Molecular point-of-care testing for lower respiratory tract pathogens improves safe antibiotic de-escalation in patients with pneumonia in the ICU: Results of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatment of pneumonia requires timely administration of appropriate antimicrobials but standard diagnostic tests take around 48 h to generate results. Highly accurate, rapid molecular tests have been developed for identifying organisms in lower respiratory tract samples, however their impact on antibiotic use is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of syndromic molecular point-of-care testing compared to conventional diagnostic testing, on antibiotic use. METHODS: In this pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled critically ill adults with pneumonia. Patients were assigned (1:1) to molecular testing of samples at the point-of-care or routine clinical care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received results-directed antimicrobial therapy. RESULTS: 200 patients were randomly assigned to point-of-care testing (n = 100) or the control group (n = 100). 85 patients had community acquired pneumonia (42 in the mPOCT group and 43 in the control group), 69 hospital acquired pneumonia (30 in mPOCT and 39 in control) and 46 ventilator associated pneumonia (28 in mPOCT and 18 in control). The median [IQR] time to results was 1.7 [1.6-1.9] hours for point-of-care testing and 66.7 [56.7-88.5] hours for standard diagnostics (difference of -65.0 h, 95%CI -68.0 to -62.0; p < 0.0001). 71 (71%) patients in the point-of-care testing arm had pathogens detected compared to 51 (51%) in the control arm (difference of 20%, 95%CI 7 to 33; p = 0.004). 80 (80%) of patients in the point-of-care group received results-directed therapy, compared with 29 (29%) of 99 in the control group (difference of 51%, 95%CI 39-63; p < 0.0001). Time to results-directed therapy was 2.3 [1.8-7.2] hours in the mPOCT group and 46.1 [23.0-51.5] hours in the control group (difference of -43.8 h, 95% CI -48.9 to -38.6; p < 0.0001). 42 (42%) patients in mPOCT group had antibiotics de-escalated compared with 8 (8%) of 98 in the control group (difference of 34%, 95%CI 23-45; p < 0.0001). Time to de-escalation was 4.8 [2.4-13.0] hours in the mPOCT group compared with 46.5 [26.3-48.6] hours in the control group (difference of -41.4 h, 95%CI -53 to -29.7; p < 0.0001). There was no major difference in antibiotic duration or in clinical or safety outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of molecular point-of-care testing in patients with pneumonia returned results more rapidly and identified more pathogens than conventional testing. This was associated with improvements in appropriate antimicrobial use and appeared safe.

Clinical features and novel presentations of human monkeypox in a central London centre during the 2022 outbreak: descriptive case series.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the clinical features of monkeypox infection in humans. DESIGN: Descriptive case series. SETTING: A regional high consequences infectious disease centre with associated primary and secondary care referrals, and affiliated sexual health centres in south London between May and July 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 197 patients with polymerase chain reaction confirmed monkeypox infection. RESULTS: The median age of participants was 38 years. All 197 participants were men, and 196 identified as gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men. All presented with mucocutaneous lesions, most commonly on the genitals (n=111 participants, 56.3%) or in the perianal area (n=82, 41.6%). 170 (86.3%) participants reported systemic illness. The most common systemic symptoms were fever (n=122, 61.9%), lymphadenopathy (114, 57.9%), and myalgia (n=62, 31.5%). 102/166 (61.5%) developed systemic features before the onset of mucocutaneous manifestations and 64 (38.5%) after (n=4 unknown). 27 (13.7%) presented exclusively with mucocutaneous manifestations without systemic features. 71 (36.0%) reported rectal pain, 33 (16.8%) sore throat, and 31 (15.7%) penile oedema. 27 (13.7%) had oral lesions and 9 (4.6%) had tonsillar signs. 70/195 (35.9%) participants had concomitant HIV infection. 56 (31.5%) of those screened for sexually transmitted infections had a concomitant sexually transmitted infection. Overall, 20 (10.2%) participants were admitted to hospital for the management of symptoms, most commonly rectal pain and penile swelling. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the ongoing unprecedented community transmission of monkeypox virus among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men seen in the UK and many other non-endemic countries. A variable temporal association was observed between mucocutaneous and systemic features, suggesting a new clinical course to the disease. New clinical presentations of monkeypox infection were identified, including rectal pain and penile oedema. These presentations should be included in public health messaging to aid early diagnosis and reduce onward transmission.

Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

INTRODUCTION: RT-PCR has suboptimal sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. A composite reference standard comprising RT-PCR plus radiological and clinical features has been recommended for diagnostic accuracy studies. The FebriDx finger prick point-of-care test detects an antiviral host response protein (MxA) in 10 min. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx and RT-PCR compared to a composite reference standard. METHODS: Adults presenting to hospital with suspected COVID-19 were tested by FebriDx and RT-PCR. A composite reference standard was used to classify patients as having COVID-19 based on RT-PCR positivity, or RT-PCR negativity with COVID-19 radiological findings or other clinical criteria. Measures of accuracy were calculated for MxA alone, RT-PCR alone, and both combined. This study is registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN14966673) and has completed. RESULTS: A total of 478 patients were tested, with valid results in 475. Of these 475 patients, 222 (46.7%) were classified as having COVID-19; 192 (40.4%) were RT-PCR positive, and 30 (6.3%) were RT-PCR negative and diagnosed on radiological/clinical criteria. Sensitivity of FebriDx MxA vs the composite reference standard was 186/222 (83.8%, 95% CI 78.3-88.4) and was similar to the sensitivity of RT-PCR (192/222 (86.5%, 95% CI 81.3-90.7), (difference of 2.7%, 95% CI - 3.9 to 9.3, p = 0.42). The sensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR was 208/222 (93.7%) which was superior to both RT-PCR alone (difference of 9.9, 95% CI 4.1-15.9; p = 0.001) and FebriDx MxA alone (difference of 7.2, 95% CI 1.6-12.9; p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR testing was superior to each alone for the detection of COVID-19 in hospital and may improve infection control and treatment decisions.

Clinical impact of molecular point-of-care testing for suspected COVID-19 in hospital (COV-19POC): a prospective, interventional, non-randomised, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The management of the COVID-19 pandemic is hampered by long delays associated with centralised laboratory PCR testing. In hospitals, these delays lead to poor patient flow and nosocomial transmission. Rapid, accurate tests are therefore urgently needed in preparation for the next wave of the pandemic. METHODS: We did a prospective, interventional, non-randomised, controlled study of molecular point-of-care testing in patients aged 18 years or older presenting with suspected COVID-19 to the emergency department or other acute areas of Southampton General Hospital during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK. Nose and throat swab samples taken at admission from patients in the point-of-care testing group were tested with the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. Samples taken from patients in a contemporaneous control group were tested by laboratory PCR. The primary outcome was time to results in the full cohort. This study is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14966673) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between March 20 and April 29, 2020, 517 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 499 were recruited to the point-of-care testing group and tested by the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. 555 contemporaneously identified patients were included in the control group and tested by laboratory PCR. The two groups were similar with regard to the distribution of sex, age, and ethnicity. 197 (39%) patients in the point-of-care testing group and 155 (28%) in the control group tested positive for COVID-19 (difference 11·5% [95% CI 5·8-17·2], p=0·0001). Median time to results was 1·7 h (IQR 1·6-1·9) in the point-of-care testing group and 21·3 h (16·0-27·9) in the control group (difference 19·6 h [19·0-20·3], p<0·0001). A Cox proportional hazards regression model controlling for age, sex, time of presentation, and severity of illness also showed that time to results was significantly shorter in the point-of-care testing group than in the control group (hazard ratio 4023 [95% CI 545-29 696], p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Point-of-care testing is associated with large reductions in time to results and could lead to improvements in infection control measures and patient flow compared with centralised laboratory PCR testing. FUNDING: University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.

Clinical characteristics, symptoms and outcomes of 1054 adults presenting to hospital with suspected COVID-19: A comparison of patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection.

OBJECTIVES: Most reports describing the characteristics of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 lack a comparator group. We compared clinical characteristics, symptoms, and outcomes of adults presenting to hospital during the pandemic first wave, who tested positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Detailed patient data was obtained from a large, controlled, non-randomised trial of molecular point-of-care testing versus laboratory RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in adults presenting to a large UK hospital with suspected COVID-19. RESULTS: 1054 patients were included: 352 (33.4%) tested positive and 702 (66.6%) negative. 13.4% (47/352) COVID-19-positive patients had COPD versus 18.7% (131/702) of COVID-19-negative patients (difference=5.3% [95%CI -9.7% to -0.5%], p = 0.0297). 5.7% (20/352) of COVID-19-positive patients were smokers versus 16.5% (116/702) of negative patients (difference=-10.8% [-14.4% to -7.0%], p = 0.0001). 70.5% (248/352) of COVID-19-positive patients were White-British versus 85.5% (600/702) of negative patients (difference=-15.0% [-20.5% to -9.7%], p<0.0001). 20.9% (39/187) of COVID-19-positive patients were healthcare workers versus 5.2% (15/287) of negative patients (p<0.0001). Anosmia was reported in 33.1% (47/142) versus 8.8% (19/216) of COVID-19-positive and negative patients respectively (p<0.0001). Non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses or atypical bacteria were detected in 2.5% (5/197) of COVID-19 patients versus 7.9% (24/302) of COVID-19-negative patients (p = 0.0109). Hospitalisation duration and 30-day-mortality were higher in COVID-19 patients and invasive ventilation was more frequent (11.1% vs 2.8%, p<0.0001), and longer (14.5 vs 4.7 days, p = 0.0015). CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial differences between patients with and without COVID-19 in terms of ethnicity, healthcare worker-status, comorbidities, symptoms, and outcomes. These data can inform healthcare planning for the next phase of the pandemic.

Diagnostic accuracy of the FebriDx host response point-of-care test in patients hospitalised with suspected COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Management of the COVID-19 pandemic is hampered by long delays associated with centralised laboratory PCR testing. In hospitals this leads to poor patient flow and nosocomial transmission and so rapid, accurate diagnostic tests are urgently required. The FebriDx is a point-of-care test that detects an antiviral host response protein in finger prick blood within 10 min, but its accuracy for the identification of COVID-19 is unknown. METHODS: We performed a real-world diagnostic accuracy study of FebriDx in hospitalised patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated based on FebriDx results compared to the reference standard of SARS-CoV-2 PCR on combined nose and throat swabs. A multivariable predictive model including FebriDx, age, sex, and clinical characteristics was developed and underwent internal validation. RESULTS: FebriDx was performed on 251 patients and gave a valid result in 248. 118 of 248 (48%) were PCR positive for COVID-19. FebriDx results were available after 10 min compared with 1.7 (1.6 to 2.1) hours with point-of-care PCR testing and 23.4 (17.2 to 31.1) hours with laboratory PCR testing. Sensitivity of FebriDx for the identification of COVID-19 was 93% (110/118; 95% CI 87 to 97%) and specificity was 86% (112/130; 95%CI 79 to 92%). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.73 (95%CI 4.37 to 10.37) and 0.08 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.15) respectively. In the multivariate model age, sex and other clinical features did not contribute significantly to the effect of the FebriDx result in distinguishing patients with and without COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the pandemic, FebriDx had high accuracy for the identification of COVID-19 in hospitalised adults and could be deployed as a front door triage tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14966673.

Associations between Retinal Markers of Microvascular Disease and Cognitive Impairment in Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Case Control Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between retinal microvascular changes and cognitive impairment in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Case control study. SETTING: A primary care cohort with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: For this analysis, we compared 69 cases with lowest decile scores (for the cohort) on the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status and 68 controls randomly selected from the remainder of the cohort. Retinal images were rated and the following measures compared between cases and controls: retinal vessel calibre, arterio-venous ratio, retinal fractal dimension, and simple and curvature retinal vessel tortuosity. RESULTS: Total and venular (but not arteriolar) simple retinal vessel tortuosity levels were significantly higher in cases than controls (t = 2.45, p = 0.015; t = 2.53, p = 0.013 respectively). The associations persisted after adjustment for demographic factors, retinopathy, neuropathy, obesity and blood pressure. There were no other significant differences between cases and controls in retinal measures. CONCLUSIONS: A novel association was found between higher venular tortuosity and cognitive impairment in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. This might be accounted for by factors such as hypoxia, thrombus formation, increased vasoendothelial growth factor release and inflammation affecting both the visible retinal and the unobserved cerebral microvasculature.