9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Low Uptake of Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Respiratory Tract Infections in an Urban Safety Net Hospital

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed with the aim of providing accurate results in a timely manner. Despite this, studies report that provider uptake remains low.

          Methods

          We conducted a retrospective analysis of ambulatory, urgent care, and emergency department (ED) encounters at an urban safety net hospital with a primary diagnosis of an upper or lower respiratory tract infection (eg, bronchitis, pharyngitis, acute sinusitis) from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018. We collected RDT type and results, antibiotics prescribed, demographic and clinical patient information, and provider demographics.

          Results

          RDT use was low; a test was performed at 29.5% of the 33 494 visits. The RDT most often ordered was the rapid Group A Streptococcus (GAS) test (n = 7352), predominantly for visits with a discharge diagnosis of pharyngitis (n = 5818). Though antibiotic prescription was more likely if the test was positive (relative risk [RR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58–1.8), 92.46% of streptococcal pharyngitis cases with a negative test were prescribed an antibiotic. The Comprehensive Respiratory Panel (CRP) was ordered in 2498 visits; influenza was the most commonly detected pathogen. Physicians in the ED were most likely to order a CRP. Antibiotic prescription was lower if the CRP was not ordered compared with a negative CRP result (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.7–0.84). There was no difference in prescribing by CRP result (negative vs positive).

          Conclusions

          RDTs are used infrequently in the outpatient setting, and impact on prescribing was inconsistent. Further work is needed to determine barriers to RDT use and to address potential solutions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Routine molecular point-of-care testing for respiratory viruses in adults presenting to hospital with acute respiratory illness (ResPOC): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial

          Summary Background Respiratory virus infection is a common cause of hospitalisation in adults. Rapid point-of-care testing (POCT) for respiratory viruses might improve clinical care by reducing unnecessary antibiotic use, shortening length of hospital stay, improving influenza detection and treatment, and rationalising isolation facility use; however, insufficient evidence exists to support its use over standard clinical care. We aimed to assess the effect of routine POCT on a broad range of clinical outcomes including antibiotic use. Methods In this pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) within 24 h of presenting to the emergency department or acute medical unit of a large UK hospital with acute respiratory illness or fever higher than 37·5°C (≤7 days duration), or both, over two winter seasons. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an internet-based allocation sequence with random permuted blocks, to have a molecular POC test for respiratory viruses or routine clinical care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received antibiotics while hospitalised (up to 30 days). Secondary outcomes included duration of antibiotics, proportion of patients receiving single doses or brief courses of antibiotics, length of stay, antiviral use, isolation facility use, and safety. Analysis was by modified intention to treat, excluding patients who declined intervention or were withdrawn for protocol violations. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number 90211642, and has been completed. Findings Between Jan 15, 2015, and April 30, 2015, and between Oct 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016, we enrolled 720 patients (362 assigned to POCT and 358 to routine care). Six patients withdrew or had protocol violations. 301 (84%) of 360 patients in the POCT group received antibiotics compared with 294 (83%) of 354 controls (difference 0·6%, 95% CI −4·9 to 6·0; p=0·84). Mean duration of antibiotics did not differ between groups (7·2 days [SD 5·1] in the POCT group vs 7·7 days [4·9] in the control group; difference −0·4, 95% CI −1·2 to 0·4; p=0·32). 50 (17%) of 301 patients treated with antibiotics in the POCT group received single doses or brief courses of antibiotics (<48 h) compared with 26 (9%) of 294 patients in the control group (difference 7·8%, 95% CI 2·5 to 13·1; p=0·0047; number needed to test=13). Mean length of stay was shorter in the POCT group (5·7 days [SD 6·3]) than in the control group (6·8 days [7·7]; difference −1·1, 95% CI −2·2 to −0·3; p=0·0443). Appropriate antiviral treatment of influenza-positive patients was more common in the POCT group (52 [91%] of 57 patients) than in the control group (24 [65%] of 37 patients; difference 26·4%, 95% CI 9·6 to 43·2; p=0·0026; number needed to test=4). We found no differences in adverse outcomes between the groups (77 [21%] of 360 patients in the POCT group vs 88 [25%] of 354 patients in the control group; −3·5%, −9·7 to 2·7; p=0·29). Interpretation Routine use of molecular POCT for respiratory viruses did not reduce the proportion of patients treated with antibiotics. However, the primary outcome measure failed to capture differences in antibiotic use because many patients were started on antibiotics before the results of POCT could be made available. Although POCT was not associated with a reduction in the duration of antibiotics overall, more patients in the POCT group received single doses or brief courses of antibiotics than did patients in the control group. POCT was also associated with a reduced length of stay and improved influenza detection and antiviral use, and appeared to be safe. Funding University of Southampton.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of a rapid respiratory panel test on patient outcomes.

            Evolution of polymerase chain reaction testing for infectious pathogens has occurred concurrent with a focus on value-based medicine.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of acute bacterial sinusitis in children aged 1 to 18 years.

              To update the American Academy of Pediatrics clinical practice guideline regarding the diagnosis and management of acute bacterial sinusitis in children and adolescents. Analysis of the medical literature published since the last version of the guideline (2001). The diagnosis of acute bacterial sinusitis is made when a child with an acute upper respiratory tract infection (URI) presents with (1) persistent illness (nasal discharge [of any quality] or daytime cough or both lasting more than 10 days without improvement), (2) a worsening course (worsening or new onset of nasal discharge, daytime cough, or fever after initial improvement), or (3) severe onset (concurrent fever[temperature ≥39°C/102.2°F] and purulent nasal discharge for at least 3 consecutive days). Clinicians should not obtain imaging studies of any kind to distinguish acute bacterial sinusitis from viral URI, because they do not contribute to the diagnosis; however, a contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan of the paranasal sinuses should be obtained whenever a child is suspected of having orbital or central nervous system complications. The clinician should prescribe antibiotic therapy for acute bacterial sinusitis in children with severe onset or worsening course. The clinician should either prescribe antibiotic therapy or offer additional observation for 3 days to children with persistent illness. Amoxicillin with or without clavulanate is the firstline treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis. Clinicians should reassess initial management if there is either a caregiver report of worsening(progression of initial signs/symptoms or appearance of new signs/symptoms) or failure to improve within 72 hours of initial management.If the diagnosis of acute bacterial sinusitis is confirmed in a child with worsening symptoms or failure to improve, then clinicians may change the antibiotic therapy for the child initially managed with antibiotic or initiate antibiotic treatment of the child initially managed with observation. Changes in this revision include the addition of a clinical presentation designated as “worsening course,” an option to treat immediately or observe children with persistent symptoms for 3 days before treating, and a review of evidence indicating that imaging is not necessary in children with uncomplicated acute bacterial sinusitis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Open Forum Infect Dis
                Open Forum Infect Dis
                ofid
                Open Forum Infectious Diseases
                Oxford University Press (US )
                2328-8957
                March 2020
                03 March 2020
                03 March 2020
                : 7
                : 3
                : ofaa057
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [2 ] Department of Health Law Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [3 ] Biostatistics and Epidemiology Data Analytics Center (BEDAC), Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [4 ] Evans Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences (CIIS), Boston University School of Medicine , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [5 ] Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Affairs Hospital , Bedford, Massachusetts, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Shana Burrowes, PhD, Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 801 Massachusetts Ave, Rm 2004, Boston, MA 02218 ( shanab@ 123456bu.edu ).
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6857-6207
                Article
                ofaa057
                10.1093/ofid/ofaa057
                7060900
                baa4e3f9-fa76-4ec3-8f64-bf6659dfde35
                © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 15 January 2020
                : 13 February 2020
                : 11 February 2020
                : 08 March 2020
                Page count
                Pages: 9
                Funding
                Funded by: Boston University Social Innovation on Drug Resistance;
                Categories
                Major Article
                AcademicSubjects/MED00290

                antibiotics,antimicrobial stewardship,rapid diagnostics,respiratory tract infections

                Comments

                Comment on this article