Utility of the FebriDx point-of-care test for rapid triage and identification of possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is straining healthcare resources. Molecular testing turnaround time precludes having results at the point-of-care (POC) thereby exposing COVID-19/Non-COVID-19 patients while awaiting diagnosis. We evaluated the utility of a triage strategy including FebriDx, a 10-minute POC finger-stick blood test that differentiates viral from bacterial acute respiratory infection through detection of Myxovirus-resistance protein A (MxA) and C-reactive protein (CRP), to rapidly isolate viral cases requiring confirmatory testing. METHODS: This observational, prospective, single-center study enrolled patients presenting to/within an acute care hospital in England with suspected COVID-19 between March and April 2020. Immunocompetent patients ≥16 years requiring hospitalisation with pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome or influenza-like illness (fever and ≥1 respiratory symptom within 7 days of enrolment, or inpatients with new respiratory symptoms, fever of unknown cause or pre-existing respiratory condition worsening). The primary endpoint was diagnostic performance of FebriDx to identify COVID-19 as a viral infection; secondary endpoint was SARS-CoV-2 molecular test diagnostic performance compared with the reference standard COVID-19 Case Definition (molecular or antibody detection of SARS-CoV-2). RESULTS: Valid results were available for 47 patients. By reference standard, 35 had viral infections (34/35 COVID-19; 1/35 non-COVID-19; overall FebriDx viral sensitivity 97.1% (95%CI 83.3-99.9)). Of the COVID-19 cases, 34/34 were FebriDx viral positive (sensitivity 100%; 95%CI 87.4-100); 29/34 had an initial SARS-CoV-2 positive molecular test (sensitivity 85.3%; 95%CI 68.2-94.5). FebriDx was viral negative when the diagnosis was not COVID-19 and SARS-Cov-2 molecular test was negative (negative predictive value (NPV) 100% (13/13; 95%CI 71.7-100)) exceeding initial SARS-CoV-2 molecular test NPV 72.2% (13/19; 95%CI 46.4-89.3). The diagnostic specificity of FebriDx and initial SARS-CoV-2 molecular test was 100% (13/13; 95%CI 70-100 and 13/13; 95%CI 85.4-100, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: FebriDx could be deployed as part of a reliable triage strategy for identifying symptomatic cases as possible COVID-19 in the pandemic.

Outcomes of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in the Management of Patients with Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pneumonia who are not Suitable for Invasive Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: The optimum management of respiratory failure in patients with coronavirus (COVID-19) infections has been a challenge for physicians across the globe. Many scientific societies have suggested the use of CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) in severe cases in an effort to reduce invasive ventilation. We investigated mortality outcomes in patients who needed CPAP but were not suitable for invasive ventilation. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the mortality outcomes of all consecutive COVID-19 cases with severe type 1 respiratory failure requiring FiO2 >0.6 who were admitted to our hospital between 12th March and 04th May'20. British Thoracic Society guidelines were followed for identifying patients needing CPAP. Their outcomes were recorded and compared with a similar group of patients who had oxygen as a ceiling of care. Prospectively collected data between 5th May and 7th June'20 in similar but smaller groups of patients was also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 104 COVID-19 patients with documented Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) decision required high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) >0.6(to maintain peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2)> 92%(SpO2> 88% in COPD patients). Twenty-four patients received CPAP as the ceiling of care, with a mortality rate of 92.5%. The remaining 84 patients who were on oxygen as a ceiling of treatment had 91.7% mortality. Both population groups had a similar number of comorbidities but were less favorable in terms of age in the control group with standard O2 therapy than those who had CPAP support. Overall mortality outcomes from using CPAP therapy did not bring significant mortality benefit (p-value-0.89). CONCLUSION: CPAP did not appear to improve the survival of patients with severe respiratory failure due to COVID-19 related pneumonia and were not suitable for invasive ventilation. Further studies are warranted to adequately inform appropriate management strategies for this group of patients.