Use of the FebriDx® host-response point-of-care test may reduce antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections in primary care: a mixed-methods feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: FebriDx® is a CE-marked, single-use point-of-care test with markers for bacterial [C-reactive protein (CRP)] and viral [myxovirus resistance protein A (MxA)] infection, using finger-prick blood samples. Results are available after 10-12 min. We explored the usability and potential impact of FebriDx® in reducing antibiotic prescriptions for lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in primary care, and the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Patients (aged ≥1 year) with LRTI deemed likely to receive antibiotic prescription were recruited at nine general practices and underwent FebriDx® testing. Data collection included FebriDx® results, antibiotic prescribing plan (before and after testing) and re-consultation rates. Staff completed System Usability Scale questionnaires. RESULTS: From 31 January 2023 to 9 June 2023, 162 participants participated (median age 57 years), with a median symptom duration of 7 days (IQR 5-14). A valid FebriDx® result was obtained in 97% (157/162). Of 155 patients with available results, 103 (66%) had no detectable CRP or MxA, 28 (18%) had CRP only, 5 (3%) had MxA only, and 19 (12%) had both CRP and MxA. The clinicians' stated management plan was to prescribe antibiotics for 86% (134/155) before testing and 45% (69/155) after testing, meaning a 41% (95% CI: 31%, 51%) difference after testing, without evidence of increased re-consultation rates. Ease-of-use questionnaires showed 'good' user-friendliness. CONCLUSIONS: Use of FebriDx® to guide antibiotic prescribing for LRTI in primary care was associated with a substantial reduction in prescribing intentions. These results support a fully powered RCT to confirm its impact and safety.

Treatment of influenza with neuraminidase inhibitors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Seasonal and pandemic influenza are major causes of morbidity and mortality globally. Neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are the only class of antiviral agent recommended for the treatment of currently circulating strains of influenza. There has previously been controversy over the level of evidence for patient benefit with NAIs. We review here the current evidence base for the clinical impact of treatment of influenza with NAIs. RECENT FINDINGS: Meta-analysis of pharma-sponsored studies (including previously unpublished data) shows that NAIs reduce the duration of illness in influenza-infected patients, and suggest a possible reduction in the rate of complications and hospitalization. Meta-analysis of observational studies examining oseltamivir use during the H1N1 2009 pandemic, suggest a reduction in hospitalization rate in community-dwelling patients and a reduction in mortality in hospitalized adults treated with NAIs. Current NAI use in the community and hospitals varies widely but in general they are underutilized. SUMMARY: Although there has been controversy over the level of evidence for patient benefit, a growing body of evidence suggests that treatment of influenza with NAIs is associated with improved outcomes for both patients in the community and more severely unwell patients in hospital. Clinical outcomes are optimal with earlier use and strategies to improve early widespread NAI utilization are needed.

Antiviral treatment of severe non-influenza respiratory virus infection.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Non-influenza respiratory virus infections are a frequent cause of severe acute respiratory infections, especially in infants, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. We review here the current treatment options for non-influenza respiratory viruses and promising candidate antiviral agents currently in development. RECENT FINDINGS: Small molecule antiviral agents active against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), such as ALS-8176 and GS-5806, show considerable promise in challenge studies and are undergoing late-phase clinical trials in hospitalised adults and children. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) active against non-influenza respiratory viruses are broadly at a preclinical stage. Broad-spectrum antivirals, such as favipiravir and nitrazoxanide, have potential utility in treating illness caused by non-influenza respiratory viruses but further definitive clinical trials are needed. SUMMARY: Severe non-influenza respiratory virus infection is common and current treatment is largely supportive. Ribavirin is used in immunocompromised patients but its use is limited by toxicity and the evidence for its efficacy is weak. Effective antiviral treatment for RSV may shortly become available, pending the results of ongoing clinical trials. For other non-influenza viruses, effective treatments may become available in the medium term. Early detection of respiratory viruses with rapid molecular test platforms will be crucial in differentiating virus types and directing the prompt initiation of novel treatments when available.

Molecular point-of-care testing for respiratory viruses versus routine clinical care in adults with acute respiratory illness presenting to secondary care: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial protocol (ResPOC).

BACKGROUND: Respiratory viruses are associated with a huge socio-economic burden and are responsible for a large proportion of acute respiratory illness in hospitalised adults. Laboratory PCR is accurate but takes at least 24 h to generate a result to clinicians and antigen-based point-of-care tests (POCT) lack sensitivity. Rapid molecular platforms, such as the FilmArray Respiratory Panel, have equivalent diagnostic accuracy to laboratory PCR and can generate a result in 1 h making them deployable as POCT. Molecular point-of-care testing for respiratory viruses in hospital has the potential to improve the detection rate of respiratory viruses, improve the use of influenza antivirals and reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, but high quality randomised trials with clinically relevant endpoints are needed. METHODS: The ResPOC study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of molecular point-of-care testing for respiratory viruses in adults with acute respiratory illness presenting to a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Eligible participants are adults presenting with acute respiratory illness to the emergency department or the acute medicine unit. Participants are allocated 1:1 by internet-based randomisation service to either the intervention of a nose and throat swab analysed immediately on the FilmArray Respiratory Panel as a POCT or receive routine clinical care. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients treated with antibiotics. Secondary outcomes include turnaround time, virus detection, neuraminidase inhibitor use, length of hospital stay and side room use. Analysis of the primary outcome will be by intention-to-treat and all enrolled participants will be included in safety analysis. DISCUSSION: Multiple novel molecular POCT platforms for infections including respiratory viruses have been developed and licensed in the last few years and many more are in development but the evidence base for clinical benefit above standard practice is minimal. This randomised controlled trial aims to close this evidence gap by generating high quality evidence for the clinical impact of molecular POCT for respiratory viruses in secondary care and to act as an exemplar for future studies of molecular POCT for infections. This study has the potential to change practice and improve patient care for patients presenting to hospital with acute respiratory illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN90211642 , on 14th January 2015.

C-reactive protein level and microbial aetiology in patients hospitalised with acute exacerbation of COPD.

Both viruses and bacteria are thought to cause exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, the relative importance of each remains uncertain. C-reactive protein (CRP) levels increase during exacerbations but the relationship with aetiology is not established. We aimed to explore the relationship between serum CRP and the rate of detection of viruses and bacteria. This was a prospectively recruited, observational study of patients hospitalised with exacerbations of COPD. Nasopharyngeal swabs were tested for respiratory viruses by reverse transcriptase-PCR. Sputum and blood were collected for bacterial culture and urine tested for pneumococcal antigen. CRP levels were measured on sera. CRP and other factors associated with viral, bacterial or mixed detection were assessed using multiple logistic regression analysis. 264 patients with exacerbations of COPD were studied: 26% tested positive for respiratory viruses only, 13% had bacteria only, 12% had mixed viral/bacterial detection, and 49% had no pathogens detected. CRP level and temperature were strongly associated with viral detection rate (p<0.001 and p=0.004, respectively) and mixed viral/bacterial detection rate (p=0.02 and p=0.03, respectively) on multivariate analysis. Bacterial detection rate was not associated with CRP level or body temperature. This study supports the role of viruses as important aetiological agents causing exacerbations of COPD.

Emergency Department point-of-care antiviral host response testing is accurate during periods of multiple respiratory virus co-circulation.

OBJECTIVES: FebriDx is a CE-marked, FDA-approved point-of-care test that detects the antiviral host response protein Myxovirus Resistance Protein A (MxA), in addition to C-reactive protein, using finger-prick blood. FebriDx MxA detection had a high negative predictive value for COVID-19 in symptomatic adults presenting to hospital in the first waves of the pandemic and was used subsequently as a 'rule out' triage tool in Emergency departments. The diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx MxA in the current context of co-circulation of influenza, SARS-CoV-2, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), and in the era of COVID-19 vaccination, is unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the diagnostic performance of FebriDx MxA in adults with acute respiratory symptoms presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) of a large UK teaching hospital using Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard (Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV). RESULTS: Between March 9th 2022 and March 8th 2023, 5426 patients had both FebriDx and RT-PCR testing with valid results. 999 (18.4%) of patients had influenza detected, 520 (9.6%) SARS-CoV-2, and 190 (3.5%) RSV. Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of MxA detection by FebriDx was 97.5% (96.9-98.0) for influenza, 97.1% (96.4-97.7) for SARS-CoV-2, 98.1% (97.5-98.6) for RSV, and 92.8% (91.8-93.7) for all viruses combined. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic adults, FebriDx MxA had a high NPV for influenza and RSV, and retained a high NPV for SARS-CoV-2, in the context of virus co-circulation and widespread COVID-19 vaccination. FebriDx continues to be a useful 'rule out' triage tool in the ED and could potentially be scaled to provide a national triage solution for future viral pandemics.

Use of the FebriDx® point-of-care-test for lower respiratory tract infections in primary care: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: FebriDx® is a single-use, analyser-free, point-of-care test with markers for bacterial (C-reactive protein [CRP]) and viral (myxovirus resistance protein A [MxA]) infection, measured on a finger-prick blood sample. AIM: As part of a larger feasibility study, we explored the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on the use of FebriDx® to safely reduce antibiotic prescriptions for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Remote semi-structured qualitative interviews METHOD: 22 participants (12 patients who underwent FebriDx® testing and 10 HCPs from general practices who conducted testing) participated in interviews which were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Patients' and HCPs' express positive views about use of the test. They felt FebriDx was a useful tool to inform prescribing decisions and provided a visual aid to support shared decision-making and appropriate antibiotic use. Most felt it would be feasible to integrate use into routine primary care consultations. Some practical difficulties with blood collection and interpreting results which impacted on usability were identified. Some patients' reactions to negative test results suggested the need for better communication alongside use of the test. CONCLUSION: FebriDx® was perceived as a useful tool to guide antibiotic prescribing and support shared decision making. Initial practical problems with testing and communicating results are potential barriers to use. Training and practice on using the test and effective communication are likely to be important elements in ensuring patient understanding and satisfaction and successful adoption.

Diagnostic Stewardship in Community-Acquired Pneumonia With Syndromic Molecular Testing: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lower respiratory tract (LRT) infections, including community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), are a leading cause of hospital admissions and mortality. Molecular tests have the potential to optimize treatment decisions and management of CAP, but limited evidence exists to support their routine use. Objective: To determine whether the judicious use of a syndromic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based panel for rapid testing of CAP in the emergency department (ED) leads to faster, more accurate microbiological test result-based treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel-arm, single-blinded, single-center, randomized clinical superiority trial was conducted between September 25, 2020, and June 21, 2022, in the ED of Haukeland University Hospital, a large tertiary care hospital in Bergen, Norway. Adult patients who presented to the ED with suspected CAP were recruited. Participants were randomized 1:1 to either the intervention arm or standard-of-care arm. The primary outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Intervention: Patients randomized to the intervention arm received rapid syndromic PCR testing (BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia plus Panel; bioMérieux) of LRT samples and standard of care. Patients randomized to the standard-of-care arm received standard microbiological diagnostics alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 primary outcomes were the provision of pathogen-directed treatment based on a microbiological test result and the time to provision of pathogen-directed treatment (within 48 hours after randomization). Results: There were 374 patients (221 males [59.1%]; median (IQR) age, 72 [60-79] years) included in the trial, with 187 in each treatment arm. Analysis of primary outcomes showed that 66 patients (35.3%) in the intervention arm and 25 (13.4%) in the standard-of-care arm received pathogen-directed treatment, corresponding to a reduction in absolute risk of 21.9 (95% CI, 13.5-30.3) percentage points and an odds ratio for the intervention arm of 3.53 (95% CI, 2.13-6.02; P < .001). The median (IQR) time to provision of pathogen-directed treatment within 48 hours was 34.5 (31.6-37.3) hours in the intervention arm and 43.8 (42.0-45.6) hours in the standard-of-care arm (mean difference, -9.4 hours; 95% CI, -12.7 to -6.0 hours; P < .001). The corresponding hazard ratio for intervention compared with standard of care was 3.08 (95% CI, 1.95-4.89). Findings remained significant after adjustment for season. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this randomized clinical trial indicated that routine deployment of PCR testing for LRT pathogens led to faster and more targeted microbial treatment for patients with suspected CAP. Rapid molecular testing could complement or replace selected standard, time-consuming, laboratory-based diagnostics. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660084.

Clinical Outcomes of Rapid Respiratory Virus Testing in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Rapid tests for respiratory viruses, including multiplex panels, are increasingly available in emergency departments (EDs). Their association with patient outcomes remains unclear. Objective: To determine if ED rapid respiratory virus testing in patients with suspected acute respiratory infection (ARI) was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, and ED return visits and hospitalization and increased influenza antiviral treatment. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science from 1985 to November 14, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of patients of any age with ARI in an ED. The primary intervention was rapid viral testing. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers (T.S. and K.W.) extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias, version 2.0. Estimates were pooled using random-effects models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework. Main Outcomes and Measures: Antibiotic use and secondary outcomes were pooled separately as risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates with 95% CIs. Results: Of 7157 studies identified, 11 (0.2%; n = 6068 patients) were included in pooled analyses. Routine rapid viral testing was not associated with antibiotic use (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05; high certainty) but was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.75; moderate certainty) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.98; moderate certainty) and blood tests (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97; moderate certainty). There was no association with urine testing (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.17; low certainty), ED length of stay (0 hours; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.16; moderate certainty), return visits (RR, 0.93; 95%, CI 0.79-1.08; moderate certainty) or hospitalization (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95-1.08; high certainty). Adults represented 963 participants (16%). There was no association of viral testing with antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup by age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that there are limited benefits of routine viral testing in EDs for patients with ARI. Further studies in adults, especially those with high-risk conditions, are warranted.

Routine, molecular point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses within an acute oncology service improves patient care.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 has caused significant challenges for infection prevention measures and patient flow in hospital admission pathways. We aimed to assess the impact of replacing laboratory PCR with molecular point-of-care testing (mPOCT) for respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2, within an Acute Oncology Service (AOS). METHODS: This pre- and post-implementation study took place in the AOS of a large teaching hospital, in Southampton, UK. We collected data from two periods: November 25th, 2019 to November 24th, 2020, when respiratory virus testing utilised laboratory PCR, and December 1st, 2020 to May 31st, 2021 following the introduction of mPOCT. The primary outcome was the time to results. RESULTS: 2189 patients were tested in the pre-implementation period and 1540 in the post implementation period. Median (IQR) time to results was 5.8 h (4.2-10.6) pre-implementation and 1.9 h (1.5-3.0) post-implementation (difference -3.6 h [95%CI to -3.8 to -3.5]; p < 0.0001). Median time spent in assessment areas was 6.0 h (4.1-7.9) pre-implementation and 5.5 h (3.8-7.4) post-implementation (p < 0.0001). 20 (0.9%) patients admitted via AOS assessment unit developed hospital-acquired respiratory virus infection pre-implementation versus 0 (0%) post-implementation (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Routine mPOCT for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, was associated with a reduced time to results, reduced time in assessment areas, and a reduction in the rates of hospital-acquired respiratory virus infection in an acute oncology assessment unit.

Rapid multiplex PCR for respiratory viruses reduces time to result and improves clinical care: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical impact of rapid sample-to-answer "syndromic" multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for respiratory viruses is not clearly established. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate this impact for patients with possible acute respiratory tract infection in the hospital setting. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases from 2012 to present and conference proceedings from 2021 for studies comparing clinical impact outcomes between multiplex PCR testing and standard testing. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies with 17,321 patient encounters were included in this review. Rapid multiplex PCR testing was associated with a reduction of - 24.22 h (95% CI -28.70 to -19.74 h) in the time to results. Hospital length of stay was decreased by -0.82 days (95% CI -1.52 to -0.11 days). Among influenza positive patients, antivirals were more likely to be given (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06-1.48) and appropriate infection control facility use was more common with rapid multiplex PCR testing (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.16-2.07). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates a reduction in time to results and length of stay for patients overall along with improvements in appropriate antiviral and infection control management among influenza-positive patients. This evidence supports the routine use of rapid sample-to-answer multiplex PCR testing for respiratory viruses in the hospital setting.

Clinical impact of syndromic molecular point-of-care testing for gastrointestinal pathogens in adults hospitalised with suspected gastroenteritis (GastroPOC): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-occupancy isolation rooms are a finite resource in UK hospitals but are crucial in preventing transmission of infection. Patients with suspected gastroenteritis are nursed in single-occupancy rooms, but delays in laboratory testing lead to non-infectious patients remaining isolated for prolonged periods unnecessarily. Rapid molecular test panels for gastrointestinal pathogens have a run time of around 1 h but their clinical impact is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of syndromic molecular point-of-care testing (mPOCT) for gastrointestinal pathogens in adult patients presenting to hospital with suspected gastroenteritis on single-occupancy room use and a range of other outcome measures. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled adults hospitalised with suspected gastroenteritis in a large UK hospital. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive syndromic mPOCT of stool or rectal samples, or to routine clinical care (control) with laboratory testing. The primary outcome was the duration of time in single-occupancy rooms assessed on a modified intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes included the time to results, time to de-isolation, antibiotic use, and safety outcomes. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN88918395, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2017 and March 17, 2020, from 455 patients assessed for eligibility, we enrolled 278 patients, 138 assigned to mPOCT (one withdrawal) and 140 to the control group. The duration (geometric mean) of single-occupancy room isolation was 1·8 days (95% CI 1·5-2·2) in the mPOCT group compared with 2·6 days (2·2-3·0) in the control group (exponentiated coefficient 0·70 [95% CI 0·56 to 0·87]; p=0·0017). The median (IQR) time to results was 1·7 h (1·5-2·0) for mPOCT and 44·7 h (21·2-66·1) for the control group (p<0·0001). Time to de-isolation was 0·6 days (0·3-1·8) in the mPOCT group compared with 2·2 days (1·2-3·2) in the control group, (p<0·0001). Antibiotics were given in 89 (65%) of 137 in the mPOCT group and 66 (47%) of 140 in the control group (p=0·0028). There were no differences between groups in length of hospital stay, or in safety outcomes including mortality, intensive care unit admission, or readmission to hospital. INTERPRETATION: mPOCT for gastrointestinal pathogens in patients with suspected gastroenteritis returned results more rapidly than conventional testing and was associated with a reduction in single-occupancy room use. However, these benefits need to be balanced against a potential increase in antibiotic use. FUNDING: University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.

Trial of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) monovalent MF59-adjuvanted vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus has emerged to cause the first pandemic of the 21st century. Development of effective vaccines is a public health priority. METHODS: We conducted a single-center study, involving 176 adults, 18 to 50 years of age, to test the monovalent influenza A/California/2009 (H1N1) surface-antigen vaccine, in both MF59-adjuvanted and nonadjuvanted forms. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive two intramuscular injections of vaccine containing 7.5 microg of hemagglutinin on day 0 in each arm or one injection on day 0 and the other on day 7, 14, or 21; or two 3.75-microg doses of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine, or 7.5 or 15 microg of nonadjuvanted vaccine, administered 21 days apart. Antibody responses were measured by means of hemagglutination-inhibition assay and a microneutralization assay on days 0, 14, 21, and 42 after injection of the first dose. RESULTS: The most frequent local and systemic reactions were pain at the injection site and muscle aches, noted in 70% and 42% of subjects, respectively; reactions were more common with the MF59-adjuvanted vaccine than with nonadjuvanted vaccine. Three subjects reported fever, with a temperature of 38 degrees C or higher, after either dose. Antibody titers, expressed as geometric means, were higher at day 21 among subjects who had received one dose of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine than among those who had received one dose of nonadjuvanted vaccine (P<0.001 by the microneutralization assay). By day 21, hemagglutination-inhibition and microneutralization antibody titers of 1:40 or more were seen in 77 to 96% and 92 to 100% of subjects receiving MF59-adjuvanted vaccine, respectively, and in 63 to 72% and 67 to 76% of those receiving nonadjuvanted vaccine, respectively. By day 42, after two doses of vaccine, hemagglutination-inhibition and microneutralization antibody titers of 1:40 or more were seen in 92 to 100% and 100% of recipients of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine, respectively, and in 74 to 79% and 78 to 83% of recipients of nonadjuvanted vaccine, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Monovalent 2009 influenza A (H1N1) MF59-adjuvanted vaccine generates antibody responses likely to be associated with protection after a single dose is administered. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00943358).

Routine molecular point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 reduces hospital-acquired COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 (HA-COVID-19) infection is increased by cohorting infected and non-infected patients together in assessment areas, whist awaiting laboratory PCR results. Molecular point-of-care tests (mPOCT) reduce time to results and improve patient flow but the impact on HA-COVID-19 is unknown. METHODS: In this pre and post implementation study patients were evaluated across two time periods: March 1st to August 13th 2020, prior to the introduction of mPOCT in medical admissions areas, and 14th August 2020 to 1st April 2021, after mPOCT introduction. The primary outcome was proportion of HA-COVID-19 infection among all COVID-19 positive patients. Secondary outcome measures included time to SARS-CoV-2 results, length of time spent in the medical assessment area and comparison of local, regional and national proportions of HA-COVID-19. RESULTS: 1988 patients were admitted through the acute medicine admission cohorting area and tested for SARS-CoV-2 prior to introducing mPOCT and 4640 afterwards. Median (IQR) time to SARS-CoV-2 result was 6.5 (2.1-17.9) hours prior to introducing mPOCT and 1.0 (0.8-1.3) hours afterwards (p < 0.0001). Median (IQR) duration in the assessment cohort area was 12.0 (4.8-20.6) hours prior to introduction of POCT and 3.2 (2.0-5.6) hours afterwards (p < 0.0001). The proportion of hospital-acquired COVID-19 cases was 108 (16.5%) of 654 prior to introducing mPOCT compared with 168 (9.4%) of 1782 afterwards, (HR 0.55, 95%CI 0.43-0.70; p < 0.0001). In the period following the introduction of mPOCT up to 1st April 2021 the median proportion of HA-COVID-19 was 13.6% (95%CI 8.2-18.9%) locally, compared with 43.8% (95%CI 37.8-49.9%) for all acute NHS trusts regionally and 30.9% (95%CI 28.4-33.5%) for all NHS trusts nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Routine mPOCT for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with reduced time to results, time spent in admission cohort areas, and hospital-acquired COVID-19, compared to laboratory PCR.

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.

FebriDx host response point-of-care testing improves patient triage for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Patients presenting to hospital with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), based on clinical symptoms, are routinely placed in a cohort together until polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results are available. This procedure leads to delays in transfers to definitive areas and high nosocomial transmission rates. FebriDx is a finger-prick point-of-care test (PoCT) that detects an antiviral host response and has a high negative predictive value for COVID-19. We sought to determine the clinical impact of using FebriDx for COVID-19 triage in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: We undertook a retrospective observational study evaluating the real-world clinical impact of FebriDx as part of an ED COVID-19 triage algorithm. SETTING: Emergency department of a university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, placed in a cohort in a 'high-risk' area, were tested using FebriDx. Patients without a detectable antiviral host response were then moved to a lower-risk area. RESULTS: Between September 22, 2020, and January 7, 2021, 1,321 patients were tested using FebriDx, and 1,104 (84%) did not have a detectable antiviral host response. Among 1,104 patients, 865 (78%) were moved to a lower-risk area within the ED. The median times spent in a high-risk area were 52 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 34-92) for FebriDx-negative patients and 203 minutes (IQR, 142-255) for FebriDx-positive patients (difference of -134 minutes; 95% CI, -144 to -122; P < .0001). The negative predictive value of FebriDx for the identification of COVID-19 was 96% (661 of 690; 95% CI, 94%-97%). CONCLUSIONS: FebriDx improved the triage of patients with suspected COVID-19 and reduced the time that severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR-negative patients spent in a high-risk area alongside SARS-CoV-2-positive patients.