The Diagnostic Accuracy of Procalcitonin, Soluble Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator Receptors, and C-Reactive Protein in Diagnosing Urinary Tract Infections in the Emergency Department-A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

Background: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a leading bacterial infection in the emergency department (ED). Diagnosing UTIs in the ED can be challenging due to the heterogeneous presentation; therefore, fast and precise tests are needed. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic precision of procalcitonin (PCT), soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptors (suPARs), and C-reactive protein (CRP) in diagnosing UTIs, grading the severity of UTIs, and ruling out bacteremia. Methods: We recruited adults admitted to three Danish EDs with suspected UTIs. PCT, suPAR, and CRP were used in index tests, while blood cultures, expert panel diagnosis, and severity grading were used in the reference tests. Logistic regression and area under the receiver operator characteristic curves (AUROCs) were utilized to evaluate the models and determine the optimal cut-offs. Results: We enrolled 229 patients. PCT diagnosed UTI with an AUROC of 0.612, detected severe disease with an AUROC of 0.712, and ruled out bacteremia with an AUROC of 0.777. SuPAR had AUROCs of 0.480, 0.638, and 0.605, while CRP had AUROCs of 0.599, 0.778, and 0.646. Conclusions: The diagnostic performance of PCT, suPAR, or CRP for UTIs or to rule out severe disease was poor. However, PCT can safely rule out bacteremia in clinically relevant numbers in ED patients suspected of UTI.

Urine Flow Cytometry and Dipstick Analysis in Diagnosing Bacteriuria and Urinary Tract Infections among Adults in the Emergency Department-A Diagnostic Accuracy Trial.

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a leading infectious cause of emergency department admission. Early UTI diagnosis is challenging, and a faster, preferably point-of-care urine analysis is necessary. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of urine flow cytometry (UFC) and urine dipstick analysis (UDA) in identifying bacteriuria and UTIs. This study included adults suspected of an infection admitted to three Danish emergency departments. UFC and UDA were the index tests, and urine culture and an expert panel diagnosis were the reference tests. We used logistic regression and receiver operator characteristics curves to find each test's optimal model and cut-off. We enrolled 966 patients and performed urine cultures on 786. Urine culture was positive in 337, and 200 patients were diagnosed with a UTI. The UFC model ruled out bacteriuria in 10.9% with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.6% and ruled out UTI in 38.6% with an NPV of 97.0%. UDA ruled out bacteriuria in 52.1% with an NPV of 79.2% and UTI in 52.8% with an NPV of 93.9%. Neither UFC nor UDA performed well in ruling out bacteriuria in our population. In contrast, both tests ruled out UTI safely and in clinically relevant numbers.

Evaluation of point-of-care multiplex polymerase chain reaction in guiding antibiotic treatment of patients acutely admitted with suspected community-acquired pneumonia in Denmark: A multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rapid and accurate detection of pathogens is needed in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) to enable appropriate antibiotics and to slow the development of antibiotic resistance. We aimed to compare the effect of point-of-care (POC) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) detection of respiratory pathogens added to standard care with standard care only (SCO) on antibiotic prescriptions after acute hospital admission. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a superiority, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in 3 Danish medical emergency departments (EDs) from March 2021 to February 2022. Adults acutely admitted with suspected CAP during the daytime on weekdays were included and randomly assigned (1:1) to POC-PCR (The Biofire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel plus added to standard care) or SCO (routine culture and, if requested by the attending physician, target-specific PCR) analysis of respiratory samples. We randomly assigned 294 patients with successfully collected samples (tracheal secretion 78.4% or expectorated sputum 21.6%) to POC-PCR (n = 148, 50.4%) or SCO (146, 49.6%). Patients and investigators owning the data were blinded to the allocation and test results. Outcome adjudicators and clinical staff at the ED were not blinded to allocation and test results but were together with the statistician, blinded to data management and analysis. Laboratory staff performing standard care analyses was blinded to allocation. The study coordinator was not blinded. Intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis were performed using logistic regression with Huber-White clustered standard errors for the prescription of antibiotic treatment. Loss to follow-up comprises 3 patients in the POC-PCR (2%) and none in the SCO group. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the primary outcome of prescriptions of no or narrow-spectrum antibiotics at 4 h after admission for the POC-PCR (n = 91, 62.8%) odds ratio (OR) 1.13; (95% confidence interval (CI) [0.96, 1.34] p = 0.134) and SCO (n = 87, 59.6%). Secondary outcomes showed that prescriptions were significantly more targeted at 4-h OR 5.68; (95% CI [2.49, 12.94] p < 0.001) and 48-h OR 4.20; (95% CI [1.87, 9.40] p < 0.001) and more adequate at 48-h OR 2.11; (95% CI [1.23, 3.61] p = 0.006) and on day 5 in the POC-PCR group OR 1.40; (95% CI [1.18, 1.66] p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups in relation to intensive care unit (ICU) admissions OR 0.54; (95% CI [0.10, 2.91] p = 0.475), readmission within 30 days OR 0.90; (95% CI [0.43, 1.86] p = 0.787), length of stay (LOS) IRR 0.82; (95% CI [0.63, 1.07] p = 0.164), 30 days mortality OR 1.24; (95% CI [0.32, 4.82] p = 0.749), and in-hospital mortality OR 0.98; (95% CI [0.19, 5.06] p = 0.986). CONCLUSIONS: In a setting with an already restrictive use of antibiotics, adding POC-PCR to the diagnostic setup did not increase the number of patients treated with narrow-spectrum or without antibiotics. POC-PCR may result in a more targeted and adequate use of antibiotics. A significant study limitation was the concurrent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulting in an unusually low transmission of respiratory virus. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04651712).

Effectiveness of expiratory technique and induced sputum in obtaining good quality sputum from patients acutely hospitalized with suspected lower respiratory tract infection: a statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Targeted antimicrobial treatment is essential to avoid unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance. Targeted treatment relies on a precise microbiological diagnosis - in pneumonia, this poses a challenge as the usefulness of Gram stains and cultures is highly dependent on the quality of the sputum sample. This study aims to examine adverse effects and quality of sputum samples obtained by expiratory techniques (forced expiratory technique and sputum induction) compared with tracheal suction. The hypothesis is that expiratory techniques are non-inferior to tracheal suction in obtaining samples from the lower respiratory tract. This statistical analysis plan (SAP) describes the study design, method, and data analysis of the trial to increase transparency, avoid reporting bias or data-driven analysis and increase the study's reproducibility. METHOD: The design is a pragmatic, non-inferiority, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial including 280 patients admitted with suspected lower respiratory infection to two emergency departments. Patients are randomized to a usual care group, where sputum samples are collected by tracheal suction or to an intervention group where sputum samples are collected by forced expiratory technique and sputum induction. The statistical analysis will follow an intention-to-treat protocol. This SAP is developed and submitted before the end of recruitment, database closure, and statistical analyses. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide valuable knowledge to clinical practice by comparing adverse effects and sputum sample quality associated with different sample methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT04595526 . Submitted on October 19, 2020.

Improved diagnostics of infectious diseases in emergency departments: a protocol of a multifaceted multicentre diagnostic study.

BACKGROUND: The major obstacle in prescribing an appropriate and targeted antibiotic treatment is insufficient knowledge concerning whether the patient has a bacterial infection, where the focus of infection is and which bacteria are the agents of the infection. A prerequisite for the appropriate use of antibiotics is timely access to accurate diagnostics such as point-of-care (POC) testing.The study aims to evaluate diagnostic tools and working methods that support a prompt and accurate diagnosis of hospitalised patients suspected of an acute infection. We will focus on the most common acute infections: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and acute pyelonephritis (APN). The objectives are to investigate (1) patient characteristics and treatment trajectory of the different acute infections, (2) diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of infection markers, (3) diagnostic accuracy of POC urine flow cytometry on diagnosing and excluding bacteriuria, (4) how effective the addition of POC analysis of sputum to the diagnostic set-up for CAP is on antibiotic prescriptions, (5) diagnostic accuracy of POC ultrasound and ultralow dose (ULD) computerized tomography (CT) on diagnosing CAP, (6) diagnostic accuracy of specialist ultrasound on diagnosing APN, (7) diagnostic accuracy of POC ultrasound in diagnosing hydronephrosis in patients suspected of APN. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: It is a multifaceted multicentre diagnostic study, including 1000 adults admitted with suspicion of an acute infection. Participants will, within the first 24 hours of admission, undergo additional diagnostic tests including infection markers, POC urine flow cytometry, POC analysis of sputum, POC and specialist ultrasound, and ULDCT. The primary reference standard is an assigned diagnosis determined by a panel of experts. ETHICS, DISSEMINATION AND REGISTRATION: Approved by Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark, Danish Data Protection Agency and clinicaltrials.gov. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals, and positive, negative and inconclusive results will be published. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04661085, NCT04681963, NCT04667195, NCT04652167, NCT04686318, NCT04686292, NCT04651712, NCT04645030, NCT04651244.