The effect of focused lung ultrasonography on antibiotic prescribing in patients with acute lower respiratory tract infections in Danish general practice: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (PLUS-FLUS).

BACKGROUND: The use of antibiotics is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance and is considered a major threat to global health. In Denmark, approximately 75% of antibiotic prescriptions are issued in general practice, with acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) being one of the most common indications. Adults who present to general practice with symptoms of acute LRTI often suffer from self-limiting viral infections. However, some patients have bacterial community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), a potential life-threatening infection, that requires immediate antibiotic treatment. Importantly, no single symptom or specific point-of-care test can be used to discriminate the various diagnoses, and diagnostic uncertainty often leads to (over)use of antibiotics. At present, general practitioners (GPs) lack tools to better identify those patients who will benefit from antibiotic treatment. The primary aim of the PLUS-FLUS trial is to determine whether adults who present with symptoms of an acute LRTI in general practice and who have FLUS performed in addition to usual care are treated less frequently with antibiotics than those who only receive usual care. METHODS: Adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to general practice with acute cough (< 21 days) and at least one other symptom of acute LRTI, where the GP suspects a bacterial CAP, will be invited to participate in this pragmatic randomized controlled trial. All participants will receive usual care. Subsequently, participants will be randomized to either the control group (usual care) or to an additional focused lung ultrasonography performed by the GP (+ FLUS). The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with antibiotics prescribed at the index consultation (day 0). Secondary outcomes include comparisons of the clinical course for participants in groups. DISCUSSION: We will examine whether adults who present with symptoms of acute LRTI in general practice, who have FLUS performed in addition to usual care, have antibiotics prescribed less frequently than those given usual care alone. It is highly important that a possible reduction in antibiotic prescriptions does not compromise patients' recovery or clinical course, which we will assess closely. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06210282. Registered on January 17, 2024.

Accuracy of lung ultrasonography in the hands of non-imaging specialists to diagnose and assess the severity of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review the published literature regarding adults with clinical suspicion of pneumonia that compares the accuracy of lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by non-imaging specialists to other reference standards in diagnosing and evaluating the severity of community-acquired pneumonia. Moreover, we aimed to describe LUS training and the speciality of the physician performing LUS, time spent on the LUS procedure and potential harms to patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until May 2019. We included studies that used LUS to diagnose pneumonia, but also confirmed pneumonia by other means. Publications were excluded if LUS was performed by a sonographer or radiologist (imaging specialists) or performed on other indications than suspicion of pneumonia. Two review authors screened and selected articles, extracted data and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. RESULTS: We included 17 studies. The sensitivity of LUS to diagnose pneumonia ranged from 0.68 to 1.00; however, in 14 studies, sensitivity was ≥0.91. Specificities varied from 0.57 to 1.00. We found no obvious differences between studies with low and high diagnostic accuracy. The non-imaging specialists were emergency physicians, internal medicine physicians, intensivists or 'speciality not described'. Five studies described LUS training, which varied from a 1-hour course to fully credentialed ultrasound education. In general, the methodological quality of studies was good, though, some studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: We found significant heterogeneity across studies. In the majority of studies, LUS in the hands of the non-imaging specialists demonstrated high sensitivities and specificities in diagnosing pneumonia. However, due to problems with methodology and heterogeneity there is a need for larger studies with uniform and clearly established criteria for diagnosis and blinding. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: Prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017057804).