Contribution of systematic RT-PCR screening for influenza during the epidemic season

Management of seasonal influenza by family physicians

INTRODUCTION

Seasonal influenza is responsible for approximately 2.5 million consultations with the family physician (FP) per year in France. We performed this study with FPs to assess whether their practice complied with French guidelines.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Descriptive survey carried out from June to August 2018 using a questionnaire sent electronically to 1,140 Alsatian FPs.

RESULTS

A total of 121 FPs responded to the questionnaire (10.6%). The main clinical symptoms that FPs believed to be the most reliable to diagnose influenza were fever (95%) and arthromyalgia (76.9%), well ahead of cough (27.3%). Overall, 23.1% of FPs declared that they occasionally used microbiological confirmation; 80.2% of FPs performed hand hygiene once per consultation but 95.9% did not wear surgical masks when managing patients with influenza and only 53.7% wore them when they themselves presented with influenza-like symptoms. Hand sanitizers, masks, or tissues were made available to patients in 35.5%, 19.8%, and 30.6%, respectively. Overall, 77.7% of participating physicians were vaccinated against influenza. Influenza vaccination was widely offered to high-risk patients, but some groups were insufficiently vaccinated: obese patients (32.2%) and pregnant women (47.9%). Overall, 48.8% of physicians never prescribed oseltamivir at a curative dose and 72.7% never prescribed it at a preventive dose; 86.8% of physicians prescribed at least one non-recommended symptomatic treatment including an NSAID (24.8%) or aspirin (12.4%).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed several mismatches with guidelines and suggested potential corrective actions.

Positive Impact of a Point-of-Care Molecular Influenza Test in the Emergency Department During the 2017-2018 Seasonal Influenza Epidemic

During the 2017-2018 flu epidemic, the point-of-care Alere-i (n = 72) and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (n = 106) tests were compared. Patients in the point-of-care group were administered oseltamivir significantly more rapidly (9 hours vs 23 hours), they spent less time in the emergency department, and they had lower rates of antibiotic administration and hospitalization.

Analysis of delays in the prescription of oseltamivir in hospitals and potential for improvement

OBJECTIVES

Patients hospitalized for influenza should receive early treatment with a neuraminidase inhibitor.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of the prescription of oseltamivir during the 2016-2017 influenza epidemic among patients hospitalized for influenza confirmed by RT-PCR in the infectious disease department.

RESULTS

Treatment with oseltamivir was initiated as recommended in 96% of hospitalized patients presenting with influenza. However, a delay in prescription was observed with only 18% of prescriptions made on the first day. The prescriptions were exclusively initiated in the infectious disease department.

CONCLUSION

To improve the early prescription of oseltamivir during the influenza season, two recommendations are essential: oseltamivir availability in the emergency department pharmacy, awareness of physicians of the need to prescribe to any patient hospitalized for a lower respiratory tract infection treatment with a neuraminidase inhibitor upon admission to the emergency department.

Predictors of Influenza Diagnosis Among Patients With Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to determine predictors of clinical influenza diagnosis among patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza.

METHODS

Prospective, laboratory-confirmed surveillance for influenza was conducted among patients of all ages who were hospitalized or presented to the emergency department with fever and respiratory symptoms during 2009-2013. We evaluated all enrolled persons who had influenza confirmed by viral culture and/or polymerase chain reaction and received any discharge diagnosis. The primary outcome, clinical influenza diagnosis, was defined as (1) a discharge diagnosis of influenza, (2) a prescription of neuraminidase inhibitor, or (3) a rapid test positive for influenza virus. Bivariate analyses and multiple logistic regression modeling were performed.

RESULTS

Influenza was diagnosed for 29% of 504 enrolled patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza and for 56% of 236 patients with high-risk conditions. Overall, clinical influenza diagnosis was predicted by race/ethnicity, insurance status, year, being hospitalized, having high-risk conditions, and receiving no diagnosis of bacterial infection. Being diagnosed with a bacterial infection reduced the odds of receiving an influenza diagnosis by >3-fold for all patients and for patients with high-risk conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Many influenza virus-positive patients, including those with high-risk conditions, do not receive a clinical diagnosis of influenza. The pattern of clinical diagnoses among influenza virus-positive patients suggests preferential consideration of bacterial diseases as a diagnosis.