Natriuretic peptide vs. clinical information for diagnosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Screening of primary care patients at risk for left ventricular systolic dysfunction by a simple blood-test might reduce referral rates for echocardiography. Whether or not natriuretic peptide testing is a useful and cost-effective diagnostic instrument in primary care settings, however, is still a matter of debate.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, clinical information, and echocardiographic data of left ventricular systolic function were collected in 542 family practice patients with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. We determined the diagnostic power of the NT-proBNP assessment in ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction and compared it to a risk score derived from a logistic regression model of easily acquired clinical information.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>23 of 542 patients showed left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Both NT-proBNP and the clinical risk score consisting of dyspnea at exertion and ankle swelling, coronary artery disease and diuretic treatment showed excellent diagnostic power for ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction. AUC of NT-proBNP was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.92) with a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.50). AUC of the clinical risk score was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.91) with a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.67). 148 misclassifications using NT-proBNP and 55 using the clinical risk score revealed a significant difference (McNemar test; p < 0.001) that was based on the higher specificity of the clinical risk score.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The evaluation of clinical information is at least as effective as NT-proBNP testing in ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction in family practice patients at risk. If these results are confirmed in larger cohorts and in different samples, family physicians should be encouraged to rely on the diagnostic power of the clinical information from their patients.</p

Meta-analysis: accuracy of rapid tests for malaria in travelers returning from endemic areas

BACKGROUND: Microscopic diagnosis of malaria is unreliable outside specialized centers. Rapid tests have become available in recent years, but their accuracy has not been assessed systematically. PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests for ruling out malaria in nonimmune travelers returning from malaria-endemic areas. DATA SOURCES: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CAB Health, and CINAHL (1988 to September 2004); hand-searched conference proceedings; checked reference lists; and contacted experts and manufacturers. STUDY SELECTION: Diagnostic accuracy studies in nonimmune individuals with suspected malaria were included if they compared rapid tests with expert microscopic examination or polymerase chain reaction tests. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on study and patient characteristics and results were extracted in duplicate. The main outcome was the likelihood ratio for a negative test result (negative likelihood ratio) for Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Likelihood ratios were combined by using random-effects meta-analysis, stratified by the antigen targeted (histidine-rich protein-2 [HRP-2] or parasite lactate dehydrogenase [LDH]) and by test generation. Nomograms of post-test probabilities were constructed. DATA SYNTHESIS: The authors included 21 studies and 5747 individuals. For P. falciparum, HRP-2-based tests were more accurate than parasite LDH-based tests: Negative likelihood ratios were 0.08 and 0.13, respectively (P = 0.019 for difference). Three-band HRP-2 tests had similar negative likelihood ratios but higher positive likelihood ratios compared with 2-band tests (34.7 vs. 98.5; P = 0.003). For P. vivax, negative likelihood ratios tended to be closer to 1.0 for HRP-2-based tests than for parasite LDH-based tests (0.24 vs. 0.13; P = 0.22), but analyses were based on a few heterogeneous studies. Negative likelihood ratios for the diagnosis of P. malariae or P. ovale were close to 1.0 for both types of tests. In febrile travelers returning from sub-Saharan Africa, the typical probability of P. falciparum malaria is estimated at 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6% to 1.9%) after a negative 3-band HRP-2 test result and 97% (CI, 92% to 99%) after a positive test result. LIMITATIONS: Few studies evaluated 3-band HRP-2 tests. The evidence is also limited for species other than P. falciparum because of the few available studies and their more heterogeneous results. Further studies are needed to determine whether the use of rapid diagnostic tests improves outcomes in returning travelers with suspected malaria. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid malaria tests may be a useful diagnostic adjunct to microscopy in centers without major expertise in tropical medicine. Initial decisions on treatment initiation and choice of antimalarial drugs can be based on travel history and post-test probabilities after rapid testing. Expert microscopy is still required for species identification and confirmation