Field-testing and validation in a primary care setting of a point-of-care test for C-reactive protein

2003 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Seamark ◽  
Susan N. Backhouse ◽  
Roy Powell
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Laboratory Method ◽  
Practice Setting ◽  
Standard Laboratory ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
General Practice Setting ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Use of point-of-care testing (POCT) in primary care has increased. There is a need for high-quality field evaluation of POCT before deployment can be considered. Method: A POCT system for C-reactive protein was evaluated in a routine general practice setting. The standard laboratory method was a dry slide method based in a routine hospital laboratory. Results: Scatterplots for both venous and capillary blood POCT system results versus the standard laboratory assay produced correlation coefficients of greater than 0·96. Bland-Altman plots indicated that 95% of venous and capillary POCT results fell within ±10 mg/L of the mean value with no clinically significant difference from laboratory results. Conclusions: The POCT system performed reliably in a routine general practice setting with satisfactory performance against an accepted laboratory method.

scholarly journals Implementation of C-reactive protein point of care testing to improve antibiotic targeting in respiratory illness in Vietnamese primary care (ICAT): a study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e040977
Author(s):  
Nga Thi Thuy Do ◽  
Rachel Claire Greer ◽  
Yoel Lubell ◽  
Sabine Dittrich ◽  
Maida Vandendorpe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Antibiotic Prescription ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionC-reactive protein (CRP), a biomarker of infection, has been used widely in high-income settings to guide antibiotic treatment in patients presenting with respiratory illnesses in primary care. Recent trials in low- and middle-income countries showed that CRP testing could safely reduce antibiotic use in patients with non-severe acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and fever in primary care. The studies, however, were conducted in a research-oriented context, with research staff closely monitoring healthcare behaviour thus potentially influencing healthcare workers’ prescribing practices. For policy-makers to consider wide-scale roll-out, a pragmatic implementation study of the impact of CRP point of care (POC) testing in routine care is needed.Methods and analysisA pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial, with two study arms, consisting of 24 commune health centres (CHC) in the intervention arm (provision of CRP tests with additional healthcare worker guidance) and 24 facilities acting as controls (routine care). Comparison between the treatment arms will be through logistic regression, with the treatment assignment as a fixed effect, and the CHC as a random effect. With 48 clusters, an average of 10 consultations per facility per week will result in approximately 520 over 1 year, and 24 960 in total (12 480 per arm). We will be able to detect a reduction of 12% to 23% or more in immediate antibiotic prescription as a result of the CRP POC intervention. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patient consultations for ARI resulting in immediate antibiotic prescription. Secondary endpoints include the proportion of all patients receiving an antibiotic prescription regardless of ARI diagnosis, frequency of re-consultation, subsequent antibiotic use when antibiotics are not prescribed, referral and hospitalisation.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Oxford University Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC, Reference: 53–18), and the ethical committee of the National Hospital for Tropical Diseases in Vietnam (Reference:07/HDDD-NDTW/2019). Results from this study will be disseminated via meetings with stakeholders, conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals. Authorship and reporting of this work will follow international guidelines.Trial registration detailsNCT03855215; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing to Reduce Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care

Antibiotics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Holmes ◽  
Sharman Harris ◽  
Alison Hughes ◽  
Noel Craine ◽  
Dyfrig Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Antibiotic Prescription ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Reactive Protein

More appropriate and measured use of antibiotics may be achieved using point-of-care (POC) C-reactive protein (CRP) testing, but there is limited evidence of cost-effectiveness in routine practice. A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of testing, compared with standard care, in adults presenting in primary care with symptoms of acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI). Analyses considered (1) pragmatic use of testing, reflective of routine clinical practice, and (2) testing according to clinical guidelines. Threshold and scenario analysis were performed to identify cost-effective scenarios. In patients with symptoms of ARTI and based on routine practice, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CRP testing were £19,705 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained and £16.07 per antibiotic prescription avoided. Following clinical guideline, CRP testing in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) cost £4390 per QALY gained and £9.31 per antibiotic prescription avoided. At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probabilities of POC CRP testing being cost-effective were 0.49 (ARTI) and 0.84 (LRTI). POC CRP testing as implemented in routine practice is appreciably less cost-effective than when adhering to clinical guidelines. The implications for antibiotic resistance and Clostridium difficile infection warrant further investigation.

Point-of-care testing for C-reactive protein in acute cough presentations in primary care

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Simon Searle-Barnes ◽  
Peter Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Point Of Care Testing ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Acute Cough ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Viral Aetiology ◽  
Prescription Rates ◽  
The Uk

Acute cough is one of the most common illnesses in the UK, with an estimated 48 million cases per annum. The majority of these presentations are thought to be of viral aetiology and self-limiting in nature, yet some studies report antibiotic prescription rates of approximately 65% in the UK. Clincians' decision-making process can be influenced by both patient expectations and difficulty in differentiating between viral and bacterial aetiologies by clinical examination alone. This article will consider the feasibility, efficacy, benefits and limitations of using point-of-care testing of C-reactive protein within primary care in the United Kingdom to help inform management of acute cough.

scholarly journals Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing to Reduce Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Antibiotics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 610
Author(s):  
Nahara Anani Martínez-González ◽  
Ellen Keizer ◽  
Andreas Plate ◽  
Samuel Coenen ◽  
Fabio Valeri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Respiratory Tract Infections ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Tract Infections

C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (POCT) is increasingly being promoted to reduce diagnostic uncertainty and enhance antibiotic stewardship. In primary care, respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are the most common reason for inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, which is a major driver for antibiotic resistance. We systematically reviewed the available evidence on the impact of CRP-POCT on antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in primary care. Thirteen moderate to high-quality studies comprising 9844 participants met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses showed that CRP-POCT significantly reduced immediate antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation compared with usual care (RR 0.79, 95%CI 0.70 to 0.90, p = 0.0003, I2 = 76%) but not during 28-day (n = 7) follow-up. The immediate effect was sustained at 12 months (n = 1). In children, CRP-POCT reduced antibiotic prescribing when CRP (cut-off) guidance was provided (n = 2). Meta-analyses showed significantly higher rates of re-consultation within 30 days (n = 8, 1 significant). Clinical recovery, resolution of symptoms, and hospital admissions were not significantly different between CRP-POCT and usual care. CRP-POCT can reduce immediate antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in primary care (number needed to (NNT) for benefit = 8) at the expense of increased re-consultations (NNT for harm = 27). The increase in re-consultations and longer-term effects of CRP-POCT need further evaluation. Overall, the benefits of CRP-POCT outweigh the potential harms (NNTnet = 11).

scholarly journals C-reactive protein and neutrophil count laboratory test requests from primary care: what is the demand and would substitution by point-of-care technology be viable?

2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (7) ◽  
pp. 474-481
Author(s):  
José M Ordóñez-Mena ◽  
Thomas R Fanshawe ◽  
David McCartney ◽  
Brian Shine ◽  
Ann Van den Bruel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Neutrophil Count ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Laboratory Services ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Point Of Care Technology ◽  
Care Technology ◽  
The Uk

Aims C-reactive protein (CRP) and neutrophil count (NC) are important diagnostic indicators of inflammation. Point-of-care (POC) technologies for these markers are available but rarely used in community settings in the UK. To inform the potential for POC tests, it is necessary to understand the demand for testing. We aimed to describe the frequency of CRP and NC test requests from primary care to central laboratory services, describe variability between practices and assess the relationship between the tests.MethodsWe described the number of patients with either or both laboratory tests, and the volume of testing per individual and per practice, in a retrospective cohort of all adults in general practices in Oxfordshire, 2014–2016.Results372 017 CRP and 776 581 NC tests in 160 883 and 275 093 patients, respectively, were requested from 69 practices. CRP was tested mainly in combination with NC, while the latter was more often tested alone. The median (IQR) of CRP and NC tests/person tested was 1 (1–2) and 2 (1–3), respectively. The median (IQR) tests/practice/week was 36 (22–52) and 72 (50–108), and per 1000 persons registered/practice/week was 4 (3–5) and 8 (7–9), respectively. The median (IQR) CRP and NC concentrations were 2.7 (0.9–7.9) mg/dL and 4.1 (3.1–5.5)×109/L, respectively.ConclusionsThe high demand for CRP and NC testing in the community, and the range of results falling within the reportable range for current POC technologies highlight the opportunity for laboratory testing to be supplemented by POC testing in general practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document