Point-of-care C-reactive protein testing to reduce inappropriate use of antibiotics for non-severe acute respiratory infections in Vietnamese primary health care: a randomised controlled trial

Background: Inappropriate antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infections is common in primary health care, but distinguishing serious from self-limiting infections is difficult, particularly in low-resource settings. We assessed whether C-reactive protein point-of-care testing can safely reduce antibiotic use in patients with non-severe acute respiratory tract infections in Vietnam. Method: We did a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial in ten primary health-care centres in northern Vietnam. Patients aged 1–65 years with at least one focal and one systemic symptom of acute respiratory tract infection were assigned 1:1 to receive either C-reactive protein point-of-care testing or routine care, following which antibiotic prescribing decisions were made. Patients with severe acute respiratory tract infection were excluded. Enrolled patients were reassessed on day 3, 4, or 5, and on day 14 a structured telephone interview was done blind to the intervention. Randomised assignments were concealed from prescribers and patients but not masked as the test result was used to assist treatment decisions. The primary outcome was antibiotic use within 14 days of follow-up. All analyses were prespecified in the protocol and the statistical analysis plan. All analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population and the analysis of the primary endpoint was repeated in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered under number NCT01918579. Findings: Between March 17, 2014, and July 3, 2015, 2037 patients (1028 children and 1009 adults) were enrolled and randomised. One adult patient withdrew immediately after randomisation. 1017 patients were assigned to receive C-reactive protein point-of-care testing, and 1019 patients were assigned to receive routine care. 115 patients in the C-reactive protein point-of-care group and 72 patients in the routine care group were excluded in the intention-to-treat analysis due to missing primary endpoint. The number of patients who used antibiotics within 14 days was 581 (64%) of 902 patients in the C-reactive protein group versus 738 (78%) of 947 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·49, 95% CI 0·40–0·61; p<0·0001). Highly significant differences were seen in both children and adults, with substantial heterogeneity of the intervention effect across the 10 sites (I2=84%, 95% CI 66–96). 140 patients in the C-reactive protein group and 137 patients in the routine care group missed the urine test on day 3, 4, or 5. Antibiotic activity in urine on day 3, 4, or 5 was found in 267 (30%) of 877 patients in the C-reactive protein group versus 314 (36%) of 882 patients in the routine treatment group (OR 0·78, 95% CI 0·63–0·95; p=0·015). Time to resolution of symptoms was similar in both groups. Adverse events were rare, with no deaths and a total of 14 hospital admissions (six in the C-reactive protein group and eight in the control group). Interpretation: C-reactive protein point-of-care testing reduced antibiotic use for non-severe acute respiratory tract infection without compromising patients' recovery in primary health care in Vietnam. Health-care providers might have become familiar with the clinical picture of low C-reactive protein, leading to reduction in antibiotic prescribing in both groups, but this would have led to a reduction in observed effect, rather than overestimation. Qualitative analysis is needed to address differences in context in order to implement this strategy to improve rational antibiotic use for patients with acute respiratory infection in low-income and middle-income countries. Funding: Wellcome Trust, UK, and Global Antibiotic Resistance Partnership, USA

Effect of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing on antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care in Thailand and Myanmar: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial

Summary: Background: In southeast Asia, antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care is common, and a probable contributor to the high burden of antimicrobial resistance. The objective of this trial was to explore whether C-reactive protein (CRP) testing at point of care could rationalise antibiotic prescription in primary care, comparing two proposed thresholds to classify CRP concentrations as low or high to guide antibiotic treatment. Methods: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial in participants aged at least 1 year with a documented fever or a chief complaint of fever (regardless of previous antibiotic intake and comorbidities other than malignancies) recruited from six public primary care units in Thailand and three primary care clinics and one outpatient department in Myanmar. Individuals were randomly assigned using a computer-based randomisation system at a ratio of 1:1:1 to either the control group or one of two CRP testing groups, which used thresholds of 20 mg/L (group A) or 40 mg/L CRP (group B) to guide antibiotic prescription. Health-care providers were masked to allocation between the two intervention groups but not to the control group. The primary outcome was the prescription of any antibiotic from day 0 to day 5 and the proportion of patients who were prescribed an antibiotic when CRP concentrations were above and below the 20 mg/L or 40 mg/L thresholds. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02758821, and is now completed. Findings: Between June 8, 2016, and Aug 25, 2017, we recruited 2410 patients, of whom 803 patients were randomly assigned to CRP group A, 800 to CRP group B, and 807 to the control group. 598 patients in CRP group A, 593 in CRP group B, and 767 in the control group had follow-up data for both day 5 and day 14 and had been prescribed antibiotics (or not) in accordance with test results (per-protocol population). During the trial, 318 (39%) of 807 patients in the control group were prescribed an antibiotic by day 5, compared with 290 (36%) of 803 patients in CRP group A and 275 (34%) of 800 in CRP group B. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0·80 (95% CI 0·65–0·98) and risk difference of −5·0 percentage points (95% CI −9·7 to −0·3) between group B and the control group were significant, although lower than anticipated, whereas the reduction in prescribing in group A compared with the control group was not significant (aOR 0·86 [0·70–1·06]; risk difference −3·3 percentage points [–8·0 to 1·4]). Patients with high CRP concentrations in both intervention groups were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic than in the control group (CRP ≥20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP ≥40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001), and those with low CRP concentrations were more likely to have an antibiotic withheld (CRP <20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP <40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001). 24 serious adverse events were recorded, consisting of 23 hospital admissions and one death, which occurred in CRP group A. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be possibly related to the study (a hospital admission in CRP group A). Interpretation: In febrile patients attending primary care, testing for CRP at point of care with a threshold of 40 mg/L resulted in a modest but significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing, with patients with high CRP being more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic, and no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes. This study extends the evidence base from lower-income settings supporting the use of CRP tests to rationalise antibiotic use in primary care patients with an acute febrile illness. A key limitation of this study is the individual rather than cluster randomised study design which might have resulted in contamination between the study groups, reducing the effect size of the intervention. Funding: Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund grant (105605/Z/14/Z) and Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) funding from the Australian Government