Improving diagnostics using extended point-of-care testing during in-home assessments of older adults with signs of emerging acute disease: a prospective observational non-randomised pilot and feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Delayed recognition of acute disease among older adults hinders timely management and increases the risk of hospital admission. Point-of-Care testing, including Focused Lung Ultrasound (FLUS) and in-home analysis of biological material, may support clinical decision-making in suspected acute respiratory disease. The aim of this study was to pilot test the study design for a planned randomised trial, investigate whether in-home extended use of point-of-care testing is feasible, and explore its' potential clinical impact. METHODS: A non-randomised pilot and feasibility study was conducted during September-November 2021 in Kolding Municipality, Denmark. A FLUS-trained physician accompanied an acute community nurse on home-visits to citizens aged 65 + y with signs of acute respiratory disease. The acute community nurses did a clinical assessment (vital signs, capillary C-reactive protein and haemoglobin) and gave a presumptive diagnosis. Subsequently, the physician performed FLUS, venipuncture with bedside analysis (electrolytes, creatinine, white blood cell differential count), nasopharyngeal swab (PCR for upper respiratory pathogens), and urine samples (flow-cytometry). Primary outcomes were feasibility of study design and extended point-of-care testing; secondary outcome was the potential clinical impact of extended point-of-care testing. RESULTS: One hundred consecutive individuals were included. Average age was 81.6 (SD ± 8.4). Feasibility of study design was acceptable, FLUS 100%, blood-analyses 81%, PCR for upper respiratory pathogens 79%, and urine flow-cytometry 4%. In addition to the acute community nurse's presumptive diagnosis, extended point-of-care testing identified 34 individuals with a condition in need of further evaluation by a physician. CONCLUSION: Overall, in-home assessments with extended point-of-care testing are feasible and may aid to identify and handle acute diseases in older adults.

Extended use of point-of-care technology versus usual care for in-home assessment by acute community nurses in older adults with signs of potential acute respiratory disease: an open-label randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Due to ageing-related physiological changes, diagnosing older adults is challenging. Delayed disease recognition may lead to adverse health outcomes and increased hospitalisation, necessitating the development of new initiatives for timely diagnosis and treatment of older adults. Point-of-care technology, such as focused lung ultrasound scan and bedside analysis of blood samples (leucocytes with differential count, electrolytes, and creatinine) conducted in the patients' home, may support clinical decision-making, and potentially reduce acute hospital admissions. We present the protocol for a randomized controlled trial, which aims at assessing the effect of focused lung ultrasound scan and bedside blood analysis during in-home assessments among older adults with signs of potential acute respiratory disease on hospital admissions. METHOD: We will use a parallel open-label, individually randomised controlled trial design in an acute community healthcare setting. The trial will initiate on October 2022 and is expected to end one year later. The study population will include older adults (65 + year), with at least one of the following inclusion criteria: Cough, dyspnoea, fever, fall, or rapid functional decline. Expected study sample will comprise 632 participants. Participants in the control group will receive usual care, while the intervention group will undergo extended point-of-care technology (focused lung ultrasound scan and bedside venous blood analysis), in addition to usual care. The primary outcome is acute hospital admission within 30 days follow-up. Secondary outcomes include readmissions, mortality, length of hospital stay, hospital-free days, complications during hospital admission, treatment initiations or changes, functional level, re-referrals to the acute community healthcare service, and contacts to the primary care physician. A tertiary outcome is the diagnostic accuracy of Acute Community Nurses for conducting focused lung ultrasound compared with a specialist. Outcomes will be analysed as intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomised controlled trial examining the effect of extended use of point-of-care technology conducted in an in-home setting. We expect that the results may contribute to the development of new interventions aiming to improve timely diagnostics, treatment decisions, and reduce acute hospital admissions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: org NCT05546073 (Date of registration: September 19th, 2022).

Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in people with acute respiratory infections in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are by far the most common reason for prescribing an antibiotic in primary care, even though the majority of ARIs are of viral or non-severe bacterial aetiology. It follows that in many cases antibiotic use will not be beneficial to a patient's recovery but may expose them to potential side effects. Furthermore, limiting unnecessary antibiotic use is a key factor in controlling antibiotic resistance. One strategy to reduce antibiotic use in primary care is point-of-care biomarkers. A point-of-care biomarker (test) of inflammation identifies part of the acute phase response to tissue injury regardless of the aetiology (infection, trauma, or inflammation) and may be used as a surrogate marker of infection, potentially assisting the physician in the clinical decision whether to use an antibiotic to treat ARIs. Biomarkers may guide antibiotic prescription by ruling out a serious bacterial infection and help identify patients in whom no benefit from antibiotic treatment can be anticipated. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of point-of-care biomarker tests of inflammation to guide antibiotic treatment in people presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory infections in primary care settings regardless of patient age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2022), Embase (1974 to 14 June 2022), CINAHL (1981 to 14 June 2022), Web of Science (1955 to 14 June 2022), and LILACS (1982 to 14 June 2022). We also searched three trial registries (10 December 2021) for completed and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care patients with ARIs that compared the use of point-of-care biomarkers with standard care. We included trials that randomised individual participants, as well as trials that randomised clusters of patients (cluster-RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data on the following primary outcomes: number of participants given an antibiotic prescription at index consultation and within 28 days follow-up; participant recovery within seven days follow-up; and total mortality within 28 days follow-up. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used random-effects meta-analyses when feasible. We further analysed results with considerable heterogeneity in prespecified subgroups of individual and cluster-RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven new trials in this update, for a total of 13 included trials. Twelve trials (10,218 participants in total, 2335 of which were children) evaluated a C-reactive protein point-of-care test, and one trial (317 adult participants) evaluated a procalcitonin point-of-care test. The studies were conducted in Europe, Russia, and Asia. Overall, the included trials had a low or unclear risk of bias. However all studies were open-labelled, thereby introducing high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests to guide antibiotic prescription likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, from 516 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group to 397 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.86; 12 trials, 10,218 participants; I² = 79%; moderate-certainty evidence).  Overall, use of C-reactive protein tests also reduce the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription within 28 days follow-up (664 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group versus 538 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86; 7 trials, 5091 participants; I² = 29; high-certainty evidence). The prescription of antibiotics as guided by C-reactive protein tests likely does not reduce the number of participants recovered, within seven or 28 days follow-up (567 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the control group versus 584 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (recovery within seven days follow-up: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) (recovery within 28 days follow-up: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of C-reactive protein tests may not increase total mortality within 28 days follow-up, from 1 death per 1000 participants in the control group to 0 deaths per 1000 participants in the intervention group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.92; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain as to whether procalcitonin affects any of the primary or secondary outcomes because there were few participants, thereby limiting the certainty of evidence. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate to high according to GRADE for the primary outcomes for C-reactive protein test, except for mortality, as there were very few deaths, thereby limiting the certainty of the evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests as an adjunct to standard care likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription in primary care patients who present with symptoms of acute respiratory infection. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests likely does not affect recovery rates. It is unlikely that further research will substantially change our conclusion regarding the reduction in number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, although the size of the estimated effect may change.  The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests may not increase mortality within 28 days follow-up, but there were very few events. Studies that recorded deaths and hospital admissions were performed in children from low- and middle-income countries and older adults with comorbidities.  Future studies should focus on children, immunocompromised individuals, and people aged 80 years and above with comorbidities. More studies evaluating procalcitonin and potential new biomarkers as point-of-care tests used in primary care to guide antibiotic prescription are needed.  Furthermore, studies are needed to validate C-reactive protein decision algorithms, with a specific focus on potential age group differences.

Limitation of life-sustaining treatment and patient involvement in decision-making: a retrospective study of a Danish COVID-19 patient cohort.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the risk of an extensive overload of the healthcare systems have elucidated the need to make decisions on the level of life-sustaining treatment for patients requiring hospitalisation. The purpose of the study was to investigate the proportion and characteristics of COVID-19 patients with limitation of life-sustaining treatment decisions and the degree of patient involvement in the decisions. METHODS: A retrospective observational descriptive study was conducted in three Danish regional hospitals, looking at all patients ≥ 18 years of age admitted in 2020 with COVID-19 as the primary diagnosis. Lists of hospitalised patients admitted due to COVID-19 were extracted. The data registration included age, gender, comorbidities, including mental state, body mass index, frailty, recent hospital admissions, COVID-19 life-sustaining treatment, ICU admission, decisions on limitations of life-sustaining treatment before and during current hospitalisation, hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 476 patients were included. For 7% (33/476), a decision about limitation of life-sustaining treatment had been made prior to hospital admission. At the time of admission, one or more limitations of life-sustaining treatment were registered for 16% (75/476) of patients. During the admission, limitation decisions were made for an additional 11 patients, totaling 18% (86/476). For 40% (34/86), the decisions were either made by or discussed with the patient. The decisions not made by patients were made by physicians. For 36% (31/86), no information was disclosed about patient involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Life-sustaining treatment limitation decisions were made for 18% of a COVID-19 patient cohort. Hereof, more than a third of the decisions had been made before hospital admission. Many records lacked information on patient involvement in the decisions.

Gender and age disparities in adult undernutrition in northern Uganda: high-risk groups not targeted by food aid programmes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of adult malnutrition and associated risk factors in a post-conflict area of northern Uganda. METHODS: A cross-sectional community survey was performed from September 2011 to June 2013. All registered residents in Gulu Health and Demographic Surveillance System aged 15 years and older were considered eligible. Trained field assistants collected anthropometric measurements (weight and height) and administered questionnaires with information on sociodemographic characteristics, food security, smoking and alcohol. Nutritional status was classified by body mass index. RESULTS: In total, 2062 men and 2924 women participated and were included in the analyses. The prevalence of underweight was 22.3% for men and 16.0% for women, whereas the prevalence of overweight was 1.5% for men and 7.6% for women. In men, underweight was associated with younger (15-19 years) and older age (>55 years) (P < 0.001), being divorced/separated [odds ratio (OR) = 1.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21-2.99] and smoking (OR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.67-2.73). For women, underweight was associated with older age (P < 0.001) and hungry-gap rainy season (May-July) (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.04-1.69). Widowed or divorced/separated women were not more likely to be underweight. No association was found between education, alcohol consumption or food security score and underweight. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are not in line with the conventional target groups in nutritional programmes and highlight the importance of continuous health and nutritional assessments of all population groups that reflect local social determinants and family structures.