Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: The author has no financial or conflicts of interest to disclose. No funding was sought or received for this work.

Abstract

Infective conjunctivitis is a common ophthalmic condition encountered in general practice. Topical antibiotics are often routinely prescribed in primary care for this generally self-limiting condition, despite evidence-based guidance consistently recommending otherwise. Injudicious antimicrobial prescribing has important social, economic, and public health consequences. This review discusses the evidence-based management of infective conjunctivitis and the implications of overprescribing antibiotics for this condition in primary care.                              

Introduction

Infective conjunctivitis describes conjunctival inflammation of viral or bacterial aetiology and is frequently encountered by general practitioners (GPs) within the UK and worldwide, accounting for approximately 1–2% of all consultations (1, 2).  Common clinical features of infective conjunctivitis include conjunctival injection, watery or purulent discharge, foreign body sensation, and mild photophobia.

In most cases, infective conjunctivitis is mild and self-limiting, with remission occurring within 5–7 days. It generally resolves without medical intervention and evidence-based guidelines consistently advocate for limited and judicious antimicrobial usage (3). However, the antibiotic prescription rate for infective conjunctivitis is inappropriately high among GPs worldwide (4–6). This prescribing behaviour is multi-factorial and has important social, economic, and public health implications. This review discusses the evidence-based management of infective conjunctivitis, the prescribing behaviours of GPs, and the benefits of improving antimicrobial stewardship in primary care.        

Evidence-Based Management

Pathogenic ambiguity between bacterial and viral causes of conjunctivitis, coupled with beliefs that bacterial infections require prescription antibiotics, has meant that topical antibiotics have traditionally formed the standard treatment for infective conjunctivitis (7, 8). Since then, several landmark randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews have confirmed high rates of resolution without treatment and only modest benefit conferred by antibiotics in bacterial conjunctivitis (1, 2, 9–11).

A strategy of delayed antibiotic prescribing for 3 days was observed to rationalise antibiotic use, reduce reattendance, and prevent ‘medicalisation’ of the self-limiting condition, while offering symptom management comparable to immediate prescribing (9). The UK Royal College of General Practitioners subsequently recommended the uptake of this strategy alongside conservative management, such as reassurance and self-care measures for symptomatic relief (3).

Caution is however emphasised regarding specific patient populations, including conjunctivitis in neonates and contact lens wearers demonstrating conjunctivitis-like symptoms, due to the potentially sight threatening complications of delayed treatment (3).       

Prescribing Behaviours

Evidence-based guidelines consistently advocate against routine antibiotic prescribing for infective conjunctivitis, but prescription rates remain high in primary care. Approximately, 900,000 and 3.4 million annual prescriptions for topical ocular antibiotics occur in the Netherlands and the UK, respectively (6).

In a study of over 390,000 patients in the Netherlands, 80% of infectious conjunctivitis cases were prescribed antibiotics over 12 months (4). Similarly, an Australian study of GP registrars reported that antibiotics were prescribed in 74% of new cases (5). Although currently there is no recognised benchmark recommendation regarding antibiotic prescription for infective conjunctivitis in primary care, these rates can be considered in excess of what is justified by guidelines.

Overprescribing may contribute to public misapprehension of the disease, generate unnecessary costs, and delay care for more serious conditions resembling conjunctivitis (12). Several studies have investigated barriers to changing prescribing practices among GPs. A network of contributary factors was established from a qualitative survey of GPs, parents of children with infective conjunctivitis, and schools and childcare facilities in the UK (13). Parents’ desire to return their children to school and views regarding the necessity of antibiotics for preventing serious consequences were key drivers in seeking antimicrobials (13).

Furthermore, healthcare providers are poor discriminators of viral from bacterial aetiology in conjunctivitis. A Dutch study of 177 adults highlighted this, demonstrating the diagnosis can be incorrect in approximately 50% of cases despite identification of ‘classical’ features of bacterial conjunctivitis (8).

Suboptimal ophthalmic teaching in medical school, as reported by a recent national survey, may also contribute (14). Over 90% of GPs are reported to prescribe antibiotics for conjunctivitis even for cases considered to be of viral origin, often using diagnostic ambiguity to justify prescription, which reinforces patients’ beliefs (7). This is further complicated by regulatory policy including the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s decision to allow topical chloramphenicol to be sold over-the-counter for infective conjunctivitis, which is reported to have caused a 48% usage increase (1).              

Improving Prescribing Practices

The appropriate management of infective conjunctivitis in primary care depends substantially on medical education. Resource sharing between professional organisations may improve ophthalmology’s presence in training curricula and so improve diagnostic confidence, awareness of best-practice guidelines, and establish rational prescribing habits at an earlier stage.

However, such approaches may still be limited by the inherent difficulty in differentiating viral and bacterial conjunctivitis clinically. Cost-effective microbiological testing may be the only way to tackle diagnostic uncertainty at the point of care. This is recommended for severe or atypical cases but its utility is somewhat limited in routine practice due to a lack of perceived therapeutic impact and the potential for further ‘medicalising’ a self-limiting illness (3, 9).

With sufficient organisational restructuring, one possibility is to implement the current framework for simple urinary tract infections in the UK, namely Pharmacy First, where low-risk cases may be managed at selected pharmacies, thereby facilitating appropriate triage (15). Regardless, informed clinicians should recognise the importance of reassurance and educating patients about the self-limiting nature of the condition, which a delayed prescribing strategy permits.

Qualitative research indicates patients’ lack of awareness of the largely benign natural history of conjunctivitis as an important factor underlying attendance for antibiotics (9). When adequately informed, patients were prepared to forego a prescription, with their satisfaction further improved by the provision of information leaflets (9). This highlights the importance of patient education in managing medical expectations, which becomes increasingly relevant with the greater availability of over-the-counter ocular antimicrobials. While empowering patients to manage their own health, these policy changes also contradict public antibiotic stewardship efforts (1).                 

Conclusion

Although prudent antibiotic prescribing is high on the public health agenda and is reflected in established evidence-based guidelines, antibiotics continue to be used injudiciously for infective conjunctivitis in primary care.

Determinants of prescribing patterns are complex and interrelated, including both clinical and non-clinical factors such as diagnostic confidence, patient beliefs, and public health policy. Greater clarity in guidelines, confidence in prescribing, and management of patient expectations will be important to improve suboptimal rates of antibiotic prescription for infective conjunctivitis.                                                    

References

1.      Jefferis J, Perera R, Everitt H, van Weert H, Rietveld R, Glasziou P, Rose P. Acute infective conjunctivitis in primary care: who needs antibiotics? An individual patient data meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2011 Sep;61(590):e542-8. doi: 10.3399/bjgp11X593811. PMID: 22152728; PMCID: PMC3162176. 

2.      Sheikh A, Hurwitz B, van Schayck CP, McLean S, Nurmatov U. Antibiotics versus placebo for acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;(9):CD001211. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001211.pub3. PMID: 22972049.   

3.      Royal College of General Practitioners. Management of Infective Conjunctivitis in primary care. Available from: https://www.rcgp.org.uk/-/media/Files/CIRC/Eye-Health/RCGP-Infective-Conjunctivitis-Factsheet-December-2014.ashx?la=en. Accessed November 1, 2021. 

4.      Rietveld RP, ter Riet G, Bindels PJ, Schellevis FG, van Weert HC. Do general practitioners adhere to the guideline on infectious conjunctivitis? Results of the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2007 Sep 16;8:54. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-8-54. PMID: 17868475; PMCID: PMC2034564.  

5.      Cherry MD, Tapley A, Quain D, Holliday EG, Ball J, Davey A, van Driel ML, Fielding A, Spike N, FitzGerald K, Magin P. Antibiotic prescribing patterns of general practice registrars for infective conjunctivitis: a cross-sectional analysis. J Prim Health Care. 2021 Mar;13(1):5-14. doi: 10.1071/HC20040. PMID: 33785106. 

6.      Smith AF, Waycaster C. Estimate of the direct and indirect annual cost of bacterial conjunctivitis in the United States. BMC Ophthalmol. 2009 Nov 25;9:13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2415-9-13. PMID: 19939250; PMCID: PMC2791746.  

7.      Everitt H, Little P. How do GPs diagnose and manage acute infective conjunctivitis? A GP survey. Fam Pract. 2002 Dec;19(6):658-60. doi: 10.1093/fampra/19.6.658. PMID: 12429670. 

8.      Rietveld RP, ter Riet G, Bindels PJ, Sloos JH, van Weert HC. Predicting bacterial cause in infectious conjunctivitis: cohort study on informativeness of combinations of signs and symptoms. BMJ. 2004 Jul 24;329(7459):206-10. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38128.631319.AE. Epub 2004 Jun 16. PMID: 15201195; PMCID: PMC487734.  

9.      Everitt HA, Little PS, Smith PW. A randomised controlled trial of management strategies for acute infective conjunctivitis in general practice. BMJ. 2006 Aug 12;333(7563):321. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38891.551088.7C. Epub 2006 Jul 17. Erratum in: BMJ. 2006 Sep 2;333(7566):468. PMID: 16847013; PMCID: PMC1539078. 

10.  Rose PW, Harnden A, Brueggemann AB, Perera R, Sheikh A, Crook D, Mant D. Chloramphenicol treatment for acute infective conjunctivitis in children in primary care: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2005 Jul 2-8;366(9479):37-43. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66709-8. PMID: 15993231.  

11.  Rietveld RP, ter Riet G, Bindels PJ, Bink D, Sloos JH, van Weert HC. The treatment of acute infectious conjunctivitis with fusidic acid: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Dec;55(521):924-30. PMID: 16378561; PMCID: PMC1570507. 

12.  Visscher KL, Hutnik CM, Thomas M. Evidence-based treatment of acute infective conjunctivitis: Breaking the cycle of antibiotic prescribing. Can Fam Physician. 2009 Nov;55(11):1071-5. PMID: 19910590; PMCID: PMC2776793.  

13.  Rose PW, Ziebland S, Harnden A, Mayon-White R, Mant D; Oxford Childhood Infection Study group (OXCIS). Why do general practitioners prescribe antibiotics for acute infective conjunctivitis in children? Qualitative interviews with GPs and a questionnaire survey of parents and teachers. Fam Pract. 2006 Apr;23(2):226-32. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmi101. Epub 2005 Dec 9. PMID: 16339771. 

14.  Hill S, Dennick R, Amoaku W. Present and future of the undergraduate ophthalmology curriculum: a survey of UK medical schools. Int J Med Educ. 2017 Nov 2;8:389-395. doi: 10.5116/ijme.59ac.f69b. PMID: 29103017; PMCID: PMC5694697.  

15.  National Health Service Inform. Urinary tract infection (UTI). Available from: https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/kidneys-bladder-and-prostate/urinary-tract-infection-uti. Accessed November 1, 2021.