The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Randomised controlled trial and health economic evaluation of the impact of diagnostic testing for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus and Streptococcus pneumoniae infection on the management of acute admissions in the elderly and high-risk 18- to 64-year-olds.

Randomised controlled trial and health economic evaluation of the impact of diagnostic testing for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus and Streptococcus pneumoniae infection on the management of acute admissions in the elderly and high-risk 18- to 64-year-olds.
Randomised controlled trial and health economic evaluation of the impact of diagnostic testing for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus and Streptococcus pneumoniae infection on the management of acute admissions in the elderly and high-risk 18- to 64-year-olds.
BACKGROUND: Western industrialised nations face a large increase in the number of older people. People over the age of 60 years account for almost half of the 16.8 million hospital admissions in England from 2009 to 2010. During 2009-10, respiratory infections accounted for approximately 1 in 30 hospital admissions and 1 in 20 of the 51.5 million bed-days.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy and clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rapid molecular and near-patient diagnostic tests for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and Streptococcus pneumoniae infections in comparison with traditional laboratory culture.

METHODS: We carried out a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate impact on prescribing and clinical outcomes of point-of-care tests (POCTs) for influenza A and B and pneumococcal infection, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for influenza A and B and RSV A and B, and conventional culture for these pathogens. We evaluated diagnostic accuracy of POCTs for influenza and pneumococcal infection, RT-PCR for influenza and sputum culture for S. pneumoniae using samples collected during the RCT. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of POCTs for influenza A and B. We evaluated ease and speed of use of each test, process outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS: There was no evidence of association between diagnostic group and prescribing or clinical outcomes. Using PCR as 'gold standard', Quidel Influenza A?+?B POCT detected 24.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.0% to 34.6%] of influenza infections (specificity 99.7%, 95% CI 99.2% to 99.9%); viral culture detected 21.6% (95% CI 13.5% to 31.6%; specificity 99.8%, 95% CI 99.4% to 100%). Using blood culture as 'gold standard', BinaxNOW pneumococcal POCT detected 57.1% (95% CI 18.4% to 90.1%) of pneumococcal infections (specificity 92.5%; 95% CI 90.6% to 94.1%); sputum culture detected 100% (95% CI 2.5% to 100%; specificity 97.2%, 95% CI 94.3% to 98.9%). Overall, pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity of POCTs for influenza from the literature were 74% (95% CI 67% to 80%) and 99% (95% CI 98% to 99%), respectively. Median intervals from specimen collection to test result were 15 minutes [interquartile range (IQR) 10-23 minutes) for Quidel Influenza A?+?B POCT, 20 minutes (IQR 15-30 minutes) for BinaxNOW pneumococcal POCT, 50.8 hours (IQR 44.3-92.6 hours) for semi-nested conventional PCR, 29.2 hours (IQR 26-46.9 hours) for real-time PCR, 629.6 hours (IQR 262.5-846.7 hours) for culture of influenza and 84.4 hours (IQR 70.7-137.8 hours) and 71.4 hours (IQR 69.15-84.0 hours) for culture of S. pneumoniae in blood and sputum, respectively. Both POCTs were rated straightforward and undemanding; blood culture was moderately complex and all other tests were complex. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of each diagnostic strategy were similar. Incrementally, PCR was most cost-effective (78.3% probability at a willingness to pay of £20,000/QALY). Few patients were admitted within a timescale conducive to treatment with a neuraminidase inhibitor according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance.

LIMITATIONS: The accuracy study was limited by inadequate gold standards.

CONCLUSIONS: All tests had limitations. We found no evidence that POCTs for influenza or S. pneumoniae, or PCR for influenza or RSV influenced antimicrobial prescribing or clinical outcomes. The total costs and QALYs of each diagnostic strategy were similar, although, incrementally, PCR was the most cost-effective strategy. The analysis does not support routine use of POCTs for either influenza or pneumococcal antigen for adults presenting with acute cardiopulmonary conditions, but suggests that conventional viral culture for clinical diagnosis should be replaced by PCR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21521552.

FUNDING:This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
1366-5278
1-274, vii
Nicholson, K.G.
f5ee1433-1c07-4dc3-8a83-62d971f5ec3a
Abrams, K.R.
b424b574-98fb-4225-8a05-7b11ab998690
Batham, S.
3b04773b-1c79-4950-b515-8a6f4fbc6a89
Medina, M.J.
46feda38-936b-4242-be2e-b3f78e214ddc
Warren, F.C.
1c7b04d1-016a-4d2d-8467-613ad64c3f7e
Barer, M.
16291430-18e0-4977-8ea1-363d4f979652
Bermingham, A.
57517dec-0bfc-4bfa-952e-3064cdcd3c16
Clark, T.W.
712ec18e-613c-45df-a013-c8a22834e14f
Latimer, N.
a89babb9-85d1-4f93-88e7-81f3f9739ecc
Fraser, M.
525afe70-c2ed-49e4-b46d-3fe44dd2de68
Perera, N.
3f35df25-77a6-42bf-970b-308182101b96
Rajakumar, K.
3058b978-6e72-4896-a376-fbf756756932
Zambon, M.
e67fad79-262c-4470-9bc2-e24b68ffacf4
Nicholson, K.G.
f5ee1433-1c07-4dc3-8a83-62d971f5ec3a
Abrams, K.R.
b424b574-98fb-4225-8a05-7b11ab998690
Batham, S.
3b04773b-1c79-4950-b515-8a6f4fbc6a89
Medina, M.J.
46feda38-936b-4242-be2e-b3f78e214ddc
Warren, F.C.
1c7b04d1-016a-4d2d-8467-613ad64c3f7e
Barer, M.
16291430-18e0-4977-8ea1-363d4f979652
Bermingham, A.
57517dec-0bfc-4bfa-952e-3064cdcd3c16
Clark, T.W.
712ec18e-613c-45df-a013-c8a22834e14f
Latimer, N.
a89babb9-85d1-4f93-88e7-81f3f9739ecc
Fraser, M.
525afe70-c2ed-49e4-b46d-3fe44dd2de68
Perera, N.
3f35df25-77a6-42bf-970b-308182101b96
Rajakumar, K.
3058b978-6e72-4896-a376-fbf756756932
Zambon, M.
e67fad79-262c-4470-9bc2-e24b68ffacf4

Nicholson, K.G., Abrams, K.R., Batham, S., Medina, M.J., Warren, F.C., Barer, M., Bermingham, A., Clark, T.W., Latimer, N., Fraser, M., Perera, N., Rajakumar, K. and Zambon, M. (2014) Randomised controlled trial and health economic evaluation of the impact of diagnostic testing for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus and Streptococcus pneumoniae infection on the management of acute admissions in the elderly and high-risk 18- to 64-year-olds. Health Technology Assessment, 18 (36), 1-274, vii. (doi:10.3310/hta18360). (PMID:24875092)

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Western industrialised nations face a large increase in the number of older people. People over the age of 60 years account for almost half of the 16.8 million hospital admissions in England from 2009 to 2010. During 2009-10, respiratory infections accounted for approximately 1 in 30 hospital admissions and 1 in 20 of the 51.5 million bed-days.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy and clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rapid molecular and near-patient diagnostic tests for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and Streptococcus pneumoniae infections in comparison with traditional laboratory culture.

METHODS: We carried out a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate impact on prescribing and clinical outcomes of point-of-care tests (POCTs) for influenza A and B and pneumococcal infection, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for influenza A and B and RSV A and B, and conventional culture for these pathogens. We evaluated diagnostic accuracy of POCTs for influenza and pneumococcal infection, RT-PCR for influenza and sputum culture for S. pneumoniae using samples collected during the RCT. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of POCTs for influenza A and B. We evaluated ease and speed of use of each test, process outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS: There was no evidence of association between diagnostic group and prescribing or clinical outcomes. Using PCR as 'gold standard', Quidel Influenza A?+?B POCT detected 24.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.0% to 34.6%] of influenza infections (specificity 99.7%, 95% CI 99.2% to 99.9%); viral culture detected 21.6% (95% CI 13.5% to 31.6%; specificity 99.8%, 95% CI 99.4% to 100%). Using blood culture as 'gold standard', BinaxNOW pneumococcal POCT detected 57.1% (95% CI 18.4% to 90.1%) of pneumococcal infections (specificity 92.5%; 95% CI 90.6% to 94.1%); sputum culture detected 100% (95% CI 2.5% to 100%; specificity 97.2%, 95% CI 94.3% to 98.9%). Overall, pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity of POCTs for influenza from the literature were 74% (95% CI 67% to 80%) and 99% (95% CI 98% to 99%), respectively. Median intervals from specimen collection to test result were 15 minutes [interquartile range (IQR) 10-23 minutes) for Quidel Influenza A?+?B POCT, 20 minutes (IQR 15-30 minutes) for BinaxNOW pneumococcal POCT, 50.8 hours (IQR 44.3-92.6 hours) for semi-nested conventional PCR, 29.2 hours (IQR 26-46.9 hours) for real-time PCR, 629.6 hours (IQR 262.5-846.7 hours) for culture of influenza and 84.4 hours (IQR 70.7-137.8 hours) and 71.4 hours (IQR 69.15-84.0 hours) for culture of S. pneumoniae in blood and sputum, respectively. Both POCTs were rated straightforward and undemanding; blood culture was moderately complex and all other tests were complex. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of each diagnostic strategy were similar. Incrementally, PCR was most cost-effective (78.3% probability at a willingness to pay of £20,000/QALY). Few patients were admitted within a timescale conducive to treatment with a neuraminidase inhibitor according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance.

LIMITATIONS: The accuracy study was limited by inadequate gold standards.

CONCLUSIONS: All tests had limitations. We found no evidence that POCTs for influenza or S. pneumoniae, or PCR for influenza or RSV influenced antimicrobial prescribing or clinical outcomes. The total costs and QALYs of each diagnostic strategy were similar, although, incrementally, PCR was the most cost-effective strategy. The analysis does not support routine use of POCTs for either influenza or pneumococcal antigen for adults presenting with acute cardiopulmonary conditions, but suggests that conventional viral culture for clinical diagnosis should be replaced by PCR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21521552.

FUNDING:This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: May 2014
Organisations: Clinical & Experimental Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 386395
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/386395
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: d78aaa6d-fd78-4698-887b-6b7fb0d13bd9
ORCID for T.W. Clark: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-6026-5295

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 01 Feb 2016 12:10
Last modified: 12 Nov 2019 01:36

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: K.G. Nicholson
Author: K.R. Abrams
Author: S. Batham
Author: M.J. Medina
Author: F.C. Warren
Author: M. Barer
Author: A. Bermingham
Author: T.W. Clark ORCID iD
Author: N. Latimer
Author: M. Fraser
Author: N. Perera
Author: K. Rajakumar
Author: M. Zambon

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×