Respiratory tract infection tests are increasingly available in primary care and are expected to expand in the future. However, there is limited understanding of clinicians’ views on their benefits and how to effectively integrate them into daily clinical practice.

The aim of this study was to explore healthcare professionals’ views on using respiratory tract infection tests to safely reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections in primary care based on their experience in routine practice.

A qualitative study design was employed. Two focus group discussions were conducted.

These focus group discussions were conducted in February 2025, involving 18 Spanish primary care professionals, both experts and non-experts in rational antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance. Data were audio-recorded or video-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Participants agreed that respiratory tract infection tests help optimise antibiotic prescriptions, reduce uncertainty, ensure the appropriate consumption of resources and guide treatment based on aetiology. While most professionals view microbiological tests and C-reactive protein testing as complementary, non-experts preferred microbiological tests. Professionals considered that patients value knowing the aetiology over the prognosis, supporting shared decision-making and addressing patients’ demands more effectively. Concerns remain about using these tests as stand-alone tools and the medicalisation of self-limiting conditions. Other barriers mentioned included the high cost and time-consuming nature, the need for better professional training and the challenge of managing the increased workload associated with their use.

This study highlights how clinicians perceive respiratory tract infection tests to aid prescribing decisions amid uncertainty. Both positive and negative views were reported. Participants agreed that these tests optimise antibiotic prescriptions and guide treatment, but there are still important barriers to their implementation.

Women with recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) often undergo intensive antibiotic exposure, especially with suppressive therapies. Suppressive therapy is recommended for women with three UTIs in the past year or two in the last 6 months. However, the collateral long-term effects of this have been poorly studied.

To assess whether suppressive therapy for recurrent UTIs increases the incidence and severity of future infections compared with episodic UTI treatment.

Retrospective cohort study.

The study was conducted using data from the Information System for Research in Primary Care database, including 5.8 million people in Catalonia. Two groups of women with recurrent UTIs (≥3 episodes/year) were compared: those on suppressive antibiotic therapy for ≥6 months and those treated episodically. Primary outcomes were hospitalisations due to pyelonephritis, septicaemia, COVID-19, influenza, pneumonia and mortality by these infections, over a 100-month follow-up period.

Among 36 170 women, 2898 (8%) were treated with continuous suppressive therapy. Overall, 6.9% of the population experienced severe infections, with a higher incidence in women on suppressive therapy (12.6%) compared with those without (6.4%), with a HR of 1.50 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.68). Pyelonephritis presented the greatest difference (HR, 1.95 (95% CI 1.64 to 2.33)), followed by septicaemia (HR, 1.34 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.59)) and COVID-19 (HR 1.23 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.50)).

Suppressive antibiotic therapy in women with recurrent UTIs is associated with a higher incidence and severity of future infections. Future research should focus on clarifying causal relationships and identifying the potential mechanisms involved.