Improving the diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infection in young children in primary care:results from the ‘DUTY’ prospective diagnostic cohort study

PURPOSE Up to 50% of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in young children are missed in primary care. Urine culture is essential for diagnosis, but urine collection is often difficult. Our aim was to derive and internally validate a 2-step clinical rule using (1) symptoms and signs to select children for urine collection; and (2) symptoms, signs, and dipstick testing to guide antibiotic treatment. METHODS We recruited acutely unwell children aged under 5 years from 233 primary care sites across England and Wales. Index tests were parent-reported symptoms, clinician-reported signs, urine dipstick results, and clinician opinion of UTI likelihood (clinical diagnosis before dipstick and culture). The reference standard was microbiologically confirmed UTI cultured from a clean-catch urine sample. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curve of coefficient-based (graded severity) and points-based (dichotomized) symptom/sign logistic regression models, and we then internally validated the AUROC using bootstrapping. RESULTS Three thousand thirty-six children provided urine samples, and culture results were available for 2,740 (90%). Of these results, 60 (2.2%) were positive: the clinical diagnosis was 46.6% sensitive, with an AUROC of 0.77. Previous UTI, increasing pain/crying on passing urine, increasingly smelly urine, absence of severe cough, increasing clinician impression of severe illness, abdominal tenderness on examination, and normal findings on ear examination were associated with UTI. The validated coefficient- and points-based model AUROCs were 0.87 and 0.86, respectively, increasing to 0.90 and 0.90, respectively, by adding dipstick nitrites, leukocytes, and blood. CONCLUSIONS A clinical rule based on symptoms and signs is superior to clinician diagnosis and performs well for identifying young children for noninvasive urine sampling. Dipstick results add further diagnostic value for empiric antibiotic treatment

Comparison of microbiological diagnosis of urinary tract infection in young children by routine health service laboratories and a research laboratory: Diagnostic cohort study

OBJECTIVES: To compare the validity of diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) through urine culture between samples processed in routine health service laboratories and those processed in a research laboratory. POPULATION AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective diagnostic cohort study in 4808 acutely ill children aged <5 years attending UK primary health care. UTI, defined as pure/predominant growth ≥105 CFU/mL of a uropathogen (the reference standard), was diagnosed at routine health service laboratories and a central research laboratory by culture of urine samples. We calculated areas under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) for UTI predicted by pre-specified symptoms, signs and dipstick test results (the "index test"), separately according to whether samples were obtained by clean catch or nappy (diaper) pads. RESULTS: 251 (5.2%) and 88 (1.8%) children were classified as UTI positive by health service and research laboratories respectively. Agreement between laboratories was moderate (kappa = 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29, 0.43), and better for clean catch (0.54; 0.45, 0.63) than nappy pad samples (0.20; 0.12, 0.28). In clean catch samples, the AUC was lower for health service laboratories (AUC = 0.75; 95% CI 0.69, 0.80) than the research laboratory (0.86; 0.79, 0.92). Values of AUC were lower in nappy pad samples (0.65 [0.61, 0.70] and 0.79 [0.70, 0.88] for health service and research laboratory positivity, respectively) than clean catch samples. CONCLUSIONS: The agreement of microbiological diagnosis of UTI comparing routine health service laboratories with a research laboratory was moderate for clean catch samples and poor for nappy pad samples and reliability is lower for nappy pad than for clean catch samples. Positive results from the research laboratory appear more likely to reflect real UTIs than those from routine health service laboratories, many of which (particularly from nappy pad samples) could be due to contamination. Health service laboratories should consider adopting procedures used in the research laboratory for paediatric urine samples. Primary care clinicians should try to obtain clean catch samples, even in very young children

The Diagnosis of Urinary Tract infection in Young children (DUTY): a diagnostic prospective observational study to derive and validate a clinical algorithm for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection in children presenting to primary care with an acute illness

Background: It is not clear which young children presenting acutely unwell to primary care should be investigated for urinary tract infection (UTI) and whether or not dipstick testing should be used to inform antibiotic treatment.Objectives: To develop algorithms to accurately identify pre-school children in whom urine should be obtained; assess whether or not dipstick urinalysis provides additional diagnostic information; and model algorithm cost-effectiveness.Design: Multicentre, prospective diagnostic cohort study.Setting and participants: Children &lt; 5 years old presenting to primary care with an acute illness and/or new urinary symptoms.Methods: One hundred and seven clinical characteristics (index tests) were recorded from the child’s past medical history, symptoms, physical examination signs and urine dipstick test. Prior to dipstick results clinician opinion of UTI likelihood (‘clinical diagnosis’) and urine sampling and treatment intentions (‘clinical judgement’) were recorded. All index tests were measured blind to the reference standard, defined as a pure or predominant uropathogen cultured at ? 105 colony-forming units (CFU)/ml in a single research laboratory. Urine was collected by clean catch (preferred) or nappy pad. Index tests were sequentially evaluated in two groups, stratified by urine collection method: parent-reported symptoms with clinician-reported signs, and urine dipstick results. Diagnostic accuracy was quantified using area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and bootstrap-validated AUROC, and compared with the ‘clinician diagnosis’ AUROC. Decision-analytic models were used toidentify optimal urine sampling strategy compared with ‘clinical judgement’.Results: A total of 7163 children were recruited, of whom 50% were female and 49% were &lt; 2 years old. Culture results were available for 5017 (70%); 2740 children provided clean-catch samples, 94% of whom were ? 2 years old, with 2.2% meeting the UTI definition. Among these, ‘clinical diagnosis’ correctly identified 46.6% of positive cultures, with 94.7% specificity and an AUROC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.83). Four symptoms, three signs and three dipstick results were independently associated with UTI with an AUROC (95% CI; bootstrap-validated AUROC) of 0.89 (0.85 to 0.95; validated 0.88) for symptoms and signs, increasing to 0.93 (0.90 to 0.97; validated 0.90) with dipstick results. Nappy pad samples were provided from the other 2277 children, of whom 82% were &lt; 2 years old and 1.3% met the UTI definition.‘Clinical diagnosis’ correctly identified 13.3% positive cultures, with 98.5% specificity and an AUROC of 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.72). Four symptoms and two dipstick results were independently associated with UTI, with an AUROC of 0.81 (0.72 to 0.90; validated 0.78) for symptoms, increasing to 0.87 (0.80 to 0.94; validated 0.82) with the dipstick findings. A high specificity threshold for the clean-catch model was more accurate and less costly than, and as effective as, clinical judgement. The additional diagnostic utility of dipstick testing was offset by its costs. The cost-effectiveness of the nappy pad model was not clear-cut.Conclusions: Clinicians should prioritise the use of clean-catch sampling as symptoms and signs can cost-effectively improve the identification of UTI in young children where clean catch is possible. Dipstick testing can improve targeting of antibiotic treatment, but at a higher cost than waiting for a laboratory result. Future research is needed to distinguish pathogens from contaminants, assess the impact of the clean-catch algorithm on patient outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of presumptive versus dipstick versus laboratory-guided antibiotic treatment.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.<br/

Protocol for 'Seal or Varnish' (SoV) trial: A randomised controlled trial to measure the relative cost and effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants and fluoride varnish in preventing dental decay

Background Dental caries remains a significant public health problem, prevalence being linked to social and economic deprivation. Occlusal surfaces of first permanent molars are the most susceptible site in the developing permanent dentition. Cochrane reviews have shown pit and fissure sealants (PFS) and fluoride varnish (FV) to be effective over no intervention in preventing caries. However, the comparative cost and effectiveness of these treatments is uncertain. The primary aim of the trial described in this protocol is to compare the clinical effectiveness of PFS and FV in preventing dental caries in first permanent molars in 6-7 year-olds. Secondary aims include: establishing the costs and the relative cost-effectiveness of PFS and FV delivered in a community/school setting; examining the impact of PFS and FV on children and their parents/carers in terms of quality of life/treatment acceptability measures; and examining the implementation of treatment in a community setting. Methods/design The trial design comprises a randomised, assessor-blinded, two-arm, parallel group trial in 6–7 year old schoolchildren. Clinical procedures and assessments will be performed at 66 primary schools, in deprived areas in South Wales. Treatments will be delivered via a mobile dental clinic. In total, 920 children will be recruited (460 per trial arm). At baseline and annually for 36 months dental caries will be recorded using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) by trained and calibrated dentists. PFS and FV will be applied by trained dental hygienists. The FV will be applied at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 30 months. The PFS will be applied at baseline and re-examined at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months, and will be re-applied if the existing sealant has become detached/is insufficient. The economic analysis will estimate the costs of providing the PFS versus FV. The process evaluation will assess implementation and acceptability through acceptability scales, a schools questionnaire and interviews with children, parents, dentists, dental nurses and school staff. The primary outcome measure will be the proportion of children developing new caries on any one of up to four treated first permanent molars. Discussion The objectives of this study have been identified by the National Institute for Health Research as one of importance to the National Health Service in the UK. The results of this trial will provide guidance on which of these technologies should be adopted for the prevention of dental decay in the most susceptible tooth-surface in the most at risk children

The acceptability of fluoride varnish and fissure sealant treatments in children aged 6-9 delivered in a school setting

Objective: To assess the acceptability of fluoride varnish and fissure sealant treatments for children. To investigate the acceptability of delivering this treatment in a school setting for children, parents, clinicians and school staff. Basic research design: Semi-structured interviews (with children, parents, clinicians and school staff) and a questionnaire (for school staff) as part of a two-arm, randomised clinical trial. Participants: Children aged 6-9, their parents, clinical staff and school staff. Interventions: Fluoride varnish or fissure sealant was delivered to children from the ages of 6 to 9 years for 36 months, by a community dental service in a school setting. Fluoride varnish was re-applied every 6 months; fissure sealant was applied once to first permanent molars and re-applied as required. Results: Interviews with children a few days after treatment indicated little difference in preference; acceptability at this point was driven by factors such as finding it fun to visit ‘the van’ (i.e. mobile dental unit) and receiving a “sticker” rather than specific treatment received. Interviews with parents, clinicians and school staff indicated high acceptability of delivering this type of intervention in a school setting; this may have been partly due to the service being delivered by a well-established, child-oriented community dental service which delivered the clinical trial. Conclusions: Preventive fluoride varnish and fissure sealant treatments in a school setting has high overall acceptability. Keywords: Preventive treatment; dental caries; qualitative study; fissure sealants; fluoride varnish; children; health inequality; school based preventio

Protocol for “Seal or Varnish?” (SoV) trial: a randomised controlled trial to measure the relative cost and effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants and fluoride varnish in preventing dental decay

Abstract Background Dental caries remains a significant public health problem, prevalence being linked to social and economic deprivation. Occlusal surfaces of first permanent molars are the most susceptible site in the developing permanent dentition. Cochrane reviews have shown pit and fissure sealants (PFS) and fluoride varnish (FV) to be effective over no intervention in preventing caries. However, the comparative cost and effectiveness of these treatments is uncertain. The primary aim of the trial described in this protocol is to compare the clinical effectiveness of PFS and FV in preventing dental caries in first permanent molars in 6-7 year-olds. Secondary aims include: establishing the costs and the relative cost-effectiveness of PFS and FV delivered in a community/school setting; examining the impact of PFS and FV on children and their parents/carers in terms of quality of life/treatment acceptability measures; and examining the implementation of treatment in a community setting. Methods/design The trial design comprises a randomised, assessor-blinded, two-arm, parallel group trial in 6–7 year old schoolchildren. Clinical procedures and assessments will be performed at 66 primary schools, in deprived areas in South Wales. Treatments will be delivered via a mobile dental clinic. In total, 920 children will be recruited (460 per trial arm). At baseline and annually for 36 months dental caries will be recorded using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) by trained and calibrated dentists. PFS and FV will be applied by trained dental hygienists. The FV will be applied at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 30 months. The PFS will be applied at baseline and re-examined at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months, and will be re-applied if the existing sealant has become detached/is insufficient. The economic analysis will estimate the costs of providing the PFS versus FV. The process evaluation will assess implementation and acceptability through acceptability scales, a schools questionnaire and interviews with children, parents, dentists, dental nurses and school staff. The primary outcome measure will be the proportion of children developing new caries on any one of up to four treated first permanent molars. Discussion The objectives of this study have been identified by the National Institute for Health Research as one of importance to the National Health Service in the UK. The results of this trial will provide guidance on which of these technologies should be adopted for the prevention of dental decay in the most susceptible tooth-surface in the most at risk children. Trial registrations ISRCTN ref: ISRCTN17029222 EudraCT: 2010-023476-23 UKCRN ref: 9273</p

Comparison of microbiological diagnosis of urinary tract infection in young children by routine health service laboratories and a research laboratory: diagnostic cohort study

Objectives: To compare the validity of diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) through urine culture between samples processed in routine health service laboratories and those processed in a research laboratory.Population and Methods: We conducted a prospective diagnostic cohort study in 4808 acutely ill children aged &lt;5 years attending UK primary health care. UTI, defined as pure/predominant growth ?105 CFU/mL of a uropathogen (the reference standard), was diagnosed at routine health service laboratories and a central research laboratory by culture of urine samples. We calculated areas under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) for UTI predicted by pre-specified symptoms, signs and dipstick test results (the “index test”), separately according to whether samples were obtained by clean catch or nappy (diaper) pads.Results: 251 (5.2%) and 88 (1.8%) children were classified as UTI positive by health service and research laboratories respectively. Agreement between laboratories was moderate (kappa=0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29, 0.43), and better for clean catch (0.54; 0.45, 0.63) than nappy pad samples (0.20; 0.12, 0.28). In clean catch samples, the AUC was lower for health service laboratories (AUC=0.75; 95% CI 0.69, 0.80) than the research laboratory (0.86; 0.79, 0.92). Values of AUC were lower in nappy pad samples (0.65 [0.61, 0.70] and 0.79 [0.70, 0.88] for health service and research laboratory positivity, respectively) than clean catch samples.Conclusions: The agreement of microbiological diagnosis of UTI comparing routine health service laboratories with a research laboratory was moderate for clean catch samples and poor for nappy pad samples and reliability is lower for nappy pad than for clean catch samples. Positive results from the research laboratory appear more likely to reflect real UTIs than those from routine health service laboratories, many of which (particularly from nappy pad samples) could be due to contamination. Health service laboratories should consider adopting procedures used in the research laboratory for paediatric urine samples. Primary care clinicians should try to obtain clean catch samples, even in very young children

‘Nappy pad’ urine samples for guiding investigation and treatment of urinary tract infection (UTI) in young children:Findings from the ‘DUTY’ prospective diagnostic cohort study

Background: although sampling urine using nappy pads is preferred by parents and recommended when a clean catch sample can’t be obtained, we do not know the added diagnostic utility of ‘nappy pad’ urine samples, nor the proportion that are contaminated. Setting: acutely unwell children &lt;5 years presenting to 233 primary care sites in England and Wales.Method: logistic regression to identify independent associations of symptoms, signs and urine dipstick test results with UTI; diagnostic utility quantified as area under the receiver operator curves (AUROC). Nappy pad rule characteristics, AUROC, and contamination compared to findings from clean catch samples. Results: nappy pad samples were obtained from 3205 children (82% &lt;2 years; 48% female), and culture results available for 2277 (71.0%). 30 (1.3%) met our laboratory definition of UTI. Female gender, smelly urine, darker urine, and absence of nappy rash were independently associated with UTI, with an internally validated, coefficient model AUROC of 0.81 (0.87 for clean catch) that increased to 0.87 (0.90 for clean catch) with the addition of dipstick results. GPs’ ‘working diagnosis’ had an AUROC 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.72). 12.2% of nappy pad and 1.8% of clean-catch samples were ‘frankly contaminated’ (risk ratio 6.66; 95% CI 4.95 to 8.96; p &lt;0.001).Conclusion: nappy pad urine culture results, with features that can be reported by parents and dipstick tests, can be clinically useful, but are less accurate and more often contaminated compared to clean catch urine culture results, which should be prioritised. Dipstick testing adds diagnostic accuracy.<br/