Point-of-care Testing For Influenza Research Articles

The Impact of Point-of-Care Testing for Influenza on Antimicrobial Stewardship (PIAMS) in UK Primary Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

Background Molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) used in primary care can inform whether a patient presenting with an acute respiratory infection has influenza. A confirmed clinical diagnosis, particularly early in the disease, could inform better antimicrobial stewardship. Social distancing and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic have disturbed previous patterns of influenza infections in 2021. However, data from samples taken in the last quarter of 2022 suggest that influenza represents 36% of sentinel network positive virology, compared with 24% for respiratory syncytial virus. Problems with integration into the clinical workflow is a known barrier to incorporating technology into routine care. Objective This study aims to report the impact of POCT for influenza on antimicrobial prescribing in primary care. We will additionally describe severe outcomes of infection (hospitalization and mortality) and how POCT is integrated into primary care workflows. Methods The impact of POCT for influenza on antimicrobial stewardship (PIAMS) in UK primary care is an observational study being conducted between December 2022 and May 2023 and involving 10 practices that contribute data to the English sentinel network. Up to 1000 people who present to participating practices with respiratory symptoms will be swabbed and tested with a rapid molecular POCT analyzer in the practice. Antimicrobial prescribing and other study outcomes will be collected by linking information from the POCT analyzer with data from the patient’s computerized medical record. We will collect data on how POCT is incorporated into practice using data flow diagrams, unified modeling language use case diagrams, and Business Process Modeling Notation. Results We will present the crude and adjusted odds of antimicrobial prescribing (all antibiotics and antivirals) given a POCT diagnosis of influenza, stratifying by whether individuals have a respiratory or other relevant diagnosis (eg, bronchiectasis). We will also present the rates of hospital referrals and deaths related to influenza infection in PIAMS study practices compared with a set of matched practices in the sentinel network and the rest of the network. We will describe any difference in implementation models in terms of staff involved and workflow. Conclusions This study will generate data on the impact of POCT testing for influenza in primary care as well as help to inform about the feasibility of incorporating POCT into primary care workflows. It will inform the design of future larger studies about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of POCT to improve antimicrobial stewardship and any impact on severe outcomes. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/46938

Single centre experience: Managing seasonal influenza without a point-of-care test.

The use of point-of-care testing (POCT) for influenza is not routine in many hospitals in the United Kngdom and testing is currently by laboratory-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. This review aims to evaluate patients who were tested positive for influenza in the last winter season and project if future POCT usage at initial point of patient assessment could assist in better utilisation of healthcare resources. Retrospective review in a district general hospital without POCT facility for influenza. Medical records of patients who tested positive for influenza during a 4-month period from 1 October 2019 to 31 January 2020 in the paediatric department were reviewed and analysed. Thirty patients had laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza of which 63% (n = 19) were admitted to the ward. 56% of patients were not isolated at first instance on admission and 50% (n = 9) of admitted patients did not require inpatient management which totalled up to 224h length of stay in ward. Routine POCT for influenza can potentially improve management of patients presenting with respiratory symptoms and allocation of healthcare resources. We recommend its use to be introduced in diagnostic pathways for acute respiratory illness in the paediatric population in the next winter season in all hospitals.

Implementing community pharmacy-based influenza point-of-care test-and-treat under collaborative practice agreement

BackgroundEarly and accessible testing for influenza with point-of-care testing (POCT) can be a critical factor for deciding to begin antiviral treatment. More than 10,000 pharmacies across the USA offer Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-waived POCT for infectious diseases, such as influenza A/B. Knowledge of barriers and facilitators to large-scale POCT implementation may be useful in scaling POCT for influenza test-and-treat services (Flu POCT). The objective of this study was to explore the experiences of pharmacists who were early adopters of Flu POCT and treatment under collaborative practice agreement in community pharmacy settings.MethodsQualitative research design with in-depth, semi-structured virtual video interviews of licensed US community pharmacists. Interview questions were derived from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviewees were selected via a purposeful sampling of pharmacists who were enrolled in a nationwide clinical trial involving pharmacy-based influenza test-and-treat under a collaborative agreement. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. A deductive analytic approach was used via constructs from the CFIR.ResultsSix pharmacists were interviewed. Interviews ranged from 28 to 70 min, with an average length of 46 min. Four broad themes emerged from the data, and each had corresponding subthemes and supporting quotes: influence of the Flu POCT service characteristics on pharmacy implementation, influence of factors outside of the pharmacy setting in Flu POCT implementation, factors within the pharmacy setting influencing implementation, and process of implementing Flu POCT. A novel pharmacy-based Flu POCT implementation framework is presented.ConclusionsImplementation of community pharmacy-based Flu POCT services is feasible; but, a thorough understanding of both barriers and facilitators to their implementation is needed to increase the spread and scale of these programs. Specifically, pharmacy stakeholders should focus efforts on increasing patient and provider awareness, pharmacist acceptance, leadership support, and support of health providers external to the pharmacy to improve implementation success.

Performance- and cost-benefit analysis of an influenza point-of-care test compared to laboratory-based multiplex RT-PCR in the emergency department

Influenza poses a heavy burden on emergency departments (ED) and hospital wards. Fast and reliable bedside tests are invaluable in obtaining indications for (cohort) droplet isolation precautions and improving patient flow. We performed a cost-benefit analysis comparing influenza point-of-care testing (POCT) to laboratory-based multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Data of 275 ED presentations between January-April 2019 were analyzed. Patients received both POCT and MLPA to calculate POCT sensitivity and specificity. Costs were calculated for both a POCT and MLPA scenario, including costs for testing, admission, droplet isolation precautions and cleaning. In our study population, 34 patients (12%) were identified with influenza A. No cases of influenza B were identified. Mean age of the influenza positive patients was 75(18) years and 56% were male. The most common symptoms upon presentation were cough, malaise and fever, with 74%, 56% and 50%, respectively. Compared to MLPA, POCT yielded a sensitivity of 94%, a specificity of 98% and a negative predictive value of 99% for influenza A. Using POCT yielded a cost reduction of €93,26 per patient. Influenza POCT is an accurate and cost-beneficial method to differentiate between admission with or without droplet isolation precautions. It can be useful in clinical decision making and reducing pressure on ED and hospital beds in an influenza peak season, by enabling fast patient flow and cohort isolation.

Point-of-care testing for influenza in a university emergency department: A prospective study.

BackgroundSeasonal influenza is a burden for emergency departments (ED). The aim of this study was to investigate whether point‐of‐care (POC) PCR testing can be used to reduce staff sick days and improve diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate whether point‐of‐care (POC) PCR testing can be used to reduce staff sick days and improve diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.MethodsUsing a cross‐over design, the cobas® Liat® Influenza A/B POC PCR test (Liat) was compared with standard clinical practice during the 2019/2020 influenza season. All adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with fever (≥38°C) and respiratory symptoms were included. Primary end points were the prevalence of influenza infections in the ED and staff sick days. Secondary end points were frequency of antiviral and antibacterial therapy, time between admission and test result or treatment initiation, patient disposition, ED length of stay (LOS), and for inpatients mortality and LOS. Nurses were interviewed about handling and integration of POC testing. The occurrence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infections coincided with the second half of the study.ResultsA total of 828 patients were enrolled in the study. All 375 patients of the intervention group were tested with Liat, and 103 patients of them (27.6%) tested positive. During the intervention period, staff sick days were reduced by 34.4% (P = .023). Significantly, more patients in the intervention group received antiviral therapy with neuraminidase inhibitors (7.2% vs 3.8%, P = .028) and tested patients received antibiotics more frequently (40.0% vs 31.6%, P = .033). Patients with POC test were transferred to external hospitals significantly more often (5.6% vs 1.3%, P = .01).ConclusionWe conclude that POC testing for influenza is useful in the ED, especially if it is heavily frequented by patients with respiratory symptoms.

Using Point of Care Testing to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness in the English primary care sentinel surveillance network

Rapid Point of Care Testing (POCT) for influenza could be used to provide information on influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) as well as influencing clinical decision-making in primary care. We undertook a test negative case control study to estimate the overall and age-specific (6 months-17 years, 18-64 years, ≥65 years old) IVE against medically attended POCT-confirmed influenza. The study took place over the winter of 2019-2020 and was nested within twelve general practices that are part of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), the English sentinel surveillance network. 648 POCT were conducted. 193 (29.7%) of those who were swabbed had received the seasonal influenza vaccine. The crude unadjusted overall IVE was 46.1% (95% CI: 13.9-66.3). After adjusting for confounders the overall IVE was 26.0% (95% CI: 0-65.5). In total 211 patients were prescribed an antimicrobial after swab testing. Given a positive influenza POCT result, the odds ratio (OR) of receiving an antiviral was 21.1 (95%CI: 2.4-182.2, p = <0.01) and the OR of being prescribed an antibiotic was 0.6 (95%CI: 0.4-0.9, p = <0.01). Using influenza POCT in a primary care sentinel surveillance network to estimate IVE is feasible and provides comparable results to published IVE estimates. A further advantage is that near patient testing of influenza is associated with improvements in appropriate antiviral and antibiotic use. Larger, randomised studies are needed in primary care to see if these trends are still present and to explore their impact on outcomes.

Outcomes of point-of-care testing for influenza in the emergency department of a tertiary referral hospital in Ireland

Seasonal influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality, and represents a recurring financial burden for community- and hospital-based treatment. Nosocomial outbreaks exacerbate the impact of influenza. Rapid diagnosis of influenza has been shown to reduce transmission. However, point-of-care testing (POCT) in emergency departments and prudent direction of patients with the virus to reduce hospital-acquired infection (HAI) have not been evaluated widely. To assess performance characteristics of the Abbott ID NOW™ Influenza A & B 2 system, impact on incidence of hospital-acquired influenza, and admission rate ratio for patients who have POCT compared with laboratory testing. POCT was introduced in the 2018-2019 influenza season. Data from then were compared with preceding and subsequent seasons. Records of POCT and laboratory testing for the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 influenza seasons were analysed. Sensitivity and specificity of POCT were compared pairwise with Xpert Flu A/B/RSV. Patient admission rates and time of waiting for admission were compared. Compared to laboratory assay, POCT demonstrated sensitivity of 90.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 78.6-96.5) and specificity of 99.2% (95.2-100) for influenza A, with 51.4% and 41.9% reductions in numbers of HAIs observed in the two seasons when POCT was available, respectively. The admission rate ratio for influenza cases diagnosed by POCT compared with laboratory diagnosis was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53-0.97; P= 0.031). POCT for influenza appears a feasible strategy for testing of patients during peak influenza virus season, with potential to reduce HAI. The relatively rapid turnaround time may also benefit clinical management of patients presenting at emergency departments with suspected influenza.

Point-of-Care Influenza Testing Impacts Clinical Decision, Patient Flow, and Length of Stay in Hospitalized Adults.

BackgroundInfluenza is difficult to distinguish clinically from other acute respiratory infections. Rapid laboratory diagnosis can help initiate early effective antiviral treatment and isolation. Implementing a novel point-of-care test (POCT) for influenza in the emergency department (ED) could improve treatment and isolation strategies and reduce the length of stay (LOS).MethodsIn a prospective, controlled observational cohort study, we enrolled patients admitted due to acute respiratory illness to 2 public hospitals in Bergen, Norway, one using a rapid POCT for influenza (n = 400), the other (n = 167) using conventional rapid laboratory-based assay.ResultsPrevalence of influenza was similar in the 2 hospitals (154/400, 38% vs 38%, 63/167; P = .863). Most patients in both hospitals received antiviral (83% vs 81%; P = .703) and antibiotic treatment (72% vs 62%; P = .149). Isolation was more often initiated in ED in the hospital using POCT (91% vs 80%; P = .025). Diagnosis by POCT was associated with shorter hospital stay; old age, diabetes, cancer, and use of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum antibiotics, were associated with prolonged stay.ConclusionsPOCT implementation in ED resulted in improved targeted isolation and shorter LOS. Regardless of POCT use, most influenza patients received antivirals (>80%) and antibiotics (>69%).

Integrating molecular point-of-care testing for influenza into primary care: a mixed-methods feasibility study.

BackgroundMolecular point-of-care testing (POCT) for influenza in primary care could influence clinical care and patient outcomes.AimTo assess the feasibility of incorporating influenza POCT into general practice in England.Design and settingA mixed-methods study conducted in six general practices that had not previously participated in respiratory virology sampling, which are part of the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre English sentinel surveillance network, from February 2019 to May 2019.MethodA sociotechnical perspective was adopted using the Public Health England POCT implementation toolkit and business process modelling notation to inform qualitative analysis. Quantitative data were collected about the number of samples taken, their representativeness, and the virology results obtained, comparing them with the rest of the sentinel system over the same weeks.ResultsA total of 312 POCTs were performed; 276 were used for quantitative analysis, of which 60 were positive for influenza and 216 were negative. The average swabbing rate was 0.4 per 1000 population and swab positivity was between 16.7% (n = 14/84) and 41.4% (n = 12/29). Given a positive influenza POCT result, the odds ratio of receiving an antiviral was 14.1 (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 2.9 to 70.0, P<0.001) and of receiving an antibiotic was 0.4 (95% CI = 0.2 to 0.8, P = 0.01), compared with patients with a negative result. Qualitative analysis showed that it was feasible for practices to implement POCT, but there is considerable variation in the processes used.ConclusionTesting for influenza using POCT is feasible in primary care and may improve antimicrobial use. However, further evidence from randomised trials of influenza POCT in general practice is needed.

2796. The Impact of Syndromic Molecular Point-of-Care Testing for Respiratory Viruses on Antibiotic Use in Adults Presenting to Hospital with Exacerbation of Airways Disease: Further Analysis From a Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundThe ResPOC study demonstrated that syndromic molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) for respiratory viruses was associated with earlier discontinuation of unnecessary antibiotics. Subgroup analysis suggests this occurs predominantly in patients with exacerbation of airways disease. Molecular POCT use is becoming widespread but there is a lack of evidence to inform the choice between multiplex syndromic panels vs. uniplex tests for influenza.MethodsWe evaluated patients with exacerbation of asthma or COPD who were treated with antibiotics. The duration of antibiotics and proportion with early discontinuation were compared between patients testing positive for viruses by POCT (FilmArray Respiratory Panel) those testing negative by POCT and controls. Patients testing positive for viruses by POCT were compared according to virus types detected. Survival curves were generated for duration of antibiotics and compared using the log-rank test.ResultsThere were 118 patient with exacerbation of airways disease in the POCT group who received antibiotics and 111 in the controls. In the POCT group 49/118 (42%) patients tested positive for viruses. Of those testing positive for viruses by POCT 17/49 (35%) had early discontinuation of antibiotics vs. 9/81 (13%) in those testing negative and 7/111 (6%) in controls, P < 0.0001. Survival curve analysis showed a reduced time to antibiotic discontinuation in those testing positive for viruses, P = 0.034. Of those positive for viruses by POCT 20% were positive for influenza, 43% for rhinovirus and 37% for other viruses combined. The proportion with early discontinuation of antibiotics was not different between the virus types, P = 0.53.ConclusionSyndromic molecular POCT for viruses in adults with exacerbation of airways disease leads to early discontinuation in those positive for viruses. As most viruses detected were non-influenza viruses and there was no difference in antibiotic use between virus types, syndromic molecular POCT for respiratory viruses should be favored over uniplex POCT for influenza. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Impact of point-of-care testing for respiratory viruses on antibiotic use in adults with exacerbation of airways disease

The ResPOC study demonstrated that syndromic molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) for respiratory viruses was associated with early discontinuation of unnecessary antibiotics compared to routine clinical care. Subgroup analysis suggests these changes occur predominantly in patients with exacerbation of airways disease. Use of molecular POCT for respiratory viruses is becoming widespread but there is a lack of evidence to inform the choice between multiplex syndromic panels versus POCT for influenza only. We evaluated patients from the ResPOC study with exacerbation of asthma or COPD who were treated with antibiotics. The duration of antibiotics and proportion with early discontinuation were compared between patients testing positive and negative for viruses by POCT, and controls. Patients testing positive for viruses by POCT were compared according to virus types. 118 patient with exacerbation of airways disease received antibiotics in the POCT group and 111 in the control group. In the POCT group 49/118 (42%) patients tested positive for viruses. Of those testing positive for viruses 17/49 (35%) had early discontinuation of antibiotics versus 9/69 (13%) testing negative and 7/111 (6%) of controls, p<0.0001. Of those positive for viruses by POCT 10/49 (20%) were positive for influenza, 21/49 (43%) for rhinovirus and 18/49 (37%) for other viruses. The proportion with early discontinuation of antibiotics was not different between the virus types (p = 0.34). This data suggests that syndromic molecular POCT for respiratory viruses should be favoured over POCT for influenza alone in adults with exacerbation of airways disease.

Investigating the impact of influenza point-of-care testing – what are the benefits?

Point-of-care testing (POCT) for influenza viruses is being used increasingly in NHS hospitals. In the 2017/18 influenza season, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde implemented the Cepheid GeneXpert System for the detection of influenza A, B and respiratory syncytial virus in 7 wards across 5 hospital sites. To evaluate the impact of influenza POCT in Glasgow Royal Infirmary during the 2017/18 influenza season, we retrospectively compared data from 150 influenza A infected patients. We analysed data from 100 patients who were diagnosed using a laboratory based in-house respiratory PCR assay (50 patients from 2016/17 and 50 patients from the 2017/18 season) and 50 patients who were diagnosed using POCT in the 2017/18 season. The aim of the study was to investigate whether POCT impacted patient management and outcome. General linear models were used to test for an association between POCT and a number of outcomes, whilst accounting for host factors. These outcomes included: (1) time from review to influenza result (2) admission status (3) length of hospital stay (4) patient outcome (5) duration of antibiotics (6) antiviral treatment (7) patient isolation and (8) the number of duplicate influenza tests performed. In addition to investigating the impact of POCT, we used this opportunity to explore additional factors that may affect the outcomes of patients infected with influenza A, including: age, sex, imaging results and underlying risk factors.

Implementation of influenza point-of-care testing and patient cohorting during a high-incidence season: a retrospective analysis of impact on infection prevention and control and clinical outcomes

During high-incidence influenza seasons, a robust infection prevention and control policy is imperative to reduce nosocomial transmission of influenza. To assess the impact of influenza point-of-care testing (POCT) in an emergency department (ED) and patient cohorting on an influenza ward on infection prevention and control and clinical outcomes. Influenza POCT was operational in the study ED from 21st January 2018 and patient cohorting was operational on an influenza ward from 25th January 2018. A retrospective 'before-after' analysis was performed with pre-intervention defined as 1st November 2017 to 20th January 2018 and post-intervention defined as 21st January 2018 to 30th April 2018. The primary outcome was the rate of hospital-acquired influenza. Secondary outcomes included antiviral prescription and length of stay. The length of time that inpatients remained influenza-positive was estimated by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). There were 654 inpatients with confirmed influenza during the 2017/18 influenza season: 223 pre- and 431 post-intervention. Post-intervention, there were fewer cases of hospital-acquired influenza per day (0.66 vs 0.95, P<0.0001), median length of stay was shorter (5.5 vs 7.5 days, P=0.005) and antiviral prescription was more frequent (80% vs 64.1%, P<0.0001). Cohorting released 779 single rooms for use elsewhere in the trust. The fixed probability of being PCR-negative by the next day (P) was 0.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-0.16] for immunocompetent patients. This implies that half of immunocompetent patients are PCR-negative by five days post-diagnosis (95% CI 5-6). Influenza POCT in an ED and patient cohorting on an influenza ward were associated with reduced nosocomial transmission of influenza and improved patient flow. A policy of retesting immunocompetent patients five days post-diagnosis could allow half of these patients to come out of respiratory isolation earlier.

Impact of a multiplex PCR point-of-care test for influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial virus on an acute pediatric hospital ward

Patients with respiratory infections are often managed presumptively until confirmation of infection status. We assessed the impact of introducing the Enigma® MiniLab™ FluAB-RSV point-of-care test (POCT) on patients admitted with a suspected respiratory virus driven illness in an acute pediatric ward. This utilized a before and after design (respiratory viral seasons 2013/14 versus 2014/15). Following POCT implementation, oseltamivir prescribing increased in patients with influenza (OR = 12.7, P = 0.05, 95% CI [1.0, 153.8]). A reduction in the average reimbursement charges without a change in the length of stay was observed. Modeling suggested that laboratory test cost savings could be achieved if the POCT cost £30 and was used for screening, followed by the respiratory viral panel for RSV and influenza negative patients. A rapid POCT for influenza A/B and RSV infections in pediatric inpatients may improve oseltamivir prescribing, strengthen antimicrobial stewardship, reduce reimbursement charges and decrease laboratory costs.

Effect of Point-of-care Influenza Testing on Management of Febrile Children

To determine the effect of point-of-care testing (POCT) for influenza on the physician management of febrile children who are at risk for serious bacterial illness (SBI) on the basis of age and temperature and who are presenting to a pediatric emergency department (ED) during an influenza outbreak. Patients 2-3 months of age with temperature of > or = 38 degrees C and patients 3-24 months of age with temperature of > or = 39 degrees C who were presenting to a pediatric ED during an influenza outbreak were enrolled into a prospective, quasi-randomized, controlled trial. Influenza testing was performed on enrolled patients by either the POCT or the standard-testing (ST) methods. The two groups were compared in terms of laboratory testing, chest radiography, antibiotic use, visit-associated costs, pediatric ED lengths of stay, inpatient admission, and return visits to the pediatric ED. Similar analyses also were performed on the resulting subgroups of patients on the basis of method of testing (POCT or ST) and test result (positive or negative). Of 767 eligible patients, 700 (91%) completed the study. No significant differences were demonstrated between the POCT and ST groups with respect to laboratory tests ordered, chest radiographs obtained, antibiotic administration, inpatient admission, return visits to the pediatric ED, lengths of stay, or visit-associated costs. In the subgroup analysis, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for blood culture in influenza test-positive to -negative patients were 0.59 and 0.71 in the POCT and ST groups, respectively (p = 0.088). The adjusted ORs for urine culture in influenza test-positive to -negative patients were 0.46 and 0.67 in the POCT and ST groups, respectively (p = 0.005). When using a strategy of performing influenza testing on all patients at risk for SBI who presented to a pediatric ED during an influenza outbreak, the method of testing (POCT or ST) did not appear to significantly alter physician management, cost, or length of stay in the pediatric ED. However, if the interaction of the method of testing and the test result (positive or negative) were considered, a positive POCT for influenza was associated with a significant reduction in orders for urinalyses and urine cultures.