoplasma pneumoniae
  • Norway
  • overprescription
  • prescribing

INTRODUCTION

Acute respiratory tract infections are commonly seen in general practice and for decades have been the reason for many visits to the doctor’s surgery.1,2 Mycoplasma pneumoniae is recognised as an important respiratory tract pathogen,3 and studies show that it is responsible for between 5% and 42% of all pneumonias,4,5 and of other upper and lower respiratory tract infections.1,6

The bacterium M. pneumoniae has no cell wall, which renders it insensitive to β-lactam antibiotics.7 It spreads by respiratory droplets with an incubation time that varies from 1 to 3 weeks.8 It may cause respiratory disease such as upper respiratory tract infections, for example pharyngitits or tracheobronchitis,3 and atypical pneumonias, as well as several extrapulmonary conditions.3,6,8

Little is known about how M. pneumoniae behaves in the community, because most studies are from hospital settings. Wang et al.9 concluded in a Cochrane systematic review that more investigation is needed in this field. To the authors’ knowledge, no major study of this subject has been made in general practice. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has made it possible to detect M. pneumoniae faster and at an earlier phase of the infection than with serological tests,10 mainly as a result of the higher sensitivity of the test (96–100%).11

In Norway, PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs is performed liberally by GPs when patients present with symptoms from the upper or lower airways, to search for bacterial and viral agents, and not exclusively M. pneumoniae. C-reactive protein (CRP) testing is also a widely used form of point-of-care testing in Norway, with a wide range of indications,12 being available to most GPs.

Epidemics of M. pneumoniae occur in 5–7-year intervals in Norway.13 During autumn 2011 there was an epidemic in Northern European countries, including Norway.14

About 85% of all antibiotic prescriptions in Norway are issued outside hospitals and nursing homes,15 and above 50% are to treat respiratory tract infections.16 According to Norwegian guidelines, pneumonia caused by M. pneumoniae should be treated with macrolides such as erythromycin in children and tetracyclines in adults.17 However, there are no clear recommendations regarding antibiotic treatment for upper respiratory tract infections caused by M. pneumoniae. According to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, about 10% of M. pneumoniae infections cause pneumonia.18

In 2011, the year of the epidemic, there was a 15% increase in the use of macrolides, streptogramins, and lincosamides in Norway compared with the previous year, with macrolides making up the majority of the increase.15 Early in 2012 Norwegian pharmacies reported a shortage of erythromycin.13 Macrolide use in Norway normally constitutes about 10% of the total use of antibiotics.19

How this fits in

Mycoplasma pneumoniae epidemics occur in 5–7-year intervals in Norway, with the most recent occurring in the autumn of 2011. This study investigated the signs, symptoms, course, and prescription patterns in a group of patients who were treated in general practice in 2011. Short duration of symptoms before presenting at the doctor’s surgery, young age, fever, elevated C-reactive protein, and the absence of rhinitis were found to be positive predictors for a M. pneumoniae infection. A positive PCR test for M. pneumoniae seems to trigger an antibiotics prescription irrespective of the severity of the patient’s disease. This leads to a major over-prescription of macrolides and tetracyclines, therefore increasing the risk of developing antibiotic resistance to these agents.

The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of PCR results on antibiotic prescriptions made by GPs, and to compare the signs, symptoms, disease severity, and hospitalisation rates in patients with confirmed M. pneumoniae infections and in a control group with negative PCR tests.

METHOD

This case–control study was performed retrospectively at the end of the M. pneumoniae epidemic. The time frame was the last 6 months of 2011. The samples were taken as nasopharyngeal swabs and analysed by M. pneumoniae DNA PCR at the Department of Microbiology, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway, using primers described by Raggam et al10 with minor modifications. The result of the PCR analysis would normally reach the GP on day 3 after the first consultation.

The Vestfold Hospital Trust experienced an increase of 414% received swabs for PCR tests for M. pneumoniae compared with the same time frame the previous year. For practical reasons, because of the vast number of tests performed (9834), the GPs in the county of Vestfold with the highest number of M. pneumoniae PCR-positive patients in the relevant time period were invited to answer questionnaires concerning these patients. Questionnaires were distributed to the GPs in January 2012. Thirty-three of the county’s 167 GPs participated in the study and 212 questionnaires were returned for outpatients with confirmed M. pneumoniae. The subsequent patient with a negative PCR taken by the same GP was used as the control, because this group was likely to present with comparable airway infections, and 202 control questionnaires were returned. The responses given on the questionnaires were based on the clinical notes made by the GPs at consultation and point-of-care testing, such as CRP. The GPs were aware of the result of the PCR test when answering the questionnaires.

The questionnaire encompassed patient history, signs, symptoms, ICPC-2 (International Classification of Primary Care) diagnosis, general condition of the patient, and previous history of pulmonary disease, as well as the laboratory tests performed, whether the patient was subjected to spirometry or chest X-ray, and whether the disease caused hospital admittance. Finally, the form requested details regarding antimicrobial treatment.

Statistical analyses involved the χ2 test and the t-test, and were performed using SPSS (version 19). Logistic regression analyses were also performed to find independent predictors for M. pneumoniae PCR positivity and for antibiotic prescription at the initial consultation (prior to knowledge of the PCR test result). In both regression analyses, all factors with a P -value below 0.20 were included in the bivariate analysis. Missing data were excluded from the statistical analysis. To correct for clustering on the doctor level, a generalised estimation equation analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

Of a total of 414 patients, 186 (45%) were male. The mean age was 19.2 years in the M. pneumoniae positive (MP+) group, and 33.8 years in the M. pneumoniae negative (MP−) group (P<0.001).

Of all 414 patients, 268 (65%) received an antibiotic at the first or at a subsequent consultation. Of the 212 MP+ patients, 101 (48%) received an antibiotic at the first consultation, before the PCR test result was available. In the MP− group, 54 (27%) of the 202 patients received an antibiotic at the first consultation. The types of antibiotics prescribed at first or later consultations are outlined in Table 1. Most patients in both groups received a prescription of a macrolide or a tetracycline antibiotic. At later consultations 107 (50%)of the MP+ patients received an antibiotic of any type. Some of these patients had also received an antibiotic at first consultation. Ninety-six (45%) of the MP+ patients received an antibiotic for the first time at a later consultation. In the MP− group only 18 (9%) received an antibiotic later than the initial consultation. A total of 197 (93%) of the MP+ group received antibiotics at either the first or a later consultation, compared with 71 (35%) of the MP− group. Delayed antibiotic prescribing was reported in nine of a total of 268 patients (3%) from both groups who received a prescription.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Antibiotic prescriptions in patients with and without Mycoplasma pneumoniae, case–control study in general practice in Vestfold, Norway, 2011

The mean time of symptoms before visiting the doctor’s surgery was 8.3 days in the MP+ group, and 13.8 days in the MP− group (P<0.001).

Patient history data, signs, and symptoms are presented in Table 2. A temperature above 38°C was reported in 133 MP+ patients (63%) compared with 83 MP− patients (41%) (P<0.001). Rhinitis was described in 28 (13%) and 60 (30%) patients in the MP+ and MP− groups, respectively (P<0.001).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Signs and symptoms in patients with and without Mycoplasma pneumoniae, case–control study in Vestfold, Norway 2011

GPs were asked to categorise the patient’s general condition on first consultation as normal, moderately decreased, or severely decreased. In the MP+ group, 109 (51%) patients had moderately or severely decreased general condition. In the control group there were 69 (34%) patients with moderately or severely decreased general conditions (P = 0.002).

Auscultation of the lungs presented pathological sounds in 59 (28%) and 33 (16%) patients in the MP+ and MP− groups, respectively (P = 0.005).

CRP was measured in 187 (88%) and 166 (82%) of the MP+ and MP− groups, respectively. The mean in the MP+ group was 28.8 mg/l, and 14.8 mg/l in the control group (P<0.001). All values below 8 mg/l were set to the value of 4 for statistical purposes.

In the MP+ group, 67 patients (32%) were diagnosed with pneumonia (ICPC-2) R81 (pneumonia) and R83 (other airway infections not specified including 'infections of the lower airways') at first consultation, and an additional 49 (23%) after the PCR results were known to the GPs, making a total of 116 patients (55%).

Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of M. pneumoniae infection (Table 3). The following factors were found to be significantly associated: elevated CRP level, younger age, temperature >38.0°C, short duration of symptoms, and absence of rhinitis. The following symptoms were associated in the bivariate analysis but not in the multivariate: pathologic sounds on pulmonary auscultation and impaired general condition.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Logistic regression analysis on predictors for a confirmed diagnosis of Mycoplasma pneumoniae corrected for multilevel (n = 176), case–control study in Vestfold, Norway, 2011

Furthermore, a logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate which factors were independent predictors for prescription of antibiotics at the first consultation, before the PCR result was known to the GP (Table 4). The following factors were significantly associated: elevated CRP level, temperature >38.0°C, pathologic sounds on pulmonary auscultation, and impaired general condition. The following findings were associated in the bivariate analysis, but not significantly associated in the multivariate analysis: age and presence of cough.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Logistic regression analysis on predictors for antibiotic prescription in patients with suspected M. pneumoniae corrected for multilevel (n = 176), case–control study in Vestfold, Norway, 2011

Finally, a subgroup analysis was made of the patients who did not receive antibiotics at the first consultation. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate independent predictors for antibiotics later in the course of the illness.

The presence of M. pneumoniae positive PCR and the following clinical features registered on first consultation were analysed as independent factors: pulmonary findings, impaired general condition, temperature >38.0°C, and elevated CRP level. In this analysis the presence of M. pneumoniae was the dominating factor with an odds ratio (OR) of 75.6 (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 27.7 to 206.3), and the only other factor associated was elevated temperature with an OR of 3.6 (95% CI = 1.4 to 9.4).

DISCUSSION

Summary

Antibiotic usage

A main finding of this study is the extensive use of antibiotics. This was probably due to an increased awareness among GPs and the public of the M. pneumoniae epidemic in the area, which lowered the threshold for prescribing macrolides and tetracyclines. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health also advised on its website that antibiotics could be prescribed empirically, before or without PCR testing.20

It may seem that a positive PCR test automatically released an antibiotic prescription because only 48% of the MP+ patients were deemed to be in need of antibiotics at first consultation, and 45% received antibiotics later. The general condition was evaluated by the GPs as similar in the MP+ and MP− patients who did not receive antibiotics at first consultation. CRP values were relatively low in the MP+ group not receiving antibiotics. Also, because GPs received the PCR result, at the latest, 3 days after the initial consultation, it is likely that the GPs knew the M. pneumoniae status of the patients at most of the sequential consultations. This makes it plausible that positive PCR results were the main cause for the prescription, rather than the patient’s health condition, resulting in an over-prescription of antibiotics. This is further underlined by the gap between the number of patients diagnosed with pneumonia (ICPC-2) at first consultation and the total number receiving antibiotic treatment. The change in diagnosis may reflect the need of GPs to legitimate their antibiotic prescription. The situation is also complicated by the knowledge that the M. pneumoniae bacteria can persist in the nasopharynx for variable periods after resolution of symptoms.21

Another cause for the increased prescription rate after confirmed presence of M. pneumoniae may be that GPs were attempting to prevent the disease from spreading. This may be a valid argument in some cases, but in a number of cases the duration of symptoms before consultation was so long-lasting that antibiotic treatment would probably not affect the clinical course or prevent spread. However, this is a critical question that should be addressed in future research and guidelines, also taking the incubation time and possible spread at this time into consideration.

The following factors were significantly associated with antibiotic prescribing regardless of M. pneumoniae PCR status: elevated CRP level, temperature >38.0°C, pathological sounds on pulmonary auscultation, and impaired general condition. This demonstrates what the GPs had emphasised in their evaluation.

Norwegian guidelines describe the treatment of pneumonia caused by M. pneumoniae, but there is a lack of guidelines when it comes to the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections in which M. pneumoniae is suspected or confirmed. The rate of antibiotic use probably should have been significantly lower, because macrolide-resistant strains of M. pneumoniae are increasing in frequency worldwide,9,22 although not yet in Scandinavia.14 This coincides with lower levels of antibiotic resistance in the Scandinavian countries in general,23 probably as a result of more restrictive prescription patterns. It is likely that there would be a benefit in decreasing the use of macrolides during M. pneumoniae epidemics to prevent the emergence of resistant strains. Delayed antibiotic prescribing may be a useful tool to achieve decreased consumption of antibiotics.15

Clinical findings

As expected, the mean age was lower for the MP+ group (19.2 years) than the MP− group (33.8 years). This fits with the age spectrum that M. pneumoniae is known to affect: children and young adults, and a subset of adults, mostly females, possibly because mothers and grandmothers are often in closer contact with affected children.15 It may also reflect the fact that females visit the doctor’s surgery more frequently than males for a variety of conditions, including respiratory tract infections.24

The logistic regression analysis showed that the following factors were significantly associated with a M. pneumoniae PCR positivity: elevated CRP level, younger age, temperature >38.0°C, short duration of symptoms, and absence of symptoms of rhinitis. To the authors’ knowledge, no such analysis has previously been performed in a general practice setting. The finding of rhinitis as a negative predictor of M. pneumoniae infection is an interesting parallel to what has been found in the diagnosis of group A β-haemolytic streptococcus (GAS) in sore throat. Rhinitis and cough have been shown to be negative predictors for the presence of GAS.25

Almost all MP+ patients had a cough: 209 (99%). There was no significant difference between the two groups concerning the rate of expectorations, which is noteworthy because M. pneumoniae is known to cause a predominantly dry cough.

Few (six [3%]) MP+ patients were admitted to hospital and the rate of reported complications was low. This confirms that infections by M. pneumoniae mostly cause low-grade disease that can be treated safely in general practice without hospitalisation.

Strengths and limitations

An advantage of this study is that most studies on this topic have examined hospital populations. The present study is one of few with a sizeable population of M. pneumoniae PCR positive patients derived from general practice.

A weakness of the study is that the GPs made their reports based on what may have been insufficient notes in the patients’ electronic medical records. This is underlined by the lack of reported data at some of the key questions, such as the presence of rhinitis. The same kind of bias is also relevant for GPs’ reporting of the patients’ general condition. There is also a discrepancy regarding the ICPC-2 diagnosis the GPs gave the patients at consultation and the severity reported in the questionnaires.

Comparison with existing literature

The existing literature on the clinical signs and symptoms of M. pneumoniae infections in children and adolescents was systematically reviewed by the Cochrane collaboration in 2012;9 however, this was based only on information from hospitals.

The review concluded that chest pain and possibly crepitations were positive predictors for the presence of M. pneumoniae infection, with wheeze as a negative predictor. Coryza and cough were concluded not to be useful diagnostic indicators of M. pneumoniae. In the present study, the presence of rhinitis was a strong negative predictive factor, while fever, young age, and short duration of symptoms were positive predictors. In medical encyclopaedias the absence of rhinitis has not been mentioned as a predictor for M. pneumoniae infection.8

Implications for research and practice

As antibiotic prescriptions seem to be governed by the mere existence of a positive M. pneumoniae PCR, it may be beneficial to establish guidelines regarding the indications for performing this test.

There should be discussion about whether M. pneumoniae infections not considered pneumonias should be treated with antibiotics, or if a ‘wait-and-see’ approach is equally sound. The possibility that antibiotics may shorten the time of symptoms and spread of disease should be taken into consideration when this question is addressed. However, up to 13.5% of the population are found to be healthy carriers of M. pneumoniae during epidemics,26 possibly demolishing the indication of antibiotics as a means of preventing spread.

Finally, it is advisable that a new prospective study into the signs and symptoms of M. pneumoniae infections seen in general practice is performed, preferably at the next opportunity. Such a study could use questionnaires similar to the one used in this study, possibly with antibiotic-treated groups and placebo groups in a double-blind study.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the GPs of Vestfold county who participated with questionnaires, to Professor Mette Brekke for valuable comments, Professor Magne Thoresen for statistical advice, and Attorney Elin Moen for help with language.

Notes

Funding

Allmennmedisinsk forskningsutvalg (AFU) (General Practice Research Committee). Grants to Mats Foshaug. Antibiotikasenteret for primærmedisin (Antibiotic Centre for Primary Care, University of Oslo). Professor Morten Lindbæk is the head of the institute.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Norwegian regional ethical committee (Reference 2011/2583A).

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

Mats Foshaug reports grants from Allmennmedisinsk forskningsutvalg (General Practice Research Committee). The other authors declare no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received January 10, 2014.
  • Revision requested March 9, 2014.
  • Accepted May 13, 2014.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2015

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Macfarlane JT,
    2. Colville A,
    3. Guion A,
    4. et al.
    (1993) Prospective study of aetiology and outcome of adult lower-respiratory-tract infections in the community. Lancet 341(8844):511–514.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Hunskår S
    1. Melbye H
    (2013) in Textbook of general practice, Lungs and airways, ed Hunskår S (Gyldendal Akademisk, Oslo) (Allmennmedisin).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Meijer A,
    2. Dagnelie CF,
    3. De Jong JC,
    4. et al.
    (2000) Low prevalence of Chlamydia pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumoniae among patients with symptoms of respiratory tract infections in Dutch general practices. Eur J Epidemiol 16(12):1099–1106.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Stawarski A,
    2. Choroszy-Kròl T,
    3. Pytrus G,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Epidemiology of atypical pneumonia caused by Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia sp. in children. Adv Clin Exp Med 10(1):37–44.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Gendrel D
    (2007) Moulin F. Pneumonies communautaires de l'enfant. [Community-acquired pneumonia in children]. Rev Prat 57(17):1883–1894, [In French].
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Màrdh PA,
    2. Hovelius B,
    3. Nordenfelt E,
    4. et al.
    (1976) The incidence and aetiology of respiratory tract infections in general practice — with emphasis on Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Infection 4(1 Suppl):40–48.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Versalovic J
    1. Waites KB,
    2. Taylor-Robinson D
    (2011) in Manual of clinical microbiology, Mycoplasma and ureaplasma, ed Versalovic J (ASM Press, Washington: DC), 10th edn, 1, p 970.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Mandell GL,
    2. Bennett JE,
    3. Dolin R
    1. Baum SG
    (2010) in Principles and practice of infectious diseases, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and atypical pneumonia, eds Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R (Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA), 7th edn, 2, pp 2481–2487.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Wang K,
    2. Gill P,
    3. Perera R,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Clinical symptoms and signs for the diagnosis of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in children and adolescents with community-acquired pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD009175.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Raggam RB,
    2. Leitner E,
    3. Berg J,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Single-run, parallel detection of DNA from three pneumonia-producing bacteria by real-time polymerase chain reaction. J Mol Diagn 7(1):133–138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Nilsson AC,
    2. Björkman P,
    3. Persson K
    (2008) Polymerase chain reaction is superior to serology for the diagnosis of acute Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection and reveals a high rate of persistent infection. BMC Microbiol 8:93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Thue G
    (2001) Norwegian electronic medical handbook (Norsk Helse Informatikk, Trondheim).
  13. 13.↵
    1. Blystad H,
    2. Ånestad G,
    3. Vestrheim DF,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Increased incidence of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in Norway 2011. Euro Surveill 17(5):pii, 20074.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Jacobs E
    (2012) Mycoplasma pneumoniae: now in the focus of clinicians and epidemiologists. Euro Surveill 17(6):pii, 20074.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. NORM/NORM-VET
    (2013) Usage of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in Norway, http://www.unn.no/getfile.php/UNN%20INTER/Fagfolk/www.antibiotikaresistens.no/NORM_VET_2013/NORM%20NORM-VET%202013.pdf (accessed 23 Dec 2014).
  16. 16.↵
    1. Straand I,
    2. Rokstad KS,
    3. Sandvik H
    (1998) Prescribing systemic antibiotics in general practice. A report from the Møre and Romsdal Prescription Study. Scand J Prim Health Care 16(2):121–127.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Lindbæk M
    1. Fagan M,
    2. Melbye H,
    3. Walstad R
    (2013) in Nasjonalfaglige retningslinjer for antibiotikabruk i primærhelsetjenesten. [National Guidelines for Antibiotics Use in Primary Care.], Nedre luftveisinfeksjoner, ed Lindbæk M (The Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo).
  18. 18.↵
    1. Blystad H
    (2014) Mycoplasma pneumoniae-infeksjoner — veileder for helsepersonell. [Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections — guide for health] (The Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo).
  19. 19.↵
    1. Litleskare I,
    2. Blix HS,
    3. Rønning M
    (2008) Antibiotikaforbruk i Norge [Antibiotic use in Norway]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 128(20):2324–2329.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health
    (2011) Fortsatt økning i forekomsten av Mycoplasma pneumoniae infeksjoner. [Continued surge in detection of Mycoplasma pneumoniae-infections], http://www.fhi.no/artikler?id=94394 (accessed 27 Nov 2014).
  21. 21.↵
    1. Murray PR,
    2. Baron EJ,
    3. Jorgensen JH,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Manual of clinical microbiology (ASM Press, Washington, DC), 8th edn, 1.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Morozumi M,
    2. Takahashi T,
    3. Ubukata K
    (2010) Macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae: characteristics of isolates and clinical aspects of community-acquired pneumonia. J Infect Chemother 16(2):78–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Gjelstad S,
    2. Straand J,
    3. Dalen I,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Do general practitioners’ consultation rates influence their prescribing patterns of antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections? J Antimicrob Chemother 66(10):2425–2433.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Statistics Norway (Statistisk Sentralbyrå)
    GPs and emergency primary health care, 2013, http://www.ssb.no/helse/statistikker/fastlegetj (accessed 27 Nov 2014).
  25. 25.↵
    1. Fine AM,
    2. Nizet V,
    3. Mandl KD
    (2012) Large-scale validation of the Centor and McIsaac scores to predict group A streptococcal pharyngitis. Arch Intern Med 172(11):847–852.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Gnarpe J,
    2. Lundbäck A,
    3. Sundelöf B,
    4. Gnarpe H
    (1992) Prevalence of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in subjectively healthy individuals. Scand J Infect Dis 24(2):161–164.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 65 (631)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 65, Issue 631
February 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mycoplasma pneumoniae detection causes excess antibiotic use in Norwegian general practice: a retrospective case–control study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Mycoplasma pneumoniae detection causes excess antibiotic use in Norwegian general practice: a retrospective case–control study
Mats Foshaug, Maria Vandbakk-Rüther, Dagfinn Skaare, Nils Grude, Morten Lindbæk
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (631): e82-e88. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp15X683509

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Mycoplasma pneumoniae detection causes excess antibiotic use in Norwegian general practice: a retrospective case–control study
Mats Foshaug, Maria Vandbakk-Rüther, Dagfinn Skaare, Nils Grude, Morten Lindbæk
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (631): e82-e88. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp15X683509
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • antibiotics
  • epidemic
  • general practice
  • macrolide antibiotics
  • Mycoplasma pneumoniae
  • Norway
  • overprescription
  • prescribing

More in this TOC Section

  • General practice as a place to receive help for domestic abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in England and Wales
  • Understanding primary care perspectives on supporting women’s health needs: a qualitative study
  • Trends in consultations and prescribing for rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: an electronic primary care records study
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

Tweets by @BJGPjournal

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242