Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study (THESEUS): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, painful disease affecting flexures and other skin regions, producing nodules, abscesses and skin tunnels. Laser treatment targeting hair follicles and deroofing of skin tunnels are standard HS interventions in some countries but are rarely offered in the UK. OBJECTIVES: To describe current UK HS management pathways and influencing factors to inform the design of future randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: THESEUS was a nonrandomized 12-month prospective cohort study set in 10 UK hospitals offering five interventions: oral doxycycline 200 mg daily; oral clindamycin and rifampicin both 300 mg twice daily for 10 weeks, extended for longer in some cases; laser treatment targeting hair follicles; deroofing; and conventional surgery. The primary outcome was the combination of clinician-assessed eligibility and participant hypothetical willingness to receive each intervention. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants selecting each intervention as their final treatment option; the proportion who switch treatments; treatment fidelity; and attrition rates. THESEUS was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN69985145. RESULTS: The recruitment target of 150 participants was met after 18 months, in July 2021, with two pauses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline demographics reflected the HS secondary care population: average age 36 years, 81% female, 20% non-White, 64% current or ex-smokers, 86% body mass index ≥ 25, 68% with moderate disease, 19% with severe disease and 13% with mild disease. Laser was the intervention with the highest proportion (69%) of participants eligible and willing to receive treatment, then deroofing (58%), conventional surgery (54%), clindamycin and rifampicin (44%), and doxycycline (37%). Laser was ranked first choice by the greatest proportion of participants (41%). Attrition rates were 11% and 17% after 3 and 6 months, respectively. Concordance with doxycycline was 52% after 3 months due to lack of efficacy, participant choice and adverse effects. Delays with procedural interventions were common, with only 43% and 26% of participants starting laser and deroofing, respectively, after 3 months. Uptake of conventional surgery was too small to characterize the intervention. Switching treatment was uncommon and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: THESEUS has established laser treatment and deroofing for HS in the UK and demonstrated their popularity with patients and clinicians for future RCTs.

C-Reactive Protein Testing to Guide Antibiotic Prescribing for COPD Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing of C-reactive protein (CRP) may be a way to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics without harming patients who have acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with a diagnosis of COPD in their primary care clinical record who consulted a clinician at 1 of 86 general medical practices in England and Wales for an acute exacerbation of COPD. The patients were assigned to receive usual care guided by CRP point-of-care testing (CRP-guided group) or usual care alone (usual-care group). The primary outcomes were patient-reported use of antibiotics for acute exacerbations of COPD within 4 weeks after randomization (to show superiority) and COPD-related health status at 2 weeks after randomization, as measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, a 10-item scale with scores ranging from 0 (very good COPD health status) to 6 (extremely poor COPD health status) (to show noninferiority). RESULTS: A total of 653 patients underwent randomization. Fewer patients in the CRP-guided group reported antibiotic use than in the usual-care group (57.0% vs. 77.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.47). The adjusted mean difference in the total score on the Clinical COPD Questionnaire at 2 weeks was -0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI, -0.33 to -0.05) in favor of the CRP-guided group. The antibiotic prescribing decisions made by clinicians at the initial consultation were ascertained for all but 1 patient, and antibiotic prescriptions issued over the first 4 weeks of follow-up were ascertained for 96.9% of the patients. A lower percentage of patients in the CRP-guided group than in the usual-care group received an antibiotic prescription at the initial consultation (47.7% vs. 69.7%, for a difference of 22.0 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.45) and during the first 4 weeks of follow-up (59.1% vs. 79.7%, for a difference of 20.6 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.46). Two patients in the usual-care group died within 4 weeks after randomization from causes considered by the investigators to be unrelated to trial participation. CONCLUSIONS: CRP-guided prescribing of antibiotics for exacerbations of COPD in primary care clinics resulted in a lower percentage of patients who reported antibiotic use and who received antibiotic prescriptions from clinicians, with no evidence of harm. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; PACE Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN24346473.).

Clinicians' interpretations of point of care urine culture versus laboratory culture results: analysis from the four-country POETIC trial of diagnosis of uncomplicated urinary tract infection in primary care.

Background: Urine culture at the point of care minimises delay between obtaining the sample and agar inoculation in a microbiology laboratory, and quantification and sensitivity results can be available more rapidly in primary care. Objective: To identify the degree to which clinicians' interpretations of a point-of-care-test (POCT) urine culture (Flexicult™ SSI-Urinary Kit) agrees with laboratory culture in women presenting to primary care with symptoms of uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTI). Methods: Primary care clinicians used the Flexicult™-POCT, recorded their findings and took a photograph of the result, which was interpreted by microbiology laboratory technicians. Urine samples were additionally processed in routine care laboratories. Cross tabulations were used to identify important differences in organism identification, quantification and antibiotic susceptibility between these three sources of data. The influence of various laboratory definitions for UTI on culture were assessed. Results: Primary care clinicians identified 202/289 urine samples (69.9%) as positive for UTI using the Flexicult™-POCT, whereas laboratory culture identified 94-190 (32.5-65.7%) as positive, depending on definition thresholds. 82.9% of samples identified positive for E. coli on laboratory culture were also considered positive for E. coli using the Flexicult™ -POCT, and susceptibilities were reasonably concordant. There were major discrepancies between laboratory staff interpretation of Flexicult™ photographs, clinicians' interpretation of the Flexicult™ test, and laboratory culture results. Conclusion: Flexicult™-POCT overestimated the positivity rate of urine samples for UTI when laboratory culture was used as the reference standard. However, it is unclear whether point-of-care or laboratory based urine culture provides the most valid diagnostic information.

Point of care testing for urinary tract infection in primary care (POETIC): protocol for a randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of FLEXICULT™ informed management of uncomplicated UTI in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTI) are the most frequent bacterial infection affecting women and account for about 15% of antibiotics prescribed in primary care. However, some women with a UTI are not prescribed antibiotics or are prescribed the wrong antibiotics, while many women who do not have a microbiologically confirmed UTI are prescribed antibiotics. Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing unnecessarily increases the risk of side effects and the development of antibiotic resistance, and wastes resources. METHODS/DESIGN: 614 adult female patients will be recruited from four primary care research networks (Wales, England, Spain, the Netherlands) and individually randomised to either POCT guided care or the guideline-informed 'standard care' arm. Urine and stool samples (where possible) will be obtained at presentation (day 1) and two weeks later for microbiological analysis. All participants will be followed up on the course of their illness and their quality of life, using a 2 week self-completed symptom diary. At 3 months, a primary care notes review will be conducted for evidence of further evidence of treatment failures, recurrence, complications, hospitalisations and health service costs. DISCUSSION: Although the Flexicult™ POCT is used in some countries in routine primary care, it's clinical and cost effectiveness has never been evaluated in a randomised clinical trial. If shown to be effective, the use of this POCT could benefit individual sufferers and provide evidence for health care authorities to develop evidence based policies to combat the spread and impact of the unprecedented rise of infections caused by antibiotic resistant bacteria in Europe. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN65200697 (Registered 10 September 2013).

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study: the THESEUS prospective cohort study.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterised by recurrent inflammatory lesions and skin tunnels in flexural sites such as the axilla. Deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment are standard hidradenitis suppurativa interventions in some countries but not yet introduced in the United Kingdom. Objective: To understand current hidradenitis suppurativa management pathways and what influences treatment choices to inform the design of future randomised controlled trials. Design: Prospective 12-month observational cohort study, including five treatment options, with nested qualitative interviews and an end-of-study consensus workshop. Setting: Ten United Kingdom hospitals with recruitment led by dermatology and plastic surgery departments. Participants: Adults with active hidradenitis suppurativa of any severity not adequately controlled by current treatment. Interventions: Oral doxycycline 200 mg once daily; oral clindamycin and rifampicin, both 300 mg twice daily for 10 weeks initially; laser treatment targeting the hair follicle (neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet or alexandrite); deroofing; and conventional surgery. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was the proportion of participants who are eligible, and hypothetically willing, to use the different treatment options. Secondary outcomes included proportion of participants choosing each of the study interventions, with reasons for their choices; proportion of participants who switched treatments; treatment fidelity; loss to follow-up rates over 12 months; and efficacy outcome estimates to inform outcome measure instrument responsiveness. Results: Between February 2020 and July 2021, 151 participants were recruited, with two pauses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Follow-up rates were 89% and 83% after 3 and 6 months, decreasing to 70% and 44% at 9 and 12 months, respectively, because pandemic recruitment delays prevented all participants reaching their final review. Baseline demographics included an average age of 36 years, 81% female, 20% black, Asian or Caribbean, 64% current or ex-smokers and 86% with a raised body mass index. Some 69% had moderate disease, 19% severe disease and 13% mild disease. Regarding the study's primary outcome, laser treatment was the intervention with the highest proportion (69%) of participants who were eligible and hypothetically willing to receive treatment, followed by deroofing (58%), conventional surgery (54%), the combination of oral clindamycin and rifampicin (44%) and doxycycline (37%). Considering participant willingness in isolation, laser was ranked first choice by the greatest proportion (41%) of participants. The cohort study and qualitative study demonstrated that participant willingness to receive treatment was strongly influenced by their clinician. Fidelity to oral doxycycline was only 52% after 3 months due to lack of effectiveness, participant preference and adverse effects. Delays receiving procedural interventions were common, with only 43% and 26% of participants commencing laser therapy and deroofing, respectively, after 3 months. Treatment switching was uncommon and there were no serious adverse events. Daily pain score text messages were initiated in 110 participants. Daily responses reduced over time with greatest concordance during the first 14 days. Limitations: It was not possible to characterise conventional surgery due to a low number of participants. Conclusion: The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study established deroofing and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa in the United Kingdom and developed a network of 10 sites for subsequent hidradenitis suppurativa randomised controlled trials. Future work: The consensus workshop prioritised laser treatment and deroofing as interventions for future randomised controlled trials, in some cases combined with drug treatment. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN69985145. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/35/64) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study introduced deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa and found that these are preferred interventions for future trials compared with oral antibiotics or conventional surgery.

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study (THESEUS): protocol for a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, painful, inflammatory skin disease with estimates of prevalence in the European population of 1%-2%. Despite being a relatively common condition, the evidence base for management of HS is limited. European and North American management guidelines rely on consensus for many aspects of treatment and within the UK variations in management of HS have been identified. The HS James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) published a top 10 list of future HS research priorities including both medical and surgical interventions. The aims of the THESEUS study are to inform the design of future HS randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to understand how HS treatments are currently used. THESEUS incorporates several HS PSP research priorities, including investigation of oral and surgical treatments. Core outcome domains have been established by the HIdradenitis SuppuraTiva cORe outcomes set International Collaboration (HISTORIC) and THESEUS is designed to validate instruments to measure the domains. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The THESEUS study is a prospective observational cohort study. Participants, adults with active HS of any severity, will be asked to select one of five HS treatment options that is appropriate for their HS care. Participants will be allocated to their chosen treatment intervention and followed for a period of up to 12 months. Outcomes will be assessed at 3-monthly intervals using HISTORIC core outcome instruments. Video recordings of the surgical and laser operations will provide informational and training videos for future trials. Nested mixed-methods studies will characterise the interventions in clinical practice, understand facilitators and barriers to recruitment into future HS RCTs and examine patients' and clinicians' perspectives on HS treatment choices. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN69985145.

Associations with Post-Consultation Health-Status in Primary Care Managed Acute Exacerbation of COPD.

BACKGROUND: It has been demonstrated that antibiotic prescribing for Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (AECOPD) can be safely reduced in primary care when general practitioners have access to C-reactive protein (CRP) rapid testing. AIM: To investigate the factors associated with post-consultation COPD health status in patients presenting with AECOPD in this setting. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort study of patients enrolled in a randomised controlled trial. Patients aged 40+ years with a clinical diagnosis of COPD who presented in primary care across England and Wales with an AECOPD were included. METHODS: Participants were contacted for follow-up at one- and two-weeks by phone and attended the practice four weeks after the index consultation. The outcome of interest was the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) score. Multivariable multilevel linear regression models fitted to examine the factors associated with COPD health status in the four-weeks following consultation for an AECOPD. RESULTS: A total of 649 patients were included, with 1947 CCQ total scores analysed. Post-consultation CCQ total scores were significantly higher (worse) in participants with diabetes (adjusted mean difference [AMD]=0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.45), obese patients compared to those with normal body mass index (AMD = 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.43), and those who were prescribed oral antibiotics in the prior 12 months (AMD = 0.26; 95% CI 0.11-0.41), but only the two latter associations remained after adjusting for other sociodemographic variables. CONCLUSION: COPD health status was worse in the four weeks following primary care consultation for AECOPD in patients with obesity and those prescribed oral antibiotics in the preceding year.

Associations with antibiotic prescribing for acute exacerbation of COPD in primary care: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing can reduce antibiotic use in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care, without compromising patient care. Further safe reductions may be possible. AIM: To investigate the associations between presenting features and antibiotic prescribing in patients with AECOPD in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial of participants presenting with AECOPD in primary care (the PACE trial). METHOD: Clinicians collected participants' demographic features, comorbid illnesses, clinical signs, and symptoms. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were made after participants were randomised to receive a point-of-care CRP measurement or usual care. Multivariable regression models were fitted to explore the association between patient and clinical features and antibiotic prescribing, and extended to further explore any interactions with CRP measurement category (CRP not measured, CRP <20 mg/l, or CRP ≥20 mg/l). RESULTS: A total of 649 participants from 86 general practices across England and Wales were included. Odds of antibiotic prescribing were higher in the presence of clinician-recorded crackles (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 5.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.24 to 8.41), wheeze (AOR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.07 to 2.52), diminished vesicular breathing (AOR = 2.95, 95% CI = 1.70 to 5.10), or clinician-reported evidence of consolidation (AOR = 34.40, 95% CI = 2.84 to 417.27). Increased age was associated with lower odds of antibiotic prescribing (AOR per additional year increase = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.00), as was the presence of heart failure (AOR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.85). CONCLUSION: Several demographic features and clinical signs and symptoms are associated with antibiotic prescribing in AECOPD. Diagnostic and prognostic value of these features may help identify further safe reductions.

Clinical Features and C-Reactive Protein as Predictors of Bacterial Exacerbations of COPD.

Introduction: Identifying predictors of bacterial and viral pathogens in sputum from patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may help direct management. Methods: We used data from a trial evaluating a C-reactive protein (CRP) point of care guided approach to managing COPD exacerbations in primary care. We used regression analyses to identify baseline clinical features, including CRP value in those randomized to testing, associated with bacterial, viral or mixed infections, defined by the presence of bacterial and viral pathogens in sputum, detected by culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR), respectively. Results: Of 386 participants with baseline sputum samples, 79 (20.5%), 123 (31.9%), and 91 (23.6%) had bacterial, viral/atypical, and mixed bacterial/viral/atypical pathogens identified, respectively. Increasing sputum purulence assessed by color chart was associated with increased odds of finding bacterial and mixed (bacterial and viral/atypical) pathogens in sputum (area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for bacterial pathogens =0.739 (95% CI: 0.670, 0.808)). Elevated CRP was associated with increased odds of finding bacterial pathogens and mixed pathogens but did not significantly increase the AUROC for predicting bacterial pathogens over sputum color alone (AUROC for combination of sputum color and CRP = 0.776 (95% CI: 0.708, 0.843), p for comparison of models = 0.053). We found no association between the presence of sputum pathogens and other clinical or demographic features. Conclusion: Sputum purulence was the best predictor of sputum bacterial pathogens and mixed bacterial viral/atypical pathogens in patients with COPD exacerbations in our study. Elevated CRP was associated with bacterial pathogens but did not add to the predictive value of sputum purulence.

C-reactive protein-guided antibiotic prescribing for COPD exacerbations: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are prescribed to >70% of patients presenting in primary care with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). The PACE randomised controlled trial found that a C-reactive protein point-of-care test (CRP-POCT) management strategy for AECOPD in primary care resulted in a 20% reduction in patient-reported antibiotic consumption over 4 weeks. AIM: To understand perceptions of the value of CRP-POCT for guiding antibiotic prescribing for AECOPD; explore possible mechanisms, mediators, and pathways to effects; and identify potential barriers and facilitators to implementation from the perspectives of patients and clinicians. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative process evaluation in UK general practices. METHOD: Semi-structured telephone interviews with 20 patients presenting with an AECOPD and 20 primary care staff, purposively sampled from the PACE study. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Patients and clinicians felt that CRP-POCT was useful in guiding clinicians' antibiotic prescribing decisions for AECOPD, and were positive about introduction of the test in routine care. The CRP-POCT enhanced clinician confidence in antibiotic prescribing decisions, reduced decisional ambiguity, and facilitated communication with patients. Some clinicians thought the CRP-POCT should be routinely used in consultations for AECOPD; others favoured use only when there was decisional uncertainty. CRP-POCT cartridge preparation time and cost were potential barriers to implementation. CONCLUSION: CRP-POCT-guided antibiotic prescribing for AECOPD had high acceptability, but commissioning arrangements and further simplification of the CRP-POCT need attention to facilitate implementation in routine practice.

C-reactive protein point-of-care testing for safely reducing antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the PACE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Most patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care are prescribed antibiotics, but these may not be beneficial, and they can cause side effects and increase the risk of subsequent resistant infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) could safely reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not the use of a C-reactive protein (CRP) POCT to guide prescribing decisions for AECOPD reduces antibiotic consumption without having a negative impact on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) health status and is cost-effective. DESIGN: A multicentre, parallel-arm, randomised controlled open trial with an embedded process, and a health economic evaluation. SETTING: General practices in Wales and England. A UK NHS perspective was used for the economic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥ 40 years) with a primary care diagnosis of COPD, presenting with an AECOPD (with at least one of increased dyspnoea, increased sputum volume and increased sputum purulence) of between 24 hours' and 21 days' duration. INTERVENTION: CRP POCTs to guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for AECOPD, compared with usual care (no CRP POCT), using remote online randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported antibiotic consumption for AECOPD within 4 weeks post randomisation and COPD health status as measured with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) at 2 weeks. For the economic evaluation, patient-reported resource use and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions were included. RESULTS: In total, 653 participants were randomised from 86 general practices. Three withdrew consent and one was randomised in error, leaving 324 participants in the usual-care arm and 325 participants in the CRP POCT arm. Antibiotics were consumed for AECOPD by 212 out of 274 participants (77.4%) and 150 out of 263 participants (57.0%) in the usual-care and CRP POCT arm, respectively [adjusted odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.47]. The CCQ analysis comprised 282 and 281 participants in the usual-care and CRP POCT arms, respectively, and the adjusted mean CCQ score difference at 2 weeks was 0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI -0.33 to -0.05 points). The upper limit of the CI did not contain the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.3. The total cost from a NHS perspective at 4 weeks was £17.59 per patient higher in the CRP POCT arm (95% CI -£34.80 to £69.98; p = 0.408). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £222 per 1% reduction in antibiotic consumption compared with usual care at 4 weeks and £15,251 per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months with no significant changes in sensitivity analyses. Patients and clinicians were generally supportive of including CRP POCT in the assessment of AECOPD. CONCLUSIONS: A CRP POCT diagnostic strategy achieved meaningful reductions in patient-reported antibiotic consumption without impairing COPD health status or increasing costs. There were no associated harms and both patients and clinicians valued the diagnostic strategy. FUTURE WORK: Implementation studies that also build on our qualitative findings could help determine the effect of this intervention over the longer term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24346473. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often experience flare-ups known as acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Antibiotics are prescribed for most flare-ups, but they do not always benefit patients and may cause harm, such as side effects or subsequent infections that are resistant. Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) can be used to help determine when antibiotics are more likely to be needed. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a marker of inflammation that can be measured with a POCT. Patients with flare-ups and a low CRP value are less likely to benefit from antibiotics. The PACE trial asked whether or not measuring CRP with a POCT could lead to fewer antibiotics being consumed for flare-ups, without having negative effects for patients. We aimed to recruit 650 patients with a COPD flare-up from primary care. Patients were randomly assigned to either (1) usual care with the addition of a CRP POCT, or (2) usual care without the addition of the test. Antibiotic use over the first 4 weeks and patients' self-assessment of their health 2 weeks after enrolment were measured in both groups. Patients in the CRP test group used fewer antibiotics than those managed as usual, and had improved patient-reported outcomes. Costs were a little higher in the CRP POCT group. Interviews with patients and clinicians found that they appreciated the CRP test being included in the decision-making process.

Challenges in managing urinary tract infection and the potential of a point-of-care test guided care in primary care: an international qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about clinicians' experiences of using a point-of-care test (POCT) to inform management of urinary tract infection (UTI) in general practice. AIM: To explore experiences of using the Flexicult test to inform management of UTI and views on requirements for an optimal POCT to inform successful implementation. DESIGN & SETTING: Telephone interviews with 35 primary care clinicians and healthcare professionals in Wales, England, Spain, and the Netherlands, who had participated in a trial of the Flexicult POCT for UTI based on urine culture. METHOD: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Most primary care clinicians interviewed agreed on the need for a POCT in UTI management, and that the Flexicult POCT delivered quicker results than laboratory results used in usual care, reassured patients, boosted their confidence in decision-making, and reminded them about antibiotic stewardship. However, clinicians also reported difficulties in interpreting results, limitations on when the Flexicult could be used, and concerns that testing all patients would strain care delivery and prolong patient discomfort when delaying decisions until a non-rapid POCT result was available. An optimal POCT would produce more rapid results, and be reliable and easy to use. Uptake into routine care would be enhanced by: clear guidance on which patients should be tested; training for interpreting 'grey area' results; reiterating that even 'straightforward' cases might be better managed with a test; clear messages about stopping unnecessary antibiotics versus completing a course; and better self-management strategies to accompany implementation of delayed, or non-prescription of, antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Primary care clinicians believe that POCT tests could play a useful role in the management of UTI and gave clear recommendations for successful implementation.

Point-of-care urine culture for managing urinary tract infection in primary care: a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of using point-of-care (POC) urine culture in primary care on appropriate antibiotic use is unknown. AIM: To assess whether use of the Flexicult™ SSI-Urinary Kit, which quantifies bacterial growth and determines antibiotic susceptibility at the point of care, achieves antibiotic use that is more often concordant with laboratory culture results, when compared with standard care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Individually randomised trial of females with uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) in primary care research networks (PCRNs) in England, the Netherlands, Spain, and Wales. METHOD: Multilevel regression compared outcomes between the two groups while controlling for clustering. RESULTS: In total, 329 participants were randomised to POC testing (POCT) and 325 to standard care, and 324 and 319 analysed. Fewer females randomised to the POCT arm than those who received standard care were prescribed antibiotics at the initial consultation (267/324 [82.4%] versus 282/319 [88.4%], odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.88). Clinicians indicated the POCT result changed their management for 190/301 (63.1%). Despite this, there was no statistically significant difference between study arms in antibiotic use that was concordant with laboratory culture results (primary outcome) at day 3 (39.3% POCT versus 44.1% standard care, OR 0.84, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.20), and there was no evidence of any differences in recovery, patient enablement, UTI recurrences, re-consultation, antibiotic resistance, and hospitalisations at follow-up. POCT culture was not cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Point-of-care urine culture was not effective when used mainly to adjust immediate antibiotic prescriptions. Further research should evaluate use of the test to guide initiation of 'delayed antibiotics'.

Variations in presentation, management, and patient outcomes of urinary tract infection: a prospective four-country primary care observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Regional variations in the presentation of uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) and pathogen sensitivity to antibiotics have been cited as reasons to justify differences in how the infections are managed, which includes the prescription of broad-spectrum antibiotics. AIM: To describe presentation and management of UTI in primary care settings, and explore the association with patient recovery, taking microbiological findings and case mix into account. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective observational study of females with symptoms of uncomplicated UTI presenting to primary care networks in England, Wales, the Netherlands, and Spain. METHOD: Clinicians recorded history, symptom severity, management, and requested mid-stream urine culture. Participants recorded, in a diary, symptom severity each day for 14 days. Time to recovery was compared between patient characteristics and between countries using two-level Cox proportional hazards models, with patients nested within practices. RESULTS: In total, 797 females attending primary care networks in England (n = 246, 30.9% of cohort), Wales (n = 213, 26.7%), the Netherlands (n = 133, 16.7%), and Spain (n = 205, 25.7%) were included. In total, 259 (35.8%, 95% confidence interval 32.3 to 39.2) of 726 females for whom there was a result were urine culture positive for UTI. Pathogens and antibiotic sensitivities were similar. Empirical antibiotics were prescribed for 95.1% in England, 92.9% in Wales, 95.1% in Spain, and 59.4% in the Netherlands There were no meaningful differences at a country network level before and after controlling for severity, prior UTIs, and antibiotic prescribing. CONCLUSION: Variation in presentation and management of uncomplicated UTI at a country primary care network level is clinically unwarranted and highlights a lack of consensus concerning optimal symptom control and antibiotic prescribing.

General practitioner use of a C-reactive protein point-of-care test to help target antibiotic prescribing in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (the PACE study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care are prescribed an antibiotic, which may not always be appropriate and may cause harm. C-reactive protein (CRP) is an acute-phase biomarker that can be rapidly measured at the point of care and may predict benefit from antibiotic treatment in AECOPD. It is not clear whether the addition of a CRP point-of-care test (POCT) to clinical assessment leads to a reduction in antibiotic consumption without having a negative impact on COPD health status. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) aiming to include 650 participants with a diagnosis of AECOPD in primary care. Participants will be randomised to be managed according to usual care (control) or with the addition of a CRP POCT to guide antibiotic prescribing. Antibiotic consumption for AECOPD within 4 weeks post randomisation and COPD health status (total score) measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) at 2 weeks post randomisation will be co-primary outcomes. Primary analysis (by intention-to-treat) will determine differences in antibiotic consumption for superiority and COPD health status for non-inferiority. Secondary outcomes include: COPD health status, CCQ domain scores, use of other COPD treatments (weeks 1, 2 and 4), EQ-5D utility scores (weeks 1, 2 and 4 and month 6), disease-specific, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 6 months, all-cause antibiotic consumption (antibiotic use for any condition) during first 4 weeks post randomisation, total antibiotic consumption (number of days during first 4 weeks of antibiotic consumed for AECOPD/any reason), antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation and during following 4 weeks, adverse effects over the first 4 weeks, incidence of pneumonia (weeks 4 and 6 months), health care resource use and cost comparison over the 6 months following randomisation. Prevalence and resistance profiles of bacteria will be assessed using throat and sputum samples collected at baseline and 4-week follow-up. A health economic evaluation and qualitative process evaluation will be carried out. DISCUSSION: If shown to be effective (i.e. leads to a reduction in antibiotic use with no worse COPD health status), the use of the CRP POCT could lead to better outcomes for patients with AECOPD and help reduce selective pressures driving the development of antimicrobial resistance. PACE will be one of the first studies to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a POCT biomarker to guide clinical decision-making in primary care on patient-reported outcomes, antibiotic prescribing and antibiotic resistance for AECOPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN24346473 . Registered on 20 August 2014.