Next Article in Journal
Is Panenteric PillcamTM Crohn’s Capsule Endoscopy Ready for Widespread Use? A Narrative Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Based on the LAMP Assay Associated with the CRISPRCas12a System
Previous Article in Journal
Sentinel Lymph Node Detection in Breast Cancer: An Innovative Technique
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clinical Validation of a Colorimetric Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Using a Portable Device for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/diagnostics13122031
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Positive Point-of-Care Influenza Test Significantly Decreases the Probability of Antibiotic Treatment during Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care

by
Aneta Rzepka
1 and
Anna Mania
2,*
1
Medicus Primary Health Care Centre, Magdalena Kurnatowska, ul. Starogostyńska 9, 63-800 Gostyń, Poland
2
Department of Infectious Diseases and Child Neurology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 60-572 Poznań, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2023, 13(12), 2031; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13122031
Submission received: 4 May 2023 / Revised: 6 June 2023 / Accepted: 10 June 2023 / Published: 12 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Point-of-Care Testing for Infectious Disease)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to analyse clinical and laboratory findings in primary care patients with respiratory tract infections to distinguish the group more likely to receive antibiotic treatment. The study group consisted of 631 patients (264 males; 367 females) with a median age of 48 years (IQR 36–63 years). Analysed groups included patients treated with antibiotics (n = 269 patients; 43%) and those who recovered without antibiotic treatment (n = 362 patients; 57%). Patients receiving antibiotics were older (median 51 vs. 47 years; p = 0.008) and more commonly developed fever (77% vs. 25%, p < 0.0001) and cough (63% vs. 30%; p = 0.0014). Moreover, they more frequently presented wheezing and crackles upon physical examination (28% vs. 4% and 9% vs. 0.3%; p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). They also had more comorbidities and came to more follow-up visits (median of 4 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 1, p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Patients receiving symptomatic therapy more often had positive point-of-care tests (POCTS)—20% vs. 7%; p = <0.0001. Multivariate analysis in our cohort found comorbidities complexity (odds ratio—OR 2.62; 95% confidence interval—1.54–4.46), fever (OR 32.59; 95%CI 19.15–55.47), crackles (OR 26.35; 95%CI 2.77–250.81) and the number of visits (OR 4.15; 95%CI 2.39–7.20) as factors increasing the probability of antibiotic treatment. Positive influenza POCTS reduced the risk of antibiotic therapy (OR 0.0015; 95%CI 0.0001–0.0168).

1. Introduction

Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) comprise the most common causes of medical advice in primary care. They constitute 10–15% of all visits during the year. In temperate climates, RTIs may be responsible for most visits from late autumn to early spring [1]. The majority of patients suffer from upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). However, lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) usually have a more severe clinical course [2]. In most patients, RTIs are of viral aetiology and have a self-limiting character. The most common viruses causing RTIs include rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, parainfluenza, metapneumovirus and adenoviruses [2]. Conditions such as sinusitis, otitis or unspecified acute URTI require symptomatic treatment in most cases [3].
The potential diagnosis is usually based on reported symptoms, including fever, nasal discharge, sore throat, cough, and hoarseness. Some symptoms and signs are not specific and overlap with bacterial infections caused by Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus peumoniae, Moraxella catharralis, Hemophilus influenzae and other species [2,3]. Therefore, access to point-of-care testing (POCT) detecting viral antigens with the result available after a short period seems to be a reliable tool in the diagnostic process. POCT constitute rapid, easy-to-use tests performed by non-laboratory-trained personnel. Before the pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), POCTS were less widely available than they currently are. They may comprise multiple tests for numerous viral pathogens or be restricted to selected ones. The results of rapid influenza and streptococcal antigen tests strongly influence RTI treatment, as the physician may implement a correct antiviral or antibiotic where appropriate [4,5,6]. Nevertheless, positive results of other viral pathogen tests may spare the use of unnecessary medications. Therefore, POCT could be a valuable tool to guide the proper management of patients and infection control measures in primary care [4,5,6].
Influenza is associated with high morbidity and mortality, causing 10% of RTIs with frequent hospital admissions [7,8]. The influenza virus invades and damages epithelial cells of the nose, larynx, trachea and bronchi. The disease is a highly contagious RTI characterised by sudden onset. Typical symptoms include fever, chills, muscle pain, headache, cough and nasal discharge [7,8]. The greatest risk of complications in the course of influenza involves children < 5 years and patients > 65 years of age and pregnant, chronically ill and immunocompromised patients. Typical complications of influenza comprise otitis media, pneumonia, myositis, myocarditis and neurological complications with meningitis, acute disseminated encephalitis and Gullain–Barre syndrome. If diagnosed early, optimally up to 2 days after the onset of symptoms, influenza may be treated more effectively [9,10].
Many patients receive antibiotics because of their severe clinical conditions, lack of improvement of clinical state, or severe complications developed despite the supportive treatment [11]. Decisions made in primary care should be based on the patient’s physical appearance, risk factors present in patient history, basic laboratory parameters, and the results of rapid POCT offered on-site to identify respiratory tract pathogens [12]. The benefit of POCT is an additional aid to physicians to manage patients’ expectations for antibiotics and encourage patients to self-care when suffering from a self-limiting condition. Specific factors that influence the decision-making process in primary care include uncertainty about the exact diagnosis or treatment, worries about past patient experience with the treatment of infections, fear of legal problems if the patient deteriorates or fear of being perceived as having achieved nothing for patients. All of these factors could be reduced using POCTS [13].
Antibiotics should be prescribed when needed to treat RTIs in primary care, and the benefits of their use in managing RTIs are marginal in most diagnoses. Inappropriately prescribing antibiotics is common. Available reports suggest that approximately 30–52% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary [14,15]. An improper antibiotic prescription may increase the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains, one of the greatest threats to public health worldwide [16]. Consequently, standard antibiotic treatments are no longer effective, making severe bacterial infections harder to control.
Moreover, antibiotics may have numerous side effects, including Clostridium difficile infection. Over half of the antibiotic expenditure occurs in outpatient settings [17]. Several antibiotic stewardship methods are directed at clinicians to educate, improve the quality and influence public expectations for the antibiotic treatment of RTI [18,19].
Antibiotic stewardship interventions for the judicious use of antimicrobials for RTI have significantly reduced the prescribing of antibiotics in primary care [20,21]. Numerous aspects have not been adequately assessed yet, including the impact on RTI cases in which antibiotic treatment is usually indicated [22].
This study aimed to analyse if using POCT could influence the level of antibiotic prescription and identify other clinical and laboratory findings in primary care patients with respiratory tract infections to distinguish the group more likely to receive antibiotic treatment.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

The study involved 631 consecutive patients from primary care consulted in a single centre due to RTIs from January 2019 to March 2020. Participation in the study was voluntary and confirmed with the patient’s written consent. The study was designed as a prospective observational cohort study following the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and reporting guidelines for strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE).
Inclusion criteria included symptoms of RTIs (fever, sore throat, sneezing, hoarseness, cough, nasal discharge, dyspnoea, tachycardia and tachypnoea).
The sample size was calculated using an online calculator (calculator.net) with a confidence level of 95%, a margin of error of 5%, an estimated proportion of patients receiving antibiotics of 35% and a population of 1000 patients in the family practice. The estimated sample size was 260. All patients with the symptoms of RTIs who attended a primary care practice were approached and asked to participate in the study. According to the study protocol, patients who declined to take part would be excluded from the study with their data not included in the analysis. However, all of them agreed to contribute.

2.2. Assessments

An observational cohort approach was used for data collection. A detailed history was taken of all patients. Collected clinical data included comorbidities, smoking habits and chronic treatment. Comorbidities complexity was established if five underlying conditions were diagnosed. A thorough physical examination followed the interview and collection of historical data. All findings were put in the clinical records of the patients. Diagnoses were based on clinical presentation and reported symptoms. Clinical scales (i.e., the Centor scale) were used to evaluate the probability of bacterial infection. Laboratory tests were requested by a physician when clinically necessary to establish the final diagnosis or potential bacterial or viral aetiology. They included a complete blood count with differential in 333 patients and inflammatory parameters, namely C-reactive protein (CRP) and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), in 261 patients. URTIs included acute pharyngitis, nasopharyngitis, acute sinusitis or laryngitis and uncomplicated influenza. LRTIs comprised acute bronchitis, pneumonia, cases of complicated influenza and the exacerbation of asthma or COPD.
All patients had clinical symptoms suggestive of influenza, i.e., sudden onset fever +≥1 of the following symptoms: Cough, sore throat, rhinitis or a feeling of blocked nose, ≥1 general systemic symptom: Headache, muscle pain, sweating or shaking, tiredness lasting <72 h. If symptoms resembled influenza, a rapid antigen test was performed. In total, 356 patients (56% of the cohort) underwent rapid influenza tests with an actim Influenza A&B test (Medix Biochemica, Finnland) from the nasopharyngeal swab (sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 95%). Patients with the above symptoms and a positive antigen test result were diagnosed with influenza. One patient was diagnosed with influenza based on clinical symptoms and previous contact with a person with confirmed influenza, despite a negative antigen test result.

2.3. Treatment Approach

Based on the patients’ conditions, physical findings and the results of laboratory tests, the decision regarding therapy was made by a family medicine specialist. Patients with suspected viral infections were given supportive treatment. Patients with positive flu-test results received oseltamivir if diagnosed early (<2 days from the onset of symptoms or the patient belonged to the severe influenza course risk group). In contrast, patients with suspected bacterial infections received antibiotics. Based on this decision, we divided the patients into two groups: Treated with antibiotics (n = 269) and managed with symptomatic treatment (n = 362). Both groups exceed the number of the estimated sample size.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed with MedCalc ® Statistical Software version 20.011 (MedCalc Software Ltd., Ostend, Belgium; https://www.medcalc.org; 2021) The quantitative variables were analysed initially for normal distribution with the Shapiro–Wilk test. After the rejection of a normal distribution, further analysis was performed using the Mann–Whitney test. The qualitative variables were compared with the chi-squared test. The values of p < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant. Further analysis was performed using logistic regression. Parameters with a statistically significant difference were included in the univariate analysis. Parameters significant in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis. Thus, parameters without significance were excluded from the model until only significant parameters remained. The results were presented as crude (univariate analysis) or adjusted (multivariate analysis) odds ratio (OR) that were appropriate and a 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Results with 95%CI not including 1.0 were considered statistically significant.
The study received consent from the Bioethical Committee dated 10 January 2019 at Poznan University of Medical Sciences, resolution number 84/19.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Characteristics

The study group consisted of 631 patients (264 males; 367 females) diagnosed with RTIs with a median age of 48 years (IQR 36–63 years). Fever was present in 333 patients (53% of the study cohort). A positive influenza POCT was obtained in 90 patients out of the 356 tests performed (swabbing rate 56%; positivity rate 25%). Sixty-nine patients (77% of those diagnosed with influenza) received oseltamivir. Moreover, 560 (88%) patients suffered from at least one comorbidity. There was a complex medical background (5 or more comorbidities) in 148 (23%) patients. The median number of comorbidities was 2 (IQR 2–5). The baseline group characteristics are presented in Table 1. URTIs were diagnosed in 492 (78%) patients, and 182 patients developed LRTIs (29%).

3.2. Analysis of the Factors in the Group Treated with Antibiotics and Symptomatic Therapy

Baseline clinical parameters were compared in patients treated with antibiotics (n = 269 patients; 43% of the study cohort) and those who recovered without antibiotic treatment (n = 362 patients; 57% of the study cohort). Patients receiving antibiotics were slightly older (median of 51 vs. 47 years; p = 0.008) and more commonly developed fever (77% vs. 25%, p < 0.0001) and cough (63% vs. 30%; p = 0.0014). Moreover, they more frequently presented wheezing and crackles upon physical examination than the patients not receiving antibiotics (28% vs. 4% and 9% vs. 0.3%; p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). They also had more comorbidities and came to more follow-up visits (median of 4 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 1, p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). A complex medical background was observed more frequently in the antibiotic-receiving group (32% vs. 17%, p < 0.0001).
No significant differences regarding analysed laboratory parameters were noticed between the groups.
In the univariate analysis, we confirmed the differences between the groups regarding fever, the number of comorbidities and comorbidities complexity, diagnoses of URTIs and LRTIs, number of visits, cough frequency, wheezing and crackles. This analysis also confirmed the less likely administration of antibiotics in patients with positive flu tests.
Clinical parameters of patients treated with and without antibiotics are presented in Table 2.

3.3. Point-of-Care Influenza Testing

A positive flu test was found more often in the group with supportive treatment than in patients receiving antibiotics (20% vs. 7%; p < 0.0001). Out of all 356 swabbed patients, antibiotics were introduced in 150 patients (42%), and 18 had positive influenza tests (20%). In the patients with negative influenza tests (n = 266), antibiotics were administered in 132 (50%). The odds ratio (OR) for receiving antibiotic treatment with positive influenza POCT was 0.25 (95% confidence interval CI; 0.14–0.44). The OR for administering an antiviral treatment with positive influenza POCT was 870.71 (95%CI 115.10–6586.00). The proportion of patients receiving antibiotics and antivirals regarding influenza test results is presented in Figure 1.

3.4. Comorbidities

Upon analysing the prevalence of comorbidities in both groups, we found that patients with specific diagnoses received antibiotics more frequently. These underlying illnesses included obesity (14% vs. 6%; p < 0.0001), diabetes (19% vs. 12%; p < 0.0001), hypertension (47% vs. 34%; p = 0.001), inflammatory bowel disease (10% vs. 5%; p = 0.022), headaches (45% vs. 34%; p = 0.005), epilepsy (4% vs. 1%; p = 0.027), degenerative spine conditions (41% vs. 28%; p = 0.0008), chronic ischemic heart disease (3% vs. 2%; p = 0.0016) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (13% vs. 5%; p = 0.0003). Moreover, patients who smoked were more often prescribed antibiotics (27% vs. 16%; p = 0.0014). The difference was also significant in the univariate analysis. However, the diagnoses of specific comorbidities were not proven to be essential factors influencing the risk of antibiotic treatment in multivariate analysis. The prevalence of comorbidities in groups treated with and without antibiotics is shown in Table 3.
In multivariate analysis, comorbidities complexity, fever and crackles and a higher number of visits were proven to be the risk factors of antibiotic treatment, while positive influenza POCTs significantly decreased the risk of implementation of antibiotics. The results of the multivariate analysis are presented in Table 4.

4. Discussion

Although most RTIs are of viral origin requiring supportive treatment, they are the reason for most antibiotic prescriptions in primary care [22]. General use of POCT may help to establish the diagnosis of viral disease. In the case of influenza, patients may benefit more from prompt administration of antiviral treatment in patients with a risk of severe course and complications of the disease [4,6]. We have proven the flu test to be the most helpful in avoiding unnecessary antibiotic therapy in our cohort. The positive test result enabled adequate management of influenza with oseltamivir in most patients. The study was conducted in the pre-COVID-19 period; therefore, only flu tests were included in diagnostic procedures due to the low availability of other POCTs in primary care. Many rapid multi-viral respiratory microbiological POCTs have recently been introduced in primary care. Available reports state that their use may enhance the quality of antibiotic prescribing by reversing the decisions based on clinical findings alone [4,6,11,23]. Comparing pre- and post-test diagnoses suggests the overdiagnosis of suspected bacterial infections and under-diagnosis of influenza without POCT results [23]. An accurate diagnosis of RTI is essential. Symptoms such as fever or cough may be present in influenza, other viral disorders and bacterial infections [2].
However, using POCTS in febrile patients may help distinguish those with influenza and other viral diseases, depending on the test used, from those with different aetiology [11,23,24]. In our cohort, 25% of preformed influenza POCTs were positive. POCTs are valuable in preventing the inappropriate administration of antibiotics in primary care and enabling the proper management of RTIs. Although supplementary diagnostic tools may add effort, increase cost and require trained personnel, directed therapy is more effective and prevents long-term consequences of inappropriate RTI management [6,25]. POCTs have limited value due to their lower sensitivity (77% in the case of the test used in our cohort) than testing based on a polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Many patients with negative POCTs still have RTI caused by viral infection. Moreover, antigen tests are designed to detect pathogens in the acute phase of the disease when the viral load is highest.
Nevertheless, thanks to POCTs, a substantial proportion of patients may benefit from the rapid detection of viral infection to establish a correct diagnosis. Therefore, POCTs seem to be an adequate tool in the primary care setting regarding positive results. Patients with clinical symptoms suggestive of a specific viral disease and negative initial POCT may gain from repeated POCT or PCR testing [26]. Of course, identifying viral pathogens does not rule out concurrent infection with bacterial pathogens. Thus, even the presence of respiratory bacteria in nasopharyngeal swabs does not distinguish between the infection and colonisation without an input of clinical symptoms, which would be essential to determine a correct diagnosis [27]. This fact could explain the administration of antibiotics in 18 patients with positive flu tests in the analysed group.
Inappropriate antibiotic administration may lead to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains, which is a significant concern for public health worldwide. Nevertheless, patients that require proper treatment should be identified promptly and treated according to their clinical state and approved standards [18,19,20,21,22,23]. Regarding RTIs, specific diagnoses (i.e., streptococcal pharyngitis or bacterial pneumonia) should always be followed by antibiotic treatment. Thus, antibiotic therapy should be restricted to necessary cases in numerous clinical states such as sinusitis, tracheitis, otitis, bronchitis or unspecified RTI [2,11]. The decision on antibiotics prescription in primary care is based on historical data, physical findings and basic laboratory tests when clinically appropriate. Nevertheless, it was established that physicians would prescribe antibiotics when faced with uncertainty in patients’ diagnoses, treating immunocompromised or older patients with comorbidities and for patients demanding antibiotics, especially under time constraints [22,23]. In such cases, a physician could use reliable POCT results as a guide for themselves and proof of a proper diagnosis for the patient. Our study analysed medical history factors and clinical findings to distinguish the group more likely to receive antibiotic treatment in primary care.
In our cohort, the overall antibiotic prescription rate was 43%. Antibiotics were prescribed to 50% of patients with negative influenza test results and 20% with positive influenza POCTs. Antiviral treatment with oseltamivir was used in 77% of patients with positive influenza POCT. Positive influenza POCT significantly reduced the risk of antibiotic treatment and increased the probability of antiviral therapy. Available reports describe similar rates stressing that the guidelines may not support up to 40% of antibiotic use in primary care [24,28,29]. In our study, antibiotics were prescribed to older patients with more chronic comorbidities or greater comorbidities complexity, who came more times for follow-up visits. These factors were also proven by other authors [12,21,29]. Patients with respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological, metabolic, genetic and other comorbidities are at higher risk of more severe clinical course and potential complications in many RTIs. Therefore, patients with an increased risk of RTI complications receive antibiotics more frequently than remaining patients [12,21,30,31]. In the current study, patients with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bowel diseases, degenerative spinal conditions, epilepsy and headaches received antibiotics more frequently, which was also confirmed in univariate analysis. However, none of the specific comorbidities was proven to be a risk factor for more frequent antibiotic treatment in the multivariate analysis performed in our study.
Delayed antibiotic treatment is one of the advised approaches in primary care. It was proven that the risk of infectious complications from common URTIs is low and not modified by antibiotic treatment. Moreover, patients diagnosed with URTI in whom antibiotics were withheld had an increased 30-day risk of severe infections [32]. Nevertheless, a patient who returns for a subsequent visit with no improvement is more likely to obtain an antibiotic prescription eventually, as was also proven in our study [33,34].
Clinical symptoms more frequently observed in the study group receiving antibiotics included fever and cough, while physical findings comprised wheezing and crackles. Perceived severity of the illness and abnormal results in physical examination predict antibiotics prescription. Such prescribing is considered rather appropriate [35,36]. Fever may be present in RTIs of both viral and bacterial aetiology. As stated previously, a patient with RTI symptoms could benefit from POCT to establish a proper diagnosis. Prolonged fever raises concerns in patients and physicians. However, other studies frequently associated these symptoms with antibiotic administration [12]. Cough is a very nonspecific symptom in viral and bacterial infections.
Nevertheless, a combination of abnormalities indicating LRTI may lead to more frequent administration of antibiotics. In our cohort, diagnosis of LRTI was found to be more frequent in patients treated with antibiotics. This factor was also proven significant in univariate analysis. However, multivariate analysis did not support this finding. Eventually, conclusively differentiating between bacterial and viral causes of RTIs based on signs and symptoms only is rarely possible. Physician concern regarding missed bacterial diagnosis leads to administering antibiotics, which could also be reduced using POCT [37,38].
Blood tests offer precision for diagnosing and managing many diseases and are available in primary care. The results improve decision-making in individual patients [37,38,39]. In our study, however, basic laboratory tests such as cellular blood count with a differential and CRP value did not differ significantly between the groups. Available reports show that point-of-care procalcitonin reduces the probability of antibiotic prescription in approximately 26% of low-risk patients with LRTI in primary care and significantly lowers the risk of antibiotic-related side effects [40,41]. The use of CRP in primary practice was associated with similar results, and overall benefits balance potential harms [37,38,39]. However, the use of CTP-POCT did not influence the clinical recovery, resolution of symptoms and hospital admissions when compared to the usual care [42,43,44].
We conducted our study in a single primary care centre before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the study period included two subsequent seasons of respiratory tract infections, which allowed for observing a substantial number of patients with RTIs. Our study, although single centre, was performed prospectively. Therefore, we managed to collect complete data in the study cohort. The patients with RTIs were not selected; all patients agreed to participate and signed informed consent. The diagnoses based on physical findings are challenging to verify. Moreover, they may reflect patient management. The fact that the physicians knew about the study could influence the outcome. Nevertheless, the observational study reflects the real-life situation in daily practice in primary care. Therefore, we consider the results valuable.
Physicians often prescribe antibiotics inappropriately when faced with time pressures and patient demands despite their preference for evidence-based practice. Clinical decision support tools, guidelines and patient education programs could help reduce unnecessary antibiotic use [37,38,45,46]. POCT may enormously facilitate the proper diagnosis and management of viral disorders. They are also useful tools to avoid adverse events and unnecessary costs [47].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, POCT for influenza may improve patient management regarding early diagnosis, enabling proper antiviral treatment and saving inappropriate antibiotic therapy. Nevertheless, patients in severe clinical conditions with abnormalities in physical examination suggesting potential bacterial infection should be treated according to suspected aetiology.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.M. and A.R.; methodology, A.M.; software, A.M.; formal analysis, A.M. and A.R.; data curation, A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.; writing—review and editing, A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of POZNAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (resolution number 84/19; 10 January 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Finley, C.R.; Chan, D.S.; Garrison, S.; Korownyk, C.; Kolber, M.R.; Campbell, S.; Eurich, D.T.; Lindblad, A.J.; Vandermeer, B.; Allan, G.M. What are the most common conditions in primary care? Can. Fam. Physician 2018, 64, 832–840. [Google Scholar]
  2. Grief, S.N. Upper Respiratory Infections. Prim. Care 2013, 40, 757–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cots, J.M.; Moragas, A.; García-Sangenís, A.; Morros, R.; Gomez-Lumbreras, A.; Ouchi, D.; Monfà, R.; Pera, H.; Pujol, J.; Bayona, C.; et al. Effectiveness of antitussives, anticholinergics or honey versus usual care in adults with uncomplicated acute bronchitis: A study protocol of an open randomised clinical trial in primary care. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e028159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Thornton, H.V.; Turner, K.M.E.; Harrison, S.; Hammond, A.; Hawcroft, C.; Hay, A.D. Assessing the potential of upper respiratory tract point-of-care testing: A systematic review of the prognostic significance of upper respiratory tract microbes. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 25, 1339–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cohen, J.F.; Bertille, N.; Cohen, R.; Chalumeau, M. Rapid antigen detection test for group A streptococcus in children with pharyngitis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 7, CD010502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Van Hecke, O.; Raymond, M.; Lee, J.J.; Turner, P.; Goyder, C.R.; Verbakel, J.Y.; Bruel, A.V.D.; Hayward, G. In-vitro diagnostic point-of-care tests in paediatric ambulatory care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gaitonde, D.Y.; Moore, F.C.; Morgan, M.K. Influenza: Diagnosis and Treatment. Am. Fam. Physician 2019, 100, 751–758. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brody, H. Influenza. Nature 2019, 573, S49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Rzepka, A.; Mania, A. The clinical picture of influenza against other respiratory tract infections in a general practitioner practice. Prz. Epidemiol. 2021, 75, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Iuliano, A.D.; Roguski, K.M.; Chang, H.H.; Muscatello, D.J.; Palekar, R.; Tempia, S.; Cohen, C.; Gran, J.M.; Schanzer, D.; Cowling, B.J.; et al. Global Seasonal Influenza-associated Mortality Collaborator Network. Estimates of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality: A modelling study. Lancet 2018, 391, 1285–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chua, K.P.; Fischer, M.A.; Linder, J.A. Appropriateness of outpatient antibiotic prescribing among privately insured US patients: ICD-10-CM based cross sectional study. BMJ 2019, 16, k5092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. van der Velden, A.W.; van de Pol, A.C.; Bongard, E.; Cianci, D.; Aabenhus, R.; Balan, A.; Böhmer, F.; Lang, V.B.; Bruno, P.; Chlabicz, S.; et al. Point-of-care testing, antibiotic prescribing, and prescribing confidence for respiratory tract infections in primary care: A prospective audit in 18 European countries. BJGP Open 2021, 6, BJGPO.2021.0212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Petursson, P. GPs’ reasons for “non-pharmacological” prescribing of antibiotics A phenomenological study. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 2005, 23, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. O’Connor, R.; O’Doherty, J.; O’Regan, A.; Dunne, C. Antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTI) in primary care; what factors affect prescribing and why is it important? A narrative review. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 187, 969–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Costelloe, C.; Metcalfe, C.; Lovering, A.; Mant, D.; Hay, A.D. Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2010, 340, c2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Antibiotic Expenditures by Medication, Class, and Healthcare Setting in the United States, 2010–2015 [Internet]. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9454312/ (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  17. McNulty, C.A.; Nichols, T.; French, D.P.; Joshi, P.; Butler, C.C. Expectations for consultations and antibiotics for respiratory tract infection in primary care: The RTI clinical iceberg. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2013, 63, e429–e436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Eudy, J.L.; Pallotta, A.M.; Neuner, E.A.; Brummel, G.L.; Postelnick, M.J.; Schulz, L.T.; Spivak, E.S.; Wrenn, R.H. Antimicrobial Stewardship Practice in the Ambulatory Setting from a National Cohort. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2020, 7, ofaa513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dutcher, L.; Degnan, K.; Adu-Gyamfi, A.B.; Lautenbach, E.; Cressman, L.; David, M.Z.; Cluzet, V.; E Szymczak, J.; A Pegues, D.; Bilker, W.; et al. Improving Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2021, 74, 947–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Köchling, A.; Löffler, C.; Reinsch, S.; Hornung, A.; Böhmer, F.; Altiner, A.; Chenot, J.-F. Reduction of antibiotic prescriptions for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care: A systematic review. Implement. Sci. IS 2018, 13, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chan, Y.Y.; Bin Ibrahim, M.A.; Wong, C.M.; Ooi, C.K.; Chow, A. Determinants of antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections in an emergency department with good primary care access: A qualitative analysis. Epidemiol. Infect. 2019, 147, e111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Yates, T.D.; Davis, M.E.; Taylor, Y.J.; Davidson, L.; Connor, C.D.; Buehler, K.; Spencer, M. Not a magic pill: A qualitative exploration of provider perspectives on antibiotic prescribing in the outpatient setting. BMC Fam. Pract. 2018, 19, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Khalid, T.Y.; Duncan, L.J.; Thornton, H.V.; Lasseter, G.; Muir, P.; Toney, Z.A.; Hay, A.D. Novel multi-virus rapid respiratory microbiological point-of-care testing in primary care: A mixed-methods feasibility evaluation. Fam. Pract. 2021, 38, 598–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. de Lusignan, S.; Hoang, U.; Liyanage, H.; Tripathy, M.; Yonova, I.; Byford, R.; Ferreira, F.; Diez-Domingo, J.; Clark, T. Integrating molecular point-of-care testing for influenza into primary care: A mixed-methods feasibility study. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2020, 70, e555–e562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vicentini, C.; Vola, L.; Previti, C.; Brescia, V.; Dal Mas, F.; Zotti, C.M.; Bert, F. Antimicrobial Stewardship Strategies Including Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) for Pediatric Patients with Upper-Respiratory-Tract Infections in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bruning, A.H.L.; de Kruijf, W.B.; van Weert, H.C.P.M.; Willems, W.L.M.; de Jong, M.D.; Pajkrt, D.; Wolthers, K.C. Diagnostic performance and clinical feasibility of a point-of-care test for respiratory viral infections in primary health care. Fam. Pract. 2017, 34, 558–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Loens, K.; Van Heirstraeten, L.; Malhotra-Kumar, S.; Goossens, H.; Ieven, M. Optimal sampling sites and methods for detection of pathogens possibly causing community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Dekker, A.R.J.; Verheij, T.J.M.; van der Velden, A.W. Inappropriate antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract indications: Most prominent in adult patients. Fam. Pract. 2015, 32, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Poss-Doering, R.; Kronsteiner, D.; Kamradt, M.; Andres, E.; Kaufmann-Kolle, P.; Wensing, M.; A Rena-Study Group; Szecsenyi, J. Antibiotic prescribing for acute, non-complicated infections in primary care in Germany: Baseline assessment in the cluster randomised trial ARena. BMC Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Van Deursen, A.M.M.; Verheij, T.J.M.; Rovers, M.M.; Veenhoven, R.H.; Groenwold, R.H.H.; Bonten, M.J.M.; Sanders, E.A.M. Trends in primary-care consultations, comorbidities, and antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections in The Netherlands before implementation of pneumococcal vaccines for infants. Epidemiol. Infect. 2012, 140, 823–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Rzepka, A.; Mania, A. An analysis of the clinical picture of respiratory tract infections in primary care patients. Pediatr. Med. Rodz. 2020, 16, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dahlén, E.; Collin, J.; Hellman, J.; Norman, C.; Nauclér, P.; Ternhag, A. The effect of absent or deferred antibiotic treatment on complications of common infections in primary care. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2022, 124, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Saliba-Gustafsson, E.A.; Röing, M.; Borg, M.A.; Rosales-Klintz, S.; Lundborg, C.S. General practitioners’ perceptions of delayed antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract infections: A phenomenographic study. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0225506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Ryves, R.; Eyles, C.; Moore, M.; McDermott, L.; Little, P.; Leydon, G.M. Understanding the delayed prescribing of antibiotics for respiratory tract infection in primary care: A qualitative analysis. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e011882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. McKay, R.; Mah, A.; Law, M.R.; McGrail, K.; Patrick, D.M. Systematic Review of Factors Associated with Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 4106–4118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Rebnord, I.K.; Sandvik, H.; Mjelle, A.B.; Hunskaar, S. Factors predicting antibiotic prescription and referral to hospital for children with respiratory symptoms: Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled study at out-of-hours services in primary care. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e012992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Tonkin-Crine, S.K.; Tan, P.S.; van Hecke, O.; Wang, K.; Roberts, N.W.; McCullough, A.; Hansen, M.P.; Butler, C.C.; Del Mar, C.B. Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: An overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 9, CD012252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Hardy, V.; Thompson, M.; Keppel, G.A.; Alto, W.; Dirac, M.A.; Neher, J.; Sanford, C.; Hornecker, J.; Cole, A. Qualitative study of primary care clinicians’ views on point-of-care testing for C-reactive protein for acute respiratory tract infections in family medicine. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e012503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cooke, J.; Llor, C.; Hopstaken, R.; Dryden, M.; Butler, C. Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care: Narrative review of C reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (POCT) and antibacterial use in patients who present with symptoms of RTI. BMJ Open Respir. Res. 2020, 7, e000624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lhopitallier, L.; Kronenberg, A.; Meuwly, J.Y.; Locatelli, I.; Mueller, Y.; Senn, N.; D’acremont, V.; Boillat-Blanco, N. Procalcitonin and lung ultrasonography point-of-care testing to determine antibiotic prescription in patients with lower respiratory tract infection in primary care: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial. BMJ 2021, 374, n2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schuetz, P.; Wirz, Y.; Sager, R.; Christ-Crain, M.; Stolz, D.; Tamm, M. Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 10, CD007498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Sydenham, R.V.; Hansen, M.P.; Justesen, U.S.; Pedersen, L.B.; Aabenhus, R.M.; Wehberg, S.; Jarbøl, D.E. Factors associated with C-reactive protein testing when prescribing antibiotics in general practice: A register-based study. BMC Prim. Care 2022, 23, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Martínez-González, N.A.; Keizer, E.; Plate, A.; Coenen, S.; Valeri, F.; Verbakel, J.Y.J.; Rosemann, T.; Neuner-Jehle, S.; Senn, O. Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing to Reduce Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boere, T.M.; El Alili, M.; van Buul, L.W.; Hopstaken, R.M.; Verheij, T.J.M.; Hertogh, C.M.P.M.; van Tulder, M.W.; E Bosmans, J. Cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing in comparison with usual care to reduce antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections in nursing homes: A cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e055234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tonkin-Crine, S.; Yardley, L.; Little, P. Antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2011, 66, 2215–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Thompson, W.; McCormack, S. Interventions to Influence the Use of Antibiotics for Acute Upper Respiratory Tract Infections [Internet]; Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  47. Schneider, J.E.; Boehme, C.; Borisch, B.; Dittrich, S. Application of a simple point-of-care test to reduce UK healthcare costs and adverse events in outpatient acute respiratory infections. J. Med. Econ. 2020, 23, 673–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Diagnostics 13 02031 g001 550
Figure 1. The proportion of swabbed patients treated with antiviral and antibiotics subsequent influenza point-of-care testing (POCT).
Figure 1. The proportion of swabbed patients treated with antiviral and antibiotics subsequent influenza point-of-care testing (POCT).
Diagnostics 13 02031 g001
Table
Table 1. Baseline group characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline group characteristics.
FeatureNumber of PatientsMedianIQR95%CI
Age (years)6314836–6346–51
Sex M/F264/367
Fever Y/N333/298
Flu-test P/N90/266
Number of comorbidities63132–53–3
Comorbidities complexity Y/N148/484
URTI Y/N492/139
LRTI Y/N182/449
Number of visits63221–22–2
WBC (G/L)3337.15.4–8.85.89–7.80
Neutrophils (G/L)3333.82.85–5.813.28–4.30
Lymphocytes (G/L)3332.31.90–2.852.17–2.60
CRP (mg/dL)2611911–3015.0–21.81
ESR (mm/h)2612012–2815–22
M—male, F—female, Y—Yes, N—No, URTI—upper respiratory tract infection, LRTI—lower respiratory tract infection, WBC—white blood count, CRP—C-reactive protein, ESR—erythrocyte sedimentation rate, IQR—interquartile range, 95%CI—confidence interval.
Table
Table 2. Comparison of clinical and laboratory parameters in patients receiving and not receiving antibiotics.
Table 2. Comparison of clinical and laboratory parameters in patients receiving and not receiving antibiotics.
FeaturePatients Receiving AntibioticsPatients Not Receiving AntibioticspOR (95%CI)
Number of PatientsMedianIQRNumber of PatientsMedianIQR
Age (years)2695138–663624735–620.008 *1.01
(1.01–1.04)
Sex M/F111/158153/2090.778-
Fever Y/N208/6190/272<0.0001 *10.31 (7.11–14.94)
Flu test P/N18/13272/134<0.0001 *0.26 (0.14–0.44)
Number of comorbidities26942–636231–4<0.0001 *2.19 (1.51–3.19)
Comorbidities complexity Y/N85/18463/299<0.0001 *2.19 (1.51–3.19)
Number of visits26921–336211–2<0.0001 *2.15 (1.74–2.66)
URTI Y/N193/76299/630.0010.53 (0.36–0.78)
LRTI Y/N98/17184/2780.0003 *1.89 (1.34–2.68)
Cough Y/N169/100111/1510.0014 *1.69 (1.23–2.33)
Throat pain Y/N154/115201/1610.67-
Wheezing Y/N75/19413/349<0.0001 *10.37 (5.61–19.18)
Crackles Y/N23/2461/361<0.0001 *33.75 (4.52–251.58)
WBC (G/L)1128.605.55–9.102217.05.05–7.750.22-
Neutrophils (G/L)1125.853.8–7.352213.702.62–4.520.27-
Lymphocytes (G/L)1122.352.01–2.602212.301.80–2.950.97-
CRP (mg/dL)1121915.75–30.502211011.1–26.20.55-
ESR (mm/h)1122011.75–30.0022117.510.75–20.00.48-
M—male, F—female, Y—Yes, N—No, URTI—upper respiratory tract infection, LRTI—lower respiratory tract infection, WBC—white blood count, CRP—C-reactive protein, ESR—erythrocyte sedimentation rate, IQR—interquartile range, OR = odds ratio, 95%CI—confidence interval; * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Prevalence of comorbidities in the group receiving and not receiving antibiotics.
Table 3. Prevalence of comorbidities in the group receiving and not receiving antibiotics.
FeaturePatients Receiving AntibioticsPatients not Receiving AntibioticspOR (95%CI)
Number of Patients
N = 269		Number of Patients
N = 362
Diabetes Y/N51/21822/340<0.0001 *3.62 (2.13–6.13)
Obesity Y/N37/23244/318<0.0001 *3.63 (2.13–6.16)
Inflammatory bowel disease Y/N27/24219/3430.022 *2.01 (1.09–3.70)
Hypertension Y/N126/143123/2390.001 *1.71 (1.24–2.37)
Cigarette smoking Y/N72/19759/3030.0014 *3.45 (1.07–11.14)
Hypercholesterolemia Y/N83/18688/2740.07-
Malignancy Y/N17/25215/3470.22-
Degenerative spine conditions Y/N110/159102/2600.0008 *1.76 (1.26–2.46)
Epilepsy Y/N10/2594/3580.027 *2.15 (1.74–2.66)
Headaches Y/N121/148123/2390.005 *1.58 (1.15–2.19)
Chronic ischemic heart disease Y/N20/2498/3540.0016 *3.55 (1.54–8.19)
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Y/N34/23517/3450.0003 *1.89 (1.00–3.57)
Asthma Y/N22/24722/3400.31-
Y—Yes, N—No, OR—odds ratio, 95%CI—confidence interval; * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Multivariate logistic regression for the probability of receiving antibiotics.
Table 4. Multivariate logistic regression for the probability of receiving antibiotics.
FeatureaOR95%CIp
Comorbidities complexity 2.621.54–4.460.0004
Fever32.5919.15–55.47<0.0001 *
Positive flu-test0.00150.0001–0.0168<0.0001 *
Number of visits4.152.39–7.20<0.0001 *
Crackles26.352.77–250.810.044 *
aOR—adjusted odds ratio, CI—confidence interval; * p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rzepka, A.; Mania, A. Positive Point-of-Care Influenza Test Significantly Decreases the Probability of Antibiotic Treatment during Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 2031. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13122031

AMA Style

Rzepka A, Mania A. Positive Point-of-Care Influenza Test Significantly Decreases the Probability of Antibiotic Treatment during Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(12):2031. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13122031

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rzepka, Aneta, and Anna Mania. 2023. "Positive Point-of-Care Influenza Test Significantly Decreases the Probability of Antibiotic Treatment during Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care" Diagnostics 13, no. 12: 2031. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13122031

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop