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.

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.

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.

Influenza vaccination: protecting the most vulnerable.

Influenza virus infection causes seasonal epidemics and occasional pandemics, leading to huge morbidity and mortality worldwide. Vaccination against influenza is needed annually as protection from constantly mutating strains is required. Groups at high risk of poor outcomes include the elderly, the very young, pregnant women and those with chronic health conditions. However, vaccine effectiveness in the elderly is generally poor due to immunosenescence and may be altered due to "original antigenic sin". Strategies to overcome these challenges in the elderly include high-dose or adjuvant vaccines. Other options include vaccinating healthcare workers and children as this reduces community-level influenza transmission. Current guidelines in the UK are that young children receive a live attenuated nasal spray vaccine, adults aged >65 years receive an adjuvanted trivalent inactivated vaccine and adults aged <65 years with comorbidities receive a quadrivalent inactivated vaccine. The goal of a universal influenza vaccine targeting conserved regions of the virus and avoiding the need for annual vaccination is edging closer with early-phase trials under way.

SARS-CoV-2 viral load at presentation to hospital is independently associated with the risk of death.

Objectives Previous studies have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 viral load, measured on upper respiratory tract samples at presentation to hospital using PCR Cycle threshold (Ct) value, has prognostic utility. However, these studies have not comprehensively adjusted for factors known to be intimately related to viral load. We aimed to evaluate the association between Ct value at admission and patient outcome whilst adjusting carefully for covariates. Methods We evaluated the association between Ct value at presentation and the outcomes of ICU admission and death, in patients hospitalised during the first wave of the pandemic in Southampton, UK. We adjusted for covariates including age, duration of illness and antibody sero-status, measured by neutralisation assay. Results 185 patients were analysed, with a median [IQR] Ct value of 27.9 [22.6-32.1]. On univariate analysis the Ct value at presentation was associated with the risk of both ICU admission and death. In addition, Ct value significantly differed according to age, the duration of illness at presentation and antibody sero-status. On multivariate analysis, Ct value was independently associated with risk of death (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.96; p = 0.011) but not ICU admission (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.16; p = 0.507). Neutralising antibody status at presentation was not associated with mortality or ICU admission (aOR 10.62, 95% CI 0.47-889; p = 0.199 and aOR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10-2.00; p = 0.302, respectively). Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 Ct value on admission to hospital was independently associated with mortality, when comprehensively adjusting for other factors and could be used for risk stratification.