Implementation of Alere i Influenza A & B point of care test for the diagnosis of influenza in an ED

European society of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases guidelines for antimicrobial stewardship in emergency departments (endorsed by European association of hospital pharmacists)

SCOPE

This European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to support a selection of appropriate antibiotic use practices for patients seen in the emergency department (ED) and guidance for their implementation. The topics addressed in this guideline are (a) Do biomarkers or rapid pathogen tests improve antibiotic prescribing and/or clinical outcomes? (b) Does taking blood cultures in common infectious syndromes improve antibiotic prescribing and/or clinical outcomes? (c) Does watchful waiting without antibacterial therapy or with delayed antibiotic prescribing reduce antibiotic prescribing without worsening clinical outcomes in patients with specific infectious syndromes? (d) Do structured culture follow-up programs in patients discharged from the ED with cultures pending improve antibiotic prescribing?

METHODS

An expert panel was convened by European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and the guideline chair. The panel selected in consensus the four most relevant antimicrobial stewardship topics according to pre-defined relevance criteria. For each main question for the four topics, a systematic review was performed, including randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Both clinical outcomes and stewardship process outcomes related to antibiotic use were deemed relevant. The literature searches were conducted between May 2021 and March 2022. In April 2022, the panel members were formally asked to suggest additional studies that were not identified in the initial searches. Data were summarized in a meta-analysis if possible or otherwise summarized narratively. The certainty of the evidence was classified according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. The guideline panel reviewed the evidence per topic critically appraising the evidence and formulated recommendations through a consensus-based process. The strength of the recommendations was classified as strong or weak. To substantiate the implementation process, implementation trials or observational studies describing facilitators/barriers for implementation were identified from the same searches and were summarized narratively.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations on the use of biomarkers and rapid pathogen diagnostic tests focus on the initiation of antibiotics in patients admitted through the ED. Their effect on the discontinuation or de-escalation of antibiotics during hospital stay was not reported, neither was their effect on hospital infection prevention and control practices. The recommendations on watchful waiting (i.e. withholding antibiotics with some form of follow-up) focus on specific infectious syndromes for which the primary care literature was also included. The recommendations on blood cultures focus on the indication in three common infectious syndromes in the ED explicitly excluding patients with sepsis or septic shock. Most recommendations are based on very low and low certainty of evidence, leading to weak recommendations or, when no evidence was available, to best practice statements. Implementation of these recommendations needs to be adapted to the specific settings and circumstances of the ED. The scarcity of high-quality studies in the area of antimicrobial stewardship in the ED highlights the need for future research in this field.

Does the Addition of Point-of-Care Testing Alter Antibiotic Prescribing Decisions When Patients Present with Acute Sore Throat to Primary Care? A Prospective Test of Change

Accurate clinical diagnosis of patients presenting to primary care settings with acute sore throat remains challenging, often resulting in the over-prescribing of antibiotics. Using point-of-care tests (POCTs) to differentiate between respiratory infections is well-accepted, yet evidence on the application within primary care is sparse. We assessed the application of testing patients (n = 160) from three family practices with suspected Streptococcal infections using rapid molecular tests (ID NOW Strep A2, Abbott). In addition to comparing clinical evaluation and prescription rates with either usual care or testing, patients and staff completed a questionnaire about their experience of molecular POCT in primary care. The immediate availability of the result was important to patients (100%), and staff (≈90%) stated that molecular testing improved the quality of care. Interestingly, only 22.73% of patients with a Centor score > 2 tested positive for Strep A and, overall, less than 50% of Centor scores 3 and 4 tested positive for Strep A with the ID NOW testing platform. The addition of rapid molecular POCTs to clinical assessment resulted in a 55-65% reduction in immediate and deferred antibiotic prescriptions. The intervention was popular with patients and medical staff but was associated with increased cost and a longer appointment length.

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of a SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B Combo Rapid Antigen Test in Respiratory Samples

This study aimed to evaluate the performance characteristics of a rapid antigen test developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), influenza A virus (IAV), and influenza B virus (IBV) (flu) compared with those of the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) method. One hundred SARS-CoV-2, one hundred IAV, and twenty-four IBV patients whose diagnoses were confirmed by clinical and laboratory methods were included in the patient group. Seventy-six patients, who were negative for all respiratory tract viruses, were included as the control group. The Panbio™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Rapid Panel test kit was used in the assays. The sensitivity values of the kit were 97.5%, 97.9%, and 33.33% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load below 20 Ct values. The sensitivity values of the kit were 16.7%, 36.5%, and 11.11% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load above 20 Ct. The kit's specificity was 100%. In conclusion, this kit demonstrated high sensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 and IAV for viral loads below 20 Ct values, but the sensitivity values were not compatible with PCR positivity for lower viral loads over 20 Ct values. Rapid antigen tests may be preferred as a routine screening tool in communal environments, especially in symptomatic individuals, when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV with high caution.

Performance Evaluation of STANDARD Q COVID/FLU Ag Combo for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B

We evaluated the performance of the STANDARD Q COVID/FLU Ag Combo test (Q Ag combo test) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and influenza B using a single point-of-care device compared with real-time PCR. A total of 408 individuals, 55 positives with SARS-CoV-2, 90 with influenza A, 68 with influenza B, and 195 negatives for all viruses, participated. The Q Ag combo test demonstrated a high level of sensitivity of 92.73% and a specificity of 99.49% for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. When the number of days from symptom onset (DSO) was restricted to 0 < DSO ≤ 6, the sensitivity of the Q Ag combo test to detect SARS-CoV-2 was 100%, and when the Ct value of RdRp was ≤20, the sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 was 93.10%. The Q Ag combo test results also demonstrated a sensitivity of 92.22% and a specificity of 100% for influenza A, a sensitivity of 91.18%, and a specificity of 99.49% for influenza B. The agreement analysis of the Q Ag combo test with the RT-PCR results demonstrated excellent outcomes, making it useful and efficient for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and influenza B.

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of rapid on-site influenza and respiratory syncytial virus PCR testing in paediatric and adult populations

Background

Rapid/point-of-care respiratory virus nucleic acid tests (NAT) may improve oseltamivir, antibiotic, diagnostic test, and hospital bed utilization. Previous randomized controlled trials (RCT) on this topic have not used standard procedures of an accredited healthcare and laboratory system.

Methods

We conducted a parallel RCT at two hospitals [paediatric = Alberta Children’s Hospital (ACH); primarily adult = Peter Lougheed Centre (PLC)]. Patients with a respiratory viral testing order were randomized to testing at either a central accredited laboratory (standard arm) or with a rapid polymerase chain reaction test at an on-site accredited laboratory followed by standard testing [rapid on-site test (ROST) arm] based on day of specimen receipt at the laboratory. Patients and clinicians were blinded to assignment.

The primary outcome for ACH was inpatient length of stay (LOS) and for PLC was the proportion of inpatients prescribed oseltamivir.

Results

706 patient encounters were included at ACH; 322 assigned to ROST (181 inpatients) and 384 to the standard arm (194 inpatients). 422 patient encounters were included at PLC; 200 assigned to ROST (157 inpatients) and 222 to the standard arm (175 inpatients).

The rate of oseltamivir prescription and number of doses given was reduced in PLC inpatients negative for influenza in the ROST arm compared to standard arm [mean 14.9% (95% CI 9.87–21.9) vs. 27.5% (21.0–35.2), p = 0.0135; mean 2.85 doses (SEM 2.39–3.32) vs. 4.17 doses (3.85–4.49) p = 0.022, respectively]. ROST also significantly reduced oseltamivir use at ACH, reduced chest radiographs (ACH), and laboratory test ordering (PLC), but not antibiotic prescriptions. ROST also reduced the median turnaround time by > 24 h (ACH and PLC).

The LOS at ACH was not significantly different between the ROST and standard arms [median 4.05 days (SEM 1.79–18.2) vs 4.89 days (2.07–22.9), p = 0.062, respectively].

No adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

In a RCT representing implementation of ROST in an accredited laboratory system, we found that a ROST improved oseltamivir utilization and is the first RCT to show reduced ancillary testing in both paediatric and adult populations. A larger study is required to assess reduction in paediatric LOS as ACH was underpowered. These findings help justify the implementation of rapid on-site respiratory virus testing for inpatients.

Trial registration ISRCTN, number 10110119, Retrospectively Registered, 01/12/2021.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07796-3.

Evaluation of Four Fully Integrated Molecular Assays for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses during the Co-Circulation of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza and RSV

Background: The clinical presentation of viral respiratory infections is unspecific. We assessed the performances of two new RT-PCR, the Idylla™ SARS-CoV-2 and the Idylla™ SARS-CoV2/Flu/RSV, and two isothermal amplification assays, the ID NOW COVID and the ID NOW influenza A & B 2. Methods: The study was conducted in two parts: (i) the Idylla™ assays were assessed using a collection of nasopharyngeal swabs which were positive for various respiratory viruses. (ii) The performances of the four assays were assessed prospectively: all of the symptomatic patients admitted to the emergency department from 10 to 21 December were enrolled. Results: (i) All of the SARS-CoV-2 false negatives with the Idylla™ assays had a Ct value greater than 30 with the reference RT-PCR. No cross-reactivity was identified. (ii) Overall, 218 patients were enrolled. The respective prevalences of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and RSV were 19.8%, 4.8%, and 3.2%. All of the assays were 100% specific. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection was 97.7%, 82.5%, and 86.3% for the Idylla™ SARS-CoV2, the Idylla™ SARS-CoV2/Flu/RSV, and the ID NOW COVID-19, respectively. For influenza A, it was 90.0% for the Idylla™ SARS-CoV2/Flu/RSV and 80.0% for the ID NOW Influenza. Discussion. All of the assays are suitable for testing patients with respiratory symptoms. False negatives should be considered, and the test should be repeated regarding the context.

Impact of Fast SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Point-Of-Care Testing on Patients' Length of Stay in an Emergency Department

The ID NOW COVID-19 system (IDNOW) is a point-of-care test (POCT) providing results within 15 min. We evaluated the impact of IDNOW use on patient length of stay (LOS) in an emergency department (ED). In the ED of Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, France, adult patients requiring a rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were tested with Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 or FilmArray respiratory panel RP2 in the virology laboratory between 18 October and 3 November 2020 (period 1) and with IDNOW between 4 November and 30 November 2020 (period 2). A total of 676 patients participated in the study, 337 during period 1 and 339 during period 2. The median LOS in ED was significantly higher in period 1 than in period 2 (276 versus 208 min, P < 0.0001). More patients spent less than 4 h in the ED in period 2 (61.3%) than in period 1 (38.3%) (P < 0.0001). By univariate analysis, factors associated with ED LOS were hypertension, anosmia/ageusia, number of patients per day, and ID NOW implementation in period 2. By multivariate analysis, the period of testing remained significantly associated with ED LOS. Rapid molecular SARS-CoV-2 POCT was associated with a reduced LOS for patients admitted to an ED.

IMPORTANCE During COVID-19 pandemic upsurges, emergency departments had to deal with a massive flow of incoming patients. The need for COVID-19 infection status determination before medical ward admission worsened ED overcrowding. The development of molecular point-of-care testing gave new opportunities for getting faster results of SARS-CoV-2 genome detection 24 h a day. In our study, we show, with a multivariate analysis, that the use of the POCT COVID-19 IDNOW reduced the ED length of stay by 1 h. The rate of patients who waited less than 4 h in the ED increased significantly. Our study highlights the benefit of COVID-19 molecular POCT for preventing ED overcrowding and facilitating bed allocation and SARS-CoV-2-infected patient isolation.

Clinical and operational impact of rapid point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection in an emergency department

Study objective

Rapid point-of-care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 detection with Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 test has been implemented in our Emergency Department (ED) for several months. We aimed to evaluate the operational impact and potential benefits of this innovative clinical pathway.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, descriptive, interventional, non-randomized study, before-after trial with the comparison of patient cohorts from two consecutive periods of seven weeks (observational pre-POC period vs interventional POC period).

Results

In 2020, throughout weeks 37 to 50, 3333 patients were assessed for eligibility and among them 331 (9.9%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Among the included patients, 136 (9.2%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the pre-POC period and 195 (10.5%) in the POC period. Among positive patients for SARS-CoV-2 related infection in-hospital mortality rate was similar between the two groups but the hospitalization rate was higher in the POC group (81.6% vs. 65.4%; p < 0.001). More patients in the POC period were able to leave the ED within 6 h. We examined rates of antibiotic, anticoagulant, and corticosteroid prescriptions among patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the ED. Only the rate of prescribed anticoagulants was found to be higher in the POC period (40% vs. 24.2%; p < 0.003).

Conclusion

We demonstrated that COVID-19 point-of-care testing speeds up clinical decision-making, improving use of recommended treatments for COVID-19, such as anticoagulants. Moreover, it improves the boarding time and significantly shortened the length of stay in the ED for patients requiring outpatient care.

Prospective evaluation of ID NOW COVID-19 assay used as point-of-care test in an emergency department

BACKGROUND

Rapid testing for COVID-19 has been clearly identified as an essential component of the strategy to control the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, worldwide. The ID NOW COVID-19 assay is a simple, user-friendly, rapid molecular biology test based on nicking and extension amplification reaction (NEAR).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the ID NOW COVID-19 assay when used as a point-of-care test (POCT) in our Emergency Department (ED).

TYPE OF STUDY

This prospective study enrolled 395 consecutive patients; paired nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from each study participant. The first swab was tested with the ID NOW COVID-19 assay at the point-of-care by ED nurses. The second swab was diluted in viral transport medium (VTM) and sent to the clinical microbiology department for analysis by both the RT-PCR Simplexa test COVID-19 Direct assay as the study reference method, and the ID NOW COVID-19 assay performed in the laboratory.

RESULTS

Nasopharyngeal swabs directly tested with the ID NOW COVID-19 assay yielded a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 98.0%, 97.5%, 96.2% and 98.7%, respectively, in comparison with the RT-PCR study reference assay. When the ID NOW COVID-19 assay was performed in the laboratory using the VTM samples, the sensitivity decreased to 62.5% and the NPV to 79.7%. Three false negative test results were reported with the ID NOW COVID-19 assay when performed using undiluted swabs directly in the ED; these results were obtained from patients with elevated CT values (> 30).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that the ID NOW COVID-19 assay, performed as a point of care test in the ED using dry swabs, provides a rapid and reliable alternative to laboratory-based RT-PCR methods.

Point-of-Care Testing for the Emergency Department Patient: Quantity and Quality of the Available Evidence

CONTEXT.—

Point-of-care test (POCT) instruments produce lab results with rapid turnaround times. Based on that fact, emergency department (ED) POCT requests are predicated on the belief that rapid test turnaround times lead to improved care, typically a decreased ED length of stay (LOS).

OBJECTIVE.—

To compile the available peer-reviewed data regarding use of POCT in the ED with an emphasis on ED-LOS.

DATA SOURCES.—

An English-language PubMed search using the following free text terms: ("EMERGENCY" AND "POINT OF CARE") NOT ULTRASOUND as well as "RAPID INFECTIOUS DISEASE TESTING." In addition, the PubMed "similar articles" functionality was used to identify related articles that were not identified on the initial search.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Seventy-four references were identified that studied POCT ED use to determine if they resulted in significant changes in ED processes, especially ED-LOS. They were divided into 3 groups: viral-influenza (n = 24), viral-respiratory not otherwise specified (n = 8), and nonviral (n = 42). The nonviral group was further divided into the following groups: chemistry, cardiac, bacterial/strep, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, drugs of abuse, lactate, and pregnancy. Across all groups there was a trend toward a significantly decreased ED-LOS; however, a number of studies showed no change, and a third group was not assessed for ED-LOS. For POCT to improve ED-LOS it has to be integrated into existing ED processes such that a rapid test result will allow the patient to have a shorter LOS, whether it is to discharge or admission.

Point-of-care testing for influenza in a university emergency department: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza is a burden for emergency departments (ED). The aim of this study was to investigate whether point-of-care (POC) PCR testing can be used to reduce staff sick days and improve diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate whether point-of-care (POC) PCR testing can be used to reduce staff sick days and improve diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

METHODS

Using a cross-over design, the cobas® Liat® Influenza A/B POC PCR test (Liat) was compared with standard clinical practice during the 2019/2020 influenza season. All adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with fever (≥38°C) and respiratory symptoms were included. Primary end points were the prevalence of influenza infections in the ED and staff sick days. Secondary end points were frequency of antiviral and antibacterial therapy, time between admission and test result or treatment initiation, patient disposition, ED length of stay (LOS), and for inpatients mortality and LOS. Nurses were interviewed about handling and integration of POC testing. The occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infections coincided with the second half of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 828 patients were enrolled in the study. All 375 patients of the intervention group were tested with Liat, and 103 patients of them (27.6%) tested positive. During the intervention period, staff sick days were reduced by 34.4% (P = .023). Significantly, more patients in the intervention group received antiviral therapy with neuraminidase inhibitors (7.2% vs 3.8%, P = .028) and tested patients received antibiotics more frequently (40.0% vs 31.6%, P = .033). Patients with POC test were transferred to external hospitals significantly more often (5.6% vs 1.3%, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that POC testing for influenza is useful in the ED, especially if it is heavily frequented by patients with respiratory symptoms.

Clinical impact of a routine, molecular, point-of-care, test-and-treat strategy for influenza in adults admitted to hospital (FluPOC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of influenza in patients admitted to hospital is delayed due to long turnaround times with laboratory testing, leading to inappropriate and late antiviral treatment and isolation facility use. Molecular point-of-care tests (mPOCTs) are highly accurate, easy to use, and generate results in less than 1 h, but high-quality evidence for their effect on management and clinical outcomes is needed. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical impact of an mPOCT on influenza detection, antiviral use, infection control measures, and clinical outcomes in adults admitted to hospital with acute respiratory illness.

METHODS

In this multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial (FluPOC), we recruited adults admitted to hospital with acute respiratory illness during influenza seasons from two hospitals in Hampshire, UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, with acute respiratory illness of 10 days or fewer duration before admission to hospital, who were recruited within 16 h of admission to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using random permuted blocks of varying sizes (4, 6 and 8), to receive mPOCT for influenza or routine clinical care (control group). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients infected with influenza who were treated appropriately with antivirals (neuraminidase inhibitors) within 5 days of admission. Safety was assessed in all patients. Secondary outcomes included time to antivirals, isolation facility use, and clinical outcomes. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17197293, and is now complete.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 12, 2017, and May 3, 2019, over two influenza seasons, 613 patients were enrolled, of whom 307 were assigned to the mPOCT group and 306 to the control group, and all were analysed. Median age was 62 years (IQR 45-75) and 332 (54%) of 612 participants with data were female. 100 (33%) of 307 patients in the mPOCT group and 102 (33%) of 306 in the control group had influenza. 100 (100%) of 100 patients with influenza were diagnosed in the mPOCT group and 60 (59%) of 102 were diagnosed though routine clinical care in the control group (relative risk 1·7, 95% CI 1·7-1·7; p<0·0001). 99 (99%) of 100 patients with influenza in the mPOCT group were given antiviral treatment within 5 days of admission versus 63 (62%) 102 in the control group (relative risk 1·6, 95% CI 1·4-1·9; p<0·0001). Median time to antivirals was 1·0 h (IQR 0·0 to 2·0) in the mPOCT group versus 6·0 h (0·0 to 12·0) in the control group (difference of 5·0 h [95% CI 0·0-6·0; p=0·0039]). 70 (70%) of 100 patients with influenza in the mPOCT group were isolated to single-room accommodation versus 39 (38%) of 102 in the control group (relative risk 1·8 [95% CI 1·4-2·4; p<0·0001]). 19 adverse events occurred among patients with influenza in the mPOCT group compared with 34 events in the control group. No patients with influenza died in the mPOCT group and two (2%) died in the control group (p=0·16).

INTERPRETATION

Routine mPOCT for influenza was associated with improved influenza detection and improvements in appropriate and timely antiviral and isolation facility use. Routine mPOCT should replace laboratory-based diagnostics for acute admissions to hospital during the influenza season.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.

Rapid and accurate eXDR screening: use Xpert Carba-R® with FecalSwab®

The FecalSwab® displays high performances for stool culture, but it was not assessed for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) screening. We assess the performances of the Xpert Carba-R v2® with the FecalSwab®. Using a collection of 12 CPE strains, the limit of detection was assessed at 158 CFU/swab [interquartile range 93-589]. In 2019, 1540 swabs were included by 4 hospital laboratories, of which 39 (2.5%) yield an invalid result. Among the 1501 valid, 87 (5.8%) were positives by culture and PCR and 25 (1.7%) were discrepant: 7 PCR-negative culture-positive, and 18 PCR-positive culture-negative. Two PCR-positive culture-negative results involved non-Enterobacterales strains: a KPC-producing Acinetobacter baumannii and a KPC-producing Aeromonas spp. The overall percent agreement was 98.3% and the Kappa value was 0.88. FecalSwab® is an accurate sampling device for CPE screening. It allows performing all eXDR screening using a single swab, simplifying the sample collection, and improving the patient comfort. Regarding discrepant, we suggest combining a CPE screening by both culture and Xpert Carba-R v2® methods.

Targeted rapid testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the emergency department is associated with large reductions in uninfected patient exposure time

Opportunity exists to decrease healthcare-related exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), preserve infection control resources, and increase care capacity by reducing the time to diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A retrospective cohort analysis was undertaken to measure the effect of targeted rapid molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 on these outcomes. In comparison with standard platform testing, rapid testing was associated with a 65.6% reduction (12.6 h) in the median time to removal from the isolation cohort for patients with negative diagnostic results. This translated to an increase in COVID-19 treatment capacity of 3028 bed-hours and 7500 fewer patient interactions that required the use of personal protective equipment per week.

Impact of a 24/7 Rapid Molecular Assay for Influenza Detection on the Prescription of Oseltamivir

We assessed the impact of a rapid molecular assay for influenza detection whether outsourced or performed onsite 24/7 in a University Hospital in Paris, France. Shorter median time-to-results (16.8 vs 2.3 hours, P < .05) and an increased rate of adequate prescription of oseltamivir (76.6% vs 95.3%, P < .05) were observed.

Does location of rapid influenza diagnostic testing influence treatment time and ancillary testing in a paediatric emergency department?

OBJECTIVE

Influenza causes a significant burden of disease. Our aim was to assess whether location of rapid influenza diagnostic testing (RIDT) for patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) has an impact on ED treatment time or ancillary testing.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study in a tertiary paediatric ED during 2017 influenza season. All patients with ILI were included. Some had RIDT performed (ED bedside or at the laboratory). Primary outcome measure was the correlation of RIDT location to treatment time compared to patients with ILI with no RIDT. Secondary outcome measures were the correlation of RIDT location to ancillary testing and treatment with antibiotics.

RESULTS

A total of 1451 patients with ILI were included. Eighty patients for whom RIDT was performed at the laboratory had a shorter treatment time in the ED when compared to the 215 patients for whom RIDT was performed bedside (2.8 and 3.4 h, respectively; P < 0.0001). However, treatment time was not statistically different when sub-analysed for admitted and discharged patients separately. Overall, patients with ILI and no RIDT had the shortest treatment time in the ED (1.7 h). There was no difference in ancillary testing and treatment with antibiotics between ILI patients for whom RIDT was performed bedside or at the laboratory regardless of admission.

CONCLUSION

Location of RIDT may not have a significant impact on treatment time, ancillary testing and treatment with antibiotics. When RIDT was not performed, patients had the shortest treatment time.

Rapid influenza diagnostic test at triage can decrease emergency department length of stay

OBJECTIVE

Even if performing rapid influenza diagnostic tests test will not change clinical decision making, we sometimes perform at triage to reduce length of stay in Japan. Whether performing rapid influenza diagnostic tests at triage may shorten emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) is remains unclear. We aimed to determine the utility of rapid influenza diagnostic tests at triage in shortening ED length of stay LOS.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients discharged from our ED after receiving results from rapid influenza diagnostic tests during the influenza season from December, 2013 to March, 2019. Eligibility criteria were a walk-in visit, age ≥15 years, triage performed, rapid influenza diagnostic test administered, and no admission. The triage group received rapid influenza diagnostic tests at triage. The after-examination group received their tests only after examination by a doctor. The primary outcome was ED LOS after propensity score matching to adjust for several covariates.

RESULTS

Of 2,768 eligible patients, 2,554 patients were enrolled in the triage group (n = 363) or after examination group (n = 2,191). There were 329 matched pairs after propensity score matching. Median ED LOS was significantly shorter in the triage group than in the after-examination group after propensity score matching (81 min (interquartile range [IQR] 60 to 111) vs 106 min (IQR 80-142); median difference 24 min (95% confidence interval 17-30)).

CONCLUSIONS

Performing rapid influenza diagnostic tests at triage was associated with shorter ED LOS during the influenza season.

Multicenter evaluation of the QIAstat Respiratory Panel-A new rapid highly multiplexed PCR based assay for diagnosis of acute respiratory tract infections

Acute respiratory tract infections (ARTI), including the common cold, pharyngitis, sinusitis, otitis media, bronchiolitis and pneumonia are the most common diagnoses among patients seeking medical care in western countries, and account for most antibiotic prescriptions. While a confirmed and fast ARTI diagnosis is key for antibiotic prescribing, empiric antimicrobial treatment remains common, because viral symptoms are often clinically similar and difficult to distinguish from those caused by bacteria. As a result, inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions are high and in certain settings likely higher than the commonly estimated 30%. The QIAstat Respiratory Panel^® assay (QIAstat RP) is a multiplexed in vitro diagnostics test for the rapid simultaneous detection of 21 pathogens directly from respiratory samples, including human mastadenovirus A-G, primate bocaparvovirus 1+2, human coronavirus (HKU1, NL63, OC43, 229E), human metapneumovirus A/B, rhinovirus/enterovirus, influenza A virus (no subtype, subtype H1, H1N1/2009, H3), influenza B virus, human respirovirus 1+3, human orthorubulavirus 2+4, human orthopneumovirus, Bordetella pertussis, Chlamydia pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila. We describe the first multicenter study of 445 respiratory samples, collected through the 2016–2017 and 2018 respiratory seasons, with performance compared against BioFire FilmArray RP v1.7 and discrepancy testing by Seegene Allplex RP. The QIAstat RP demonstrated a positive percentage of agreement of 98.0% (95% CI: 96.0–99.1%) and a negative percentage agreement of 99.8% (95% CI: 99.6–99.9%). With use of this comprehensive and rapid test, improved patient outcomes and antimicrobial stewardship may potentially be achieved.

Factors affecting the discharge of patients from hospital with seasonal influenza-the role of the Rapid Influenza testing in hospital discharges

Influenza is a major cause of presentations to the emergency departments. Introduction of the Rapid Influenza tests has assisted with diagnosis and facilitated patient discharges. We designed this study to identify factors affecting hospital discharge and to understand the role of Rapid Influenza testing. A retrospective observational study of patients was done during influenza season in 2017. Clinical data was obtained from electronic medical records. Rapid Influenza testing was performed using Xpert Flu/RSV (Cepheid, USA). Univariate and multivariate analysis was done using SPSS Version 26 (IBM, NY). A total of 665 patients presented with laboratory-confirmed influenza. Patients discharged from the hospital were younger (median age 62 vs 68, p = 0.031). Patients with immunosuppression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pneumonia were more likely to be admitted to hospital. Rapid testing done with a turnaround (TAT) of 2 h (27.8% vs 17.8%, p = 0.002) and with a TAT of 6 h (55% vs 46.3%, p = 0.026) of the patient presentation was associated with a higher rate of hospital discharge. Median TAT of the RIT was 6 h (IQR 1-40 h). On multivariable analysis, RIT TAT of ≤ 2 h (OR 1.62, p = 0.013) was associated with higher likelihood of patients being discharged, whereas immunosuppressed patients (OR 2.25, p = 0.011), COPD (OR 2.42, p = 0.001) and pneumonia on presentation (OR 8.10, p < 0.001) were more likely to get admitted. Patients with COPD, pneumonia on presentation and those with immunosuppression are more likely to be admitted. Rapid Influenza tests can facilitate the discharge of patients from hospital.

Is there a clinical difference between influenza A and B virus infections in hospitalized patients? : Results after routine polymerase chain reaction point-of-care testing in the emergency room from 2017/2018

PURPOSE

The clinical presentation, complications and mortality in molecularly confirmed influenza A and B infections were analyzed.

METHODS

This retrospective observational single-centre study included all influenza positive patients older than 18 years who were hospitalized and treated at the flu isolation ward during 2017/2018. The diagnosis was based on point-of-care tests with the Alere^TM.

RESULTS

Of the 396 patients tested positive for influenza, 24.2% had influenza A and 75.8% influenza B. Influenza A patients were younger (median age 67.5 years vs. 77 years, p < 0.001), were more often smokers (27.7% vs. 16.8%, p = 0.021), had chronic pulmonary diseases more frequently (39.6% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.013), presented with a higher body temperature (38.6 °C vs. 38.3 °C, p = 0.004), leucocyte count (8 G/L vs. 6.8 G/L, p = 0.002), C‑reactive protein (CRP) level (41 mg/l vs. 23 mg/l, p < 0.001) and had dyspnea more often (41.7% vs. 28%, p = 0.012). Influenza B patients had an underlying chronic kidney disease in 37% vs. 18.8% (p < 0.001) and presented with vomiting on admission more frequently (21.7% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.027). Influenza A patients were admitted for 8 days vs. 7 days (p = 0.023). There were no differences in the rate of complications; however, 22 (5.6%) patients died during the hospital stay. The in-hospital mortality was higher in influenza A patients (8.3% vs 4.7%, p = 0.172).

CONCLUSION

Some differences were found between influenza A and B virus infections but symptoms were overlapping, which necessitates polymerase chain reaction point-of-care testing for accurate diagnosis. Influenza A was a more severe disease than influenza B during the period 2017/2018.

Influenza virus infection: an approach to identify predictors for in-hospital and 90-day mortality from patients in Vienna during the season 2017/18

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza outbreaks are associated with increased mortality and hospitalisation rates. Herein we tried to identify predictors of mortality in hospitalised patients with influenza virus infection.

MATERIALS/METHODS

In this exploratory retrospective observational single-centre-study we included all influenza-positive patients older than 18 years who were hospitalised and treated at the flu-isolation-ward during the influenza season 2017/18. Diagnosis was based on point-of-care-test with the Alere™ i. First we performed χ² tests and Mann-Whitney U tests to identify predictors of mortality. Significant variables were used in a stepwise-forward-logistic-regression-model to predict in-hospital and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 396 patients who tested positive for influenza 96 (24.2%) had influenza A and 300 (75.8%) influenza B. Twenty-two (5.6%) died in hospital and the 90-day mortality rate was 9.4%. In the stepwise logistic regression older age (OR 1.1 per year 95% CI 1.03-1.17), history of atrial fibrillation (OR 5.91 95% CI 1.91-18.34), dementia (OR 3.98 95% CI 1.24-12.78), leucocyte count (OR 1.11 per G/L 95% CI 1.03-1.20), pneumonia (OR 4.39 95% CI 1.44-13.39) and acute heart failure (OR 23.15 95% CI 4.33-123.76) increased the risk of in-hospital mortality. The risk for 90-day mortality was increased by older age (OR 1.04 per year 95% CI 1.01-1.07), history of atrial fibrillation (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.36-7.05), history of congestive heart failure (OR 4.7 95% CI 1.94-11.48), pneumonia (OR 3.2 95% CI 1.45-6.91) and decreased by statin use (OR 0.28 95% CI 0.10-0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Older age, history of atrial fibrillation and pneumonia are associated with increased risk of influenza-associated in-hospital and 90-day mortality. Statin use may decrease 90-day mortality.

Contribution of the FilmArray Respiratory Panel in the management of adult and pediatric patients attending the emergency room during 2015-2016 influenza epidemics: An interventional study

AIM

To evaluate the contribution of a multiplex PCR for respiratory viruses on antibiotic and antiviral prescription, ancillary test prescription, admission and length of stay of patients.

METHODS

Two hundred ninety-one adult and pediatric patients visiting the emergency department during the 2015-2016 influenza epidemic were prospectively included and immediately tested 24/7 using the FilmArray Respiratory Panel. The results were communicated to the practitioner in charge as soon as they became available. Clinical and biological data were gathered and analyzed.

FINDINGS

Results from the FilmArray Respiratory Panel do not appear to impact admission or antibiotic prescription, with the exception of a lower admission rate for children who tested positive for influenza B. Parameters that account for the clinical decisions evaluated are CRP level, white blood cell count, suspected or proven bacterial infection and, for adult patients only, signs of respiratory distress. Length of stay is also not significantly different between patients with a positive and a negative result. A rapid influenza test result permits a more appropriate prescription of oseltamivir.

Impact of Rapid On-demand Molecular Diagnosis of Pediatric Seasonal Influenza on Laboratory Workflow and Testing Costs: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza imposes a considerable burden worldwide. We aimed to evaluate impact of rapid pediatric seasonal influenza diagnosis on laboratory workflow and cost using a rapid antigen detection-based test combined with either a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or the Alere i Influenza A and B (Alere i) assay for confirmation of negative results as well as single Alere i testing on nasopharyngeal aspirates. A secondary objective was assessing performance of Alere i against RT-PCR.

METHODS

Effects of implementing the 3 diagnostic algorithms were assessed in the Emergency Department of Hospital Sant Joan de Déu (Barcelona, Spain) across the 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 influenza seasons. Alere i performance against RT-PCR was determined during the 2015-2016 epidemic period.

RESULTS

Median time to result decreased when using Alere i as a confirmatory test of previous antigen detection and RT-PCR results or alone (9.7vs. 3.5/2.0 and 0.7 hours, P < 0.001) along with mean testing costs (&OV0556;87.3 vs. &OV0556;38.2 and &OV0556;25.0, P < 0.001). Results available before patient discharge from the emergency department increased from 42.7% for sequential testing by antigen detection and RT-PCR to 80.0% when Alere i was utilized as a stand-alone test. Alere i sensitivity and specificity values were 96.6% (95% confidence interval: 82.8%-99.4%) and 94.4% (95% confidence interval: 86.6%-97.8%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid Alere i testing facilitated efficient laboratory workflow near the patient during influenza epidemics while contributing cost savings when compared with serial testing by antigen and RT-PCR assays.

Diagnostic accuracy of a rapid RT-PCR assay for point-of-care detection of influenza A/B virus at emergency department admission: A prospective evaluation during the 2017/2018 influenza season

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the performance of a rapid RT-PCR assay to detect influenza A/B at emergency department admission.

METHODS

This single-center prospective study recruited adult patients attending the emergency department for influenza-like illness. Triage nurses performed nasopharyngeal swab samples and ran rapid RT-PCR assays using a dedicated device (cobas Liat, Roche Diagnostics, Meylan, France) located at triage. The same swab sample was also analyzed in the department of virology using conventional RT-PCR techniques. Patients were included 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid RT-PCR assay performed at triage.

RESULTS

A total of 187 patients were included over 11 days in January 2018. Median age was 70 years (interquartile range 44 to 84) and 95 (51%) were male. Nine (5%) assays had to be repeated due to failure of the first assay. The sensitivity of the rapid RT-PCR assay performed at triage was 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-1.00) and the specificity was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.94-1.00). A total of 92 (49%) assays were performed at night-time or during the weekend. The median time from patient entry to rapid RT-PCR assay results was 46 [interquartile range 36-55] minutes.

CONCLUSION

Rapid RT-PCR assay performed by nurses at triage to detect influenza A/B is feasible and highly accurate.

Comparison of Six Sample-to-Answer Influenza A/B and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Nucleic Acid Amplification Assays Using Respiratory Specimens from Children

The rapid and accurate detection of influenza A virus (FluA), influenza B virus (FluB), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) improves patient care. Sample-to-answer (STA) platforms based on nucleic acid amplification and detection of these viruses are simple, automated, and accurate. We compared six such platforms for the detection of FluA, FluB, and RSV: Cepheid GeneXpert Xpress Flu/RSV (Xpert), Hologic Panther Fusion Flu A/B/RSV (Fusion), Cobas influenza A/B & RSV (Liat), Luminex Aries Flu A/B & RSV (Aries), BioFire FilmArray respiratory panel (RP), and Diasorin Simplexa Flu A/B & RSV (Simplexa). Nasopharyngeal (NP) swab specimens (n = 225) from children previously tested by RP were assessed on these platforms. The results were compared to those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-developed real-time reverse transcription-PCR (rRT-PCR) assay for influenza A/B viruses and RSV. Subtyping for FluA and FluB was performed for discrepant analysis where applicable. The percent sensitivities/specificities for FluA detection were 100/100 (Fusion), 98.6/99.3 (Xpert), 100/100 (Liat), 98.6/100 (Aries), 98.6/100 (Simplexa), and 100/100 (RP). The percent sensitivities/specificities for FluB detection were 100/100 (Fusion), 97.9/99.4 (Xpert), 97.9/98.3 (Liat), 93.7/99.4 (Aries), 85.4/99.4 (Simplexa), and 95.8/97.7 (RP); and those for RSV detection were 98.1/99.4 (Xpert), 98.1/99.4 (Liat), 96.3/100 (Fusion), 94.4/100 (Aries), 87/94.4 (Simplexa), and 94.4/100 (RP). The 75 strains confirmed to be FluA included 29 pH1N1, 39 H3N2, 4 sH1N1, and 3 untyped strains. The 48 strains confirmed to be FluB included 33 strains of the Yamagata lineage, 13 of the Victoria lineage, 1 of both the Yamagata and Victoria lineages, and 1 of an unknown lineage. All six STA platforms demonstrated >95% sensitivity for FluA detection, while three platforms (Fusion, Xpert, and Liat) demonstrated >95% sensitivity for FluB and RSV detection.

Systematic review of the impact of point-of-care testing for influenza on the outcomes of patients with acute respiratory tract infection

Acute respiratory tract infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality and represent a significant burden on the health care system. Laboratory testing is required to definitively distinguish infecting influenza virus from other pathogens, resulting in prolonged emergency department (ED) visits and unnecessary antibiotic use. Recently available rapid point-of-care tests (POCT) may allow for appropriate use of antiviral and antibiotic treatments and decrease patient lengths of stay. We undertook a systematic review to assess the effect of POCT for influenza on three outcomes: (1) antiviral prescription, (2) antibiotic prescription, and (3) patient length of stay in the ED. The databases Medline and Embase were searched using MeSH terms and keywords for influenza, POCT, antivirals, antibiotics, and length of stay. Amongst 245 studies screened, 30 were included. The majority of papers reporting on antiviral prescription found that a positive POCT result significantly increased use of antivirals for influenza compared with negative POCT results and standard supportive care. A positive POCT result also led to decreased antibiotic use. The results of studies assessing the effect of POCT on ED length of stay were not definitive. The studies assessed in this systematic review support the use of POCT for diagnosis of influenza in patients suffering an acute respiratory infection. Diagnosis using POCT may lead to more appropriate prescription of treatments for infectious agents. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of POCT on the length of stay in ED.

Profile of the Alere i Influenza A & B assay: a pioneering molecular point-of-care test

INTRODUCTION

The Alere i Influenza A & B assay incorporates the Nicking Enzyme Amplification Reaction technique on the Alere i instrument to detect and differentiate influenza virus (Flu) A and B nucleic acids in specific specimens. Areas covered: The Alere i Influenza A & B assay was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for use with nasal swabs (NS) and nasopharyngeal swabs, either directly or in viral transport medium. Notably, direct use on NS was the first ever CLIA-waived nucleic acid-based test. Previously published evaluations have reported sensitivities and specificities of 55.2-100% and 62.5-100% for Flu A and 45.2-100% and 53.6-100% for Flu B, respectively. Expert commentary: The Alere i Influenza A & B assay provides a rapid and simple platform for detection and differentiation of Flu A and B. Efforts are expected to further improve sensitivity and user-friendliness for effective and widespread use in the true point-of-care setting.