scholarly journals Point-of-care C-reactive protein to assist in primary care management of children with suspected non-serious lower respiratory tract infection: a randomised controlled trial

BJGP Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen18X101600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjolein JC Schot ◽  
Ann Van den Bruel ◽  
Berna DL Broekhuizen ◽  
Jochen WL Cals ◽  
Eveline A Noteboom ◽  
...  

BackgroundOverprescription of antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in children is common, partly due to diagnostic uncertainty, in which case the addition of point-of-care (POC) C-reactive protein (CRP) testing can be of aid.AimTo assess whether use of POC CRP by the GP reduces antibiotic prescriptions in children with suspected non-serious LRTI.Design & settingAn open, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in daytime general practice and out-of-hours services.MethodChildren between 3 months and 12 years of age with acute cough and fever were included and randomised to either use of POC CRP or usual care. Antibiotic prescription rates were measured and compared between groups using generalising estimating equations.ResultsThere was no statistically significant reduction in antibiotic prescriptions in the GP use of CRP group (30.9% versus 39.4%; odds ratio [OR] 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.29 to 1.23). Only the estimated severity of illness was related to antibiotic prescription. Forty-six per cent of children had POC CRP levels <10mg/L.ConclusionIt is still uncertain whether POC CRP measurement in children with non-serious respiratory tract infection presenting to general practice can reduce the prescription of antibiotics. Until new research provides further evidence, POC CRP measurement in these children is not recommended.

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e040977
Author(s):  
Nga Thi Thuy Do ◽  
Rachel Claire Greer ◽  
Yoel Lubell ◽  
Sabine Dittrich ◽  
Maida Vandendorpe ◽  
...  

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.


Antibiotics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Holmes ◽  
Sharman Harris ◽  
Alison Hughes ◽  
Noel Craine ◽  
Dyfrig Hughes

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.


BJGP Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen20X101099
Author(s):  
Sean Hawkey ◽  
Grace J Young ◽  
Paul Little ◽  
Michael Moore ◽  
Alastair D Hay

BackgroundAcute lower respiratory tract infection (ALRTI) is often treated in primary care with antibiotics. The recent Oral Steroids for Acute Cough (OSAC) randomised controlled trial (RCT) showed corticosteroids were not an effective alternative in adults without a diagnosis of asthma with ALRTI.AimTo investigate if corticosteroids are beneficial for ALRTI in patients with unrecognised asthma.Design & settingAn exploratory analysis was undertaken of the primary care OSAC trial.MethodA subgroup analysis was performed in patients who responded ‘yes’ to the following International Primary Care Airways Group (IPCAG) question: did you have wheeze and/or at least two of nocturnal cough or chest tightness or dyspnoea in the past year. Sensitivity analyses were carried out on those who answered ‘yes’ to wheeze and at least two of the nocturnal symptoms. The primary outcomes were as follows: duration of cough (0–28 days, minimum clinically important difference [MCID] of 3.79 days) and mean symptom severity score (range 0–6; MCID 1.66 units).ResultsIn total, 40 (10%) patients were included in the main analysis: mean age 49 years (standard deviation [SD] = 17.9), 52% male. Median cough duration was 3 days in both prednisolone (interquartile range [IQR] = 2–6 days) and placebo (IQR = 1–6 days) groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47 to 2.54; P = 0.83), equating to 0.24 days longer in the prednisolone group (95% CI = 1.23 days shorter to 2.88 days longer). Mean symptom severity difference was –0.14 (95% CI = –0.78 to 0.49; P=0.65) comparing prednisolone with placebo. Similar findings were found in the sensitivity analysis.ConclusionNo evidence was found to support the use of corticosteroids for ALRTI in patients with clinically unrecognised asthma. Clinicians should not use the IPCAG questions to target oral corticosteroid treatment in patients with ALRTI.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document