Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Point-of-care testing for respiratory infections during and after COVID-19

Hannah V Thornton, Tanzeela Khalid and Alastair D Hay
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (701): 574-575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X713561
Hannah V Thornton
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: Centre for Academic Primary Care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tanzeela Khalid
NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: Centre for Academic Primary Care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alastair D Hay
NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Roles: Centre for Academic Primary Care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

INTRODUCTION

The public’s attitude to testing is likely to change in response to SARS-CoV-2 testing. We expect it will not be long before we are asked why tests are not offered for other respiratory infections. Prior to COVID-19, the initial management of most respiratory tract infections (RTIs) was conducted without microbiological testing, with many suggesting the consequent diagnostic uncertainty1 to be a leading cause of antibiotic overprescribing2 and resistance.3 Standard laboratory methods are too slow for initial decision making necessitating the use of rapid point-of-care testing. This technology, advocated as key to future antimicrobial stewardship,4 is now available and able to provide comprehensive respiratory virus panel results, including SARS-CoV-2, in 45 minutes.5–7

POINT-OF-CARE TESTING

Last winter, our team led the first exploratory investigation of the use of a multiviral point-of-care test using upper respiratory tract swabs in UK primary care. We found testing was acceptable to patients and improved clinician diagnostic certainty.8 However, clinicians were concerned about the absence of randomised trial evidence of effectiveness.8

While the upper respiratory tract is the only universally accessible location for sampling, swabbing is an inexact science. Even swabs taken by trained clinicians result in zero pathogen detection in up to 28% of symptomatic people.9–11 This likely represents suboptimal sampling, perhaps from an uncolonised region, rather than absence of pathogens in the respiratory tract. Conversely, in a small study published in 2017, we detected potentially pathogenic respiratory viruses in the upper respiratory tracts of 26% of asymptomatic children.9

Nonetheless, interest in the role of point-of-care testing for antimicrobial stewardship is growing. The 2014 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence adult pneumonia guidelines recommend the use of C-reactive protein (CRP) testing in patients presenting to primary care with suspected community-acquired pneumonia.12 The recommendation is based on randomised controlled trial evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of CRP testing in reducing antibiotic prescribing.13–15 Yet 6 years later, the primary care uptake of CRP testing is remarkably low. Why?

We hypothesise that, in addition to unresolved discussions regarding who should pay for the test, clinicians may be uncertain as to how the test works. After all, an elevated CRP only indicates host immune activity, not that the infection is bacterial, nor that the infection has a poor prognosis. The mechanism by which CRP testing works could be simply that the low prevalence of elevated CRP in primary care, an element not always reported in the trials,13,14 more often than not favours a ‘no antibiotic prescribing decision’. And test results are often regarded as ‘objective’ and ‘true’; we rarely consider the impact of false positives and false negatives in day-to-day practice.

So, what is the prevalence of elevated CRP in primary care patients with acute lower RTI? In one study, of adults with acute cough,13 CRP was ≤20 mg/L in 69% of participants; 20 to 99 mg/L in 24%; and ≥100 mg/L in 7%. In another study, also of adults with acute cough,14 CRP was ≤20 mg/L in 70% of participants; 21 to 50 mg/L in 16%; 51 to 99 mg/L in 9%; and ≥100 in 5% (B Stuart, personal communication, 2020). Finally, even in a trial of patients with acute exacerbation of COPD in whom CRP might be expected to be higher,15 CRP was <20 mg/L in 76%; 20 to 40 mg/L in 12%; and >40 mg/L in 12%. Thus, the effectiveness of CRP could be mediated through behaviour change in response primarily to the CRP result favouring a ‘no-prescribing’ decision eight to nine times out of 10. It is therefore more important than ever to understand how CRP, and other point-of-care tests, work particularly in low disease prevalence settings like primary care.

CONCLUSION

In an emerging landscape where billions of dollars are being invested to develop test technology,16 and both patients and clinicians now consider results of upper respiratory tract swabbing to be an accurate reflection of their COVID-19 status, key research questions remain unanswered. What is the diagnostic and prognostic significance of the detection of bacteria and viruses from the upper respiratory tract? Do these tests provide diagnostic/prognostic value over and above symptoms and signs? How do they work to improve antibiotic prescribing, antibiotic consumption, and patient outcomes? And if they do work, are they clinically and cost-effective, and safe?

These questions are familiar to clinicians and medical scientists; they reflect the phase I to IV evidence base required before new medicines can be prescribed. Respiratory tract testing has now become mainstream and the widespread use of point-of-care microbial RTI tests is on the horizon. We believe these should be investigated in the same way as new medicines, ensuring appropriate use of public funds and enabling patients and clinicians to understand if the tests are useful tools, or costly distractions.

Notes

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

BioMérieux provided point-of-care test machines for a recent study.8 The study purchased the testing kits and returned the machines to BioMérieux at the end of the study.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2020

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Horwood J,
    2. Cabral C,
    3. Hay AD,
    4. Ingram J
    (2016) Primary care clinician antibiotic prescribing decisions in consultations for children with RTIs: a qualitative interview study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X683821.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Smieszek T,
    2. Pouwels KB,
    3. Dolk FCK,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Potential for reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in English primary care. J Antimicrob Chemother 73, suppl_2, ii36–ii43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Costelloe C,
    2. Metcalfe C,
    3. Lovering A,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 340, c2096.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. O’Neill J
    (2016) Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations, https://amr-review.org/sites/default/files/160518_Final%20paper_with%20cover.pdf (accessed 30 Oct 2020).
  5. 5.↵
    1. Biomérieux
    (2020) BIOFIRE® respiratory 2.1 plus panel. https://www.biomerieux-diagnostics.com/filmarrayr-respiratory-panel (accessed 30 Oct 2020).
  6. 6.
    1. GenMark Dx
    (2020) Respiratory pathogen panels. https://www.genmarkdx.com/int/solutions/panels/eplex-panels/respiratory-pathogen-panel (accessed 30 Oct 2020).
  7. 7.↵
    1. QIAGEN
    (2020) QIAstat-Dx respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel: the next generation of syndromic insights, https://qiastat-dx.com/row/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/03/PROM-15948-001_1121481_FLY_QIAstat-Dx-SARS-CoV-2-CE-IVD_0320_ROW.pdf (accessed 30 Oct 2020).
  8. 8.↵
    1. Khalid T,
    2. Duncan L,
    3. Thornton HV,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Rapid respiratory microbiological point-of-care testing in primary care: mixed methods evaluation. Fam Pract, in press.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Thornton HV,
    2. Hay AD,
    3. Redmond NM,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Throat swabs in children with respiratory tract infection: associations with clinical presentation and potential targets for point-of-care testing. Fam Pract 34, 4, 407–415.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.
    1. Regamey N,
    2. Kaiser L,
    3. Roiha HL,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Viral etiology of acute respiratory infections with cough in infancy: a community-based birth cohort study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 27, 2, 100–105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Rhedin S,
    2. Lindstrand A,
    3. Rotzén-Östlund M,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Clinical utility of PCR for common viruses in acute respiratory illness. Pediatrics 133, 3, e538–545.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
    (2014) Pneumonia: diagnosis and management of community-and hospital-acquired pneumonia in adults (NICE, London).
  13. 13.↵
    1. Cals JWL,
    2. Butler CC,
    3. Hopstaken RM,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Effect of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in communication skills on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial. BMJ 338, b1374.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Little P,
    2. Stuart B,
    3. Francis N,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Effects of internet-based training on antibiotic prescribing rates for acute respiratory-tract infections: a multinational, cluster, randomised, factorial, controlled trial. Lancet 382, 9899, 1175–1182.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Butler CC,
    2. Gillespie D,
    3. White P,
    4. et al.
    (2019) C-reactive protein testing to guide antibiotic prescribing for COPD exacerbations. N Engl J Med 381, 2, 111–120.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Abbasi K
    (2020) Covid-19: shooting for the moon. BMJ 370, m3509.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 70 (701)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 70, Issue 701
December 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Point-of-care testing for respiratory infections during and after COVID-19
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Point-of-care testing for respiratory infections during and after COVID-19
Hannah V Thornton, Tanzeela Khalid, Alastair D Hay
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (701): 574-575. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X713561

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Point-of-care testing for respiratory infections during and after COVID-19
Hannah V Thornton, Tanzeela Khalid, Alastair D Hay
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (701): 574-575. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X713561
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • INTRODUCTION
    • POINT-OF-CARE TESTING
    • CONCLUSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Realising the potential of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies for older adults
  • Time to reshape our delivery of primary care to vulnerable older adults in social housing?
  • General practice in the years ahead: relationships will matter more than ever
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242