C-reactive protein and neutrophil count laboratory test requests from primary care:what is the demand and would substitution by point of care technology be viable?

Aims: C-reactive protein (CRP) and neutrophil count (NC) are important diagnostic indicators of inflammation. Point-of-care (POC) technologies for these markers are available but rarely used in community settings in the UK. To inform the potential for POC tests, it is necessary to understand the demand for testing. We aimed to describe the frequency of CRP and NC test requests from primary care to central laboratory services, describe variability between practices and assess the relationship between the tests.Methods: We described the number of patients with either or both laboratory tests, and the volume of testing per individual and per practice, in a retrospective cohort of all adults in general practices in Oxfordshire, 2014–2016.Results: 372 017 CRP and 776 581 NC tests in 160 883 and 275 093 patients, respectively, were requested from 69 practices. CRP was tested mainly in combination with NC, while the latter was more often tested alone. The median (IQR) of CRP and NC tests/person tested was 1 (1–2) and 2 (1–3), respectively. The median (IQR) tests/ practice/week was 36 (22–52) and 72 (50–108), and per 1000 persons registered/practice/week was 4 (3–5) and 8 (7–9), respectively. The median (IQR) CRP and NC concentrations were 2.7 (0.9–7.9)mg/dL and 4.1 (3.1–5.5)×109/L, respectively.Conclusions: The high demand for CRP and NC testing in the community, and the range of results falling within the reportable range for current POC technologies highlight the opportunity for laboratory testing to be supplemented by POC testing in general practice

Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: A cluster randomised trial

Background: Point-of-care blood C-reactive protein (CRP) testing has diagnostic value in helping clinicians rule out the possibility of serious infection. We investigated whether it should be offered to all acutely ill children in primary care or restricted to those identified as at risk on clinical assessment. Methods: Cluster randomised controlled trial involving acutely ill children presenting to 133 general practitioners (GPs) at 78 GP practices in Belgium. Practices were randomised to undertake point-of-care CRP testing in all children (1730 episodes) or restricted to children identified as at clinical risk (1417 episodes). Clinical risk was assessed by a validated clinical decision rule (presence of one of breathlessness, temperature ≥ 40 °C, diarrhoea and age 12-30 months, or clinician concern). The main trial outcome was hospital admission with serious infection within 5 days. No specific guidance was given to GPs on interpreting CRP levels but diagnostic performance is reported at 5, 20, 80 and 200 mg/L. Results: Restricting CRP testing to those identified as at clinical risk substantially reduced the number of children tested by 79.9 % (95 % CI, 77.8-82.0 %). There was no significant difference between arms in the number of children with serious infection who were referred to hospital immediately (0.16 % vs. 0.14 %, P = 0.88). Only one child with a CRP < 5 mg/L had an illness requiring admission (a child with viral gastroenteritis admitted for rehydration). However, of the 80 children referred to hospital to rule out serious infection, 24 (30.7 %, 95 % CI, 19.6-45.6 %) had a CRP < 5 mg/L. Conclusions: CRP testing should be restricted to children at higher risk after clinical assessment. A CRP < 5 mg/L rules out serious infection and could be used by GPs to avoid unnecessary hospital referrals

Can we import quality tools? a feasibility study of European practice assessment in a country with less organised general practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Quality is on the agenda of European general practice (GP). European researchers have, in collaboration, developed tools to assess quality of GPs. In this feasibility study, we tested the European Practice Assessment (EPA) in a one-off project in Belgium, where general practice has a low level of GP organisation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A framework for feasibility analysis included describing the recruiting of participants, a brief telephone study survey among non-responders, organisational and logistic problems. Using field notes and focus groups, we studied the participants' opinions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In this study, only 36 of 1000 invited practices agreed to participate. Co-ordination, administrative work, practice visits and organisational problems required several days per practice. The researchers further encountered technical problems, for instance when entering the data and uploading to the web-based server. In subsequent qualitative analysis using two focus groups, most participant GPs expressed a positive feeling after the EPA procedure. In the short period of follow-up, only a few GPs reported improvements after the visit. The participant GPs suggested that follow-up and coaching would probably facilitate the implementation of changes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This feasibility study shows that prior interest in EPA is low in the GP community. We encountered a number of logistic and organisational problems. It proved attractive to participants, but it can be augmented by coaching of participants in more than a one-off project to identify and achieve targets for quality improvement. In the absence of commitment of the government, a network of universities and one scientific organisation will offer EPA as a service to training practices.</p

Prevalence and incidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among primary healthcare providers in Belgium during 1 year of the COVID-19 epidemic: prospective cohort study protocol.

peer reviewed[en] INTRODUCTION: National SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data provide essential information about population exposure to the virus and help predict the future course of the epidemic. Early cohort studies have suggested declines in levels of antibodies in individuals associated with, for example, illness severity, age and comorbidities. This protocol focuses on the seroprevalence among primary healthcare providers (PHCPs) in Belgium. PHCPs manage the vast majority of (COVID-19) patients and therefore play an essential role in the efficient organisation of healthcare. Currently, evidence is lacking on (1) how many PHCPs get infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Belgium, (2) the rate at which this happens, (3) their clinical spectrum, (4) their risk factors, (5) the effectiveness of the measures to prevent infection and (6) the accuracy of the serology-based point-of-care test (POCT) in a primary care setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be set up as a prospective cohort study. General practitioners (GPs) and other PHCPs (working in a GP practice) will be recruited via professional networks and professional media outlets to register online to participate. Registered GPs and other PHCPs will be asked at each testing point (n=9) to perform a capillary blood sample antibody POCT targeting IgM and IgG against the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 and complete an online questionnaire. The primary outcomes are the prevalence and incidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in PHCPs during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include the longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the ethics committee of the University Hospital of Antwerp/University of Antwerp (Belgian registration number: 3002020000237). Alongside journal publications, dissemination activities include the publication of monthly reports to be shared with the participants and the general population through the publicly available website of the Belgian health authorities (Sciensano). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04779424

New clinical prediction model for early recognition of sepsis in adult primary care patients:a prospective diagnostic cohort study of development and external validation

Background Recognising patients who need immediate hospital treatment for sepsis while simultaneously limiting unnecessary referrals is challenging for GPs.Aim To develop and validate a sepsis prediction model for adult patients in primary care.Design and setting This was a prospective cohort study in four out-of-hours primary care services in the Netherlands, conducted between June 2018 and March 2020.Method Adult patients who were acutely ill and received home visits were included. A total of nine clinical variables were selected as candidate predictors, next to the biomarkers C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and lactate. The primary endpoint was sepsis within 72 hours of inclusion, as established by an expert panel. Multivariable logistic regression with backwards selection was used to design an optimal model with continuous clinical variables. The added value of the biomarkers was evaluated. Subsequently, a simple model using single cut-off points of continuous variables was developed and externally validated in two emergency department populations.Results A total of 357 patients were included with a median age of 80 years (interquartile range 71–86), of which 151 (42%) were diagnosed with sepsis. A model based on a simple count of one point for each of six variables (aged &gt;65 years; temperature &gt;38°C; systolic blood pressure ≤110 mmHg; heart rate &gt;110/min; saturation ≤95%; and altered mental status) had good discrimination and calibration (C-statistic of 0.80 [95% confidence interval = 0.75 to 0.84]; Brier score 0.175). Biomarkers did not improve the performance of the model and were therefore not included. The model was robust during external validation.Conclusion Based on this study’s GP out-of-hours population, a simple model can accurately predict sepsis in acutely ill adult patients using readily available clinical parameters

Accuracy of routine laboratory tests to predict mortality and deterioration to severe or critical COVID-19 in people with SARS-CoV-2

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (diagnostic). The objectives are as follows:  To assess the accuracy of routine blood-based laboratory tests to predict mortality and deterioration to severe or critical (from mild or moderate) COVID-19 in people with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary objectives Where data are available, we will investigate whether prognostic accuracy varies according to a specific measurement or test, reference standard, timing of outcome verification, sample type, study design, and setting, including prevalence of the target condition (either by stratified analysis or meta-regression)

Validation of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody test in general practice.

peer reviewed[en] OBJECTIVES: To validate a rapid serological test (RST) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies used in seroprevalence studies in healthcare providers, including primary healthcare providers (PHCPs) in Belgium. DESIGN: A phase III validation study of the RST (OrientGene) within a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care in Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Any general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages patients were eligible in the seroprevalence study. For the validation study, all participants who tested positive (376) on the RST at the first testing timepoint (T1) and a random sample of those who tested negative (790) and unclear (24) were included. INTERVENTION: At T2, 4 weeks later, PHCPs performed the RST with fingerprick blood (index test) immediately after providing a serum sample to be analysed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies using a two-out-of-three assay (reference test). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The RST accuracy was estimated using inverse probability weighting to correct for missing reference test data, and considering unclear RST results as negative for the sensitivity and positive for the specificity. Using these conservative estimates, the true seroprevalence was estimated both for T2 and RST-based prevalence values found in a cohort study with PHCPs in Belgium. RESULTS: 1073 paired tests (403 positive on the reference test) were included. A sensitivity of 73% (a specificity of 92%) was found considering unclear RST results as negative (positive). For an RST-based prevalence at T1 (13.9), T2 (24.9) and T7 (70.21), the true prevalence was estimated to be 9.1%, 25.9% and 95.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The RST sensitivity (73%) and specificity (92%) make an RST-based seroprevalence below (above) 23% overestimate (underestimate) the true seroprevalence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04779424

Does tiotropium lower exacerbation and hospitalization frequency in COPD patients: results of a meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>International guidelines recommend long-acting bronchodilators in patients who remain symptomatic despite adequate treatment with short-acting bronchodilators. The purpose of this study is to estimate the effect of tiotropium, a long-acting anticholinergic inhalant, on exacerbation and hospitalisation frequency.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, INAHTA, CRD databases, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for randomised controlled trials, comparing tiotropium to placebo, or other bronchodilators. Outcomes were the exacerbation frequency and hospitalisation frequency. Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method for continuous outcomes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Nine studies reported comparisons with placebo (n = 8), ipratropium (short-acting anticholinergic inhalant, n = 1), and salmeterol (long-acting β₂-agonist inhalant, n = 1). Only two studies reported adequate concealment of allocation. Tiotropium reduces the number of exacerbations per patient year by 0.31 (95% CI 0.46- 0.17) compared to placebo, and by 0.23 (95% CI 0.31- 0.15) compared to ipratropium. A significant difference in exacerbation frequency between tiotropium and salmeterol was found (-0.16; 95% CI -0.29 - -0.03) based on approximations of the results of one study.</p> <p>The number of hospitalisations is reduced by 0.04 (95% CI 0.08- 0.01) per patient year compared to placebo and by 0.06 (95% CI -0.09 - -0.03) per patient year compared to ipratropium.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Statistically significant but clinically small effects were found for tiotropium compared to placebo and ipratropium. The comparison with salmeterol is significant for exacerbation frequency but not for hospitalisation frequency. Publication bias may be present.</p