The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository
Warning ePrints Soton is experiencing an issue with some file downloads not being available. We are working hard to fix this. Please bear with us.

C-reactive protein point-of-care testing for safely reducing antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the PACE RCT

C-reactive protein point-of-care testing for safely reducing antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the PACE RCT
C-reactive protein point-of-care testing for safely reducing antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the PACE RCT

Background: most patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care are prescribed antibiotics, but these may not be beneficial, and they can cause side effects and increase the risk of subsequent resistant infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) could safely reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance.

Objective: to determine whether or not the use of a C-reactive protein (CRP) POCT to guide prescribing decisions for AECOPD reduces antibiotic consumption without having a negative impact on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) health status and is cost-effective.

Design: a multicentre, parallel-arm, randomised controlled open trial with an embedded process, and a health economic evaluation.

Setting: general practices in Wales and England. A UK NHS perspective was used for the economic analysis.

Participants: adults (aged ≥ 40 years) with a primary care diagnosis of COPD, presenting with an AECOPD (with at least one of increased dyspnoea, increased sputum volume and increased sputum purulence) of between 24 hours' and 21 days' duration.

Intervention: CRP POCTs to guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for AECOPD, compared with usual care (no CRP POCT), using remote online randomisation.

Main outcome measure: : patient-reported antibiotic consumption for AECOPD within 4 weeks post randomisation and COPD health status as measured with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) at 2 weeks. For the economic evaluation, patient-reported resource use and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions were included.

Results: in total, 653 participants were randomised from 86 general practices. Three withdrew consent and one was randomised in error, leaving 324 participants in the usual-care arm and 325 participants in the CRP POCT arm. Antibiotics were consumed for AECOPD by 212 out of 274 participants (77.4%) and 150 out of 263 participants (57.0%) in the usual-care and CRP POCT arm, respectively [adjusted odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.47]. The CCQ analysis comprised 282 and 281 participants in the usual-care and CRP POCT arms, respectively, and the adjusted mean CCQ score difference at 2 weeks was 0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI -0.33 to -0.05 points). The upper limit of the CI did not contain the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.3. The total cost from a NHS perspective at 4 weeks was £17.59 per patient higher in the CRP POCT arm (95% CI -£34.80 to £69.98; p = 0.408). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £222 per 1% reduction in antibiotic consumption compared with usual care at 4 weeks and £15,251 per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months with no significant changes in sensitivity analyses. Patients and clinicians were generally supportive of including CRP POCT in the assessment of AECOPD.

Cconclusions: a CRP POCT diagnostic strategy achieved meaningful reductions in patient-reported antibiotic consumption without impairing COPD health status or increasing costs. There were no associated harms and both patients and clinicians valued the diagnostic strategy.

Future work: implementation studies that also build on our qualitative findings could help determine the effect of this intervention over the longer term.

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24346473.

Funding: this project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

1366-5278
1-108
Francis, Nick A
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e
Gillespie, David
a796af31-39b7-47b9-840f-c893e43013dd
White, Patrick
aa8d0bb0-0a13-4c57-8b3b-e8fa19b46b93
Bates, Janine
290a69e6-4f81-4dbe-b270-30e4155ca576
Lowe, Rachel
ffacdbc3-54f1-4181-9054-079a3182d1c9
Sewell, Bernadette
d753e76b-592d-4abe-a4f3-c0f8aa8b41ce
Phillips, Rhiannon
197e1e95-ea7d-4867-80e0-52e5c7261a8b
Stanton, Helen
05e8526c-706a-4615-add9-c942abf8d12a
Kirby, Nigel
f096d265-c00e-42e0-8cd8-fb5ab470f513
Wootton, Mandy
4179ab83-aebf-4b01-9203-f067b2bd7d81
Thomas-Jones, Emma
bfbcac97-4d15-4c2c-8a4e-8b151805b318
Hood, Kerenza
af7cf839-ca85-4ea9-83c3-3dd31be88b32
Llor, Carl
a7fcfced-28f4-4771-8ca5-2c1ce2095d61
Cals, Jochen
cf15c88f-856d-4793-b26a-c38aa85556ab
Melbye, Hasse
be60ca95-b236-48e5-8eb9-c9a153d54a8f
Naik, Gurudutt
390b5e49-fe4f-4d4f-a44a-c15978c64222
Gal, Micaela
2d266726-f171-4a55-a381-29c5a2e42ec1
Fitzsimmons, Deborah
4e282651-162f-48f0-bbf7-190c265279f2
Alam, Mohammed Fasihul
209b7bf8-434f-4b2c-9815-724131f6fbe4
Riga, Evgenia
771617c4-8616-4bbb-a548-cb41c43a1585
Cochrane, Ann
0e3eb0e6-c171-4bdb-ab46-57aaf985e588
Butler, Christopher C
8bf4cace-c34a-4b65-838f-29c2be91e434
Francis, Nick A
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e
Gillespie, David
a796af31-39b7-47b9-840f-c893e43013dd
White, Patrick
aa8d0bb0-0a13-4c57-8b3b-e8fa19b46b93
Bates, Janine
290a69e6-4f81-4dbe-b270-30e4155ca576
Lowe, Rachel
ffacdbc3-54f1-4181-9054-079a3182d1c9
Sewell, Bernadette
d753e76b-592d-4abe-a4f3-c0f8aa8b41ce
Phillips, Rhiannon
197e1e95-ea7d-4867-80e0-52e5c7261a8b
Stanton, Helen
05e8526c-706a-4615-add9-c942abf8d12a
Kirby, Nigel
f096d265-c00e-42e0-8cd8-fb5ab470f513
Wootton, Mandy
4179ab83-aebf-4b01-9203-f067b2bd7d81
Thomas-Jones, Emma
bfbcac97-4d15-4c2c-8a4e-8b151805b318
Hood, Kerenza
af7cf839-ca85-4ea9-83c3-3dd31be88b32
Llor, Carl
a7fcfced-28f4-4771-8ca5-2c1ce2095d61
Cals, Jochen
cf15c88f-856d-4793-b26a-c38aa85556ab
Melbye, Hasse
be60ca95-b236-48e5-8eb9-c9a153d54a8f
Naik, Gurudutt
390b5e49-fe4f-4d4f-a44a-c15978c64222
Gal, Micaela
2d266726-f171-4a55-a381-29c5a2e42ec1
Fitzsimmons, Deborah
4e282651-162f-48f0-bbf7-190c265279f2
Alam, Mohammed Fasihul
209b7bf8-434f-4b2c-9815-724131f6fbe4
Riga, Evgenia
771617c4-8616-4bbb-a548-cb41c43a1585
Cochrane, Ann
0e3eb0e6-c171-4bdb-ab46-57aaf985e588
Butler, Christopher C
8bf4cace-c34a-4b65-838f-29c2be91e434

Francis, Nick A, Gillespie, David, White, Patrick, Bates, Janine, Lowe, Rachel, Sewell, Bernadette, Phillips, Rhiannon, Stanton, Helen, Kirby, Nigel, Wootton, Mandy, Thomas-Jones, Emma, Hood, Kerenza, Llor, Carl, Cals, Jochen, Melbye, Hasse, Naik, Gurudutt, Gal, Micaela, Fitzsimmons, Deborah, Alam, Mohammed Fasihul, Riga, Evgenia, Cochrane, Ann and Butler, Christopher C (2020) C-reactive protein point-of-care testing for safely reducing antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the PACE RCT. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 24 (15), 1-108. (doi:10.3310/hta24150).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: most patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care are prescribed antibiotics, but these may not be beneficial, and they can cause side effects and increase the risk of subsequent resistant infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) could safely reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance.

Objective: to determine whether or not the use of a C-reactive protein (CRP) POCT to guide prescribing decisions for AECOPD reduces antibiotic consumption without having a negative impact on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) health status and is cost-effective.

Design: a multicentre, parallel-arm, randomised controlled open trial with an embedded process, and a health economic evaluation.

Setting: general practices in Wales and England. A UK NHS perspective was used for the economic analysis.

Participants: adults (aged ≥ 40 years) with a primary care diagnosis of COPD, presenting with an AECOPD (with at least one of increased dyspnoea, increased sputum volume and increased sputum purulence) of between 24 hours' and 21 days' duration.

Intervention: CRP POCTs to guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for AECOPD, compared with usual care (no CRP POCT), using remote online randomisation.

Main outcome measure: : patient-reported antibiotic consumption for AECOPD within 4 weeks post randomisation and COPD health status as measured with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) at 2 weeks. For the economic evaluation, patient-reported resource use and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions were included.

Results: in total, 653 participants were randomised from 86 general practices. Three withdrew consent and one was randomised in error, leaving 324 participants in the usual-care arm and 325 participants in the CRP POCT arm. Antibiotics were consumed for AECOPD by 212 out of 274 participants (77.4%) and 150 out of 263 participants (57.0%) in the usual-care and CRP POCT arm, respectively [adjusted odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.47]. The CCQ analysis comprised 282 and 281 participants in the usual-care and CRP POCT arms, respectively, and the adjusted mean CCQ score difference at 2 weeks was 0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI -0.33 to -0.05 points). The upper limit of the CI did not contain the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.3. The total cost from a NHS perspective at 4 weeks was £17.59 per patient higher in the CRP POCT arm (95% CI -£34.80 to £69.98; p = 0.408). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £222 per 1% reduction in antibiotic consumption compared with usual care at 4 weeks and £15,251 per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months with no significant changes in sensitivity analyses. Patients and clinicians were generally supportive of including CRP POCT in the assessment of AECOPD.

Cconclusions: a CRP POCT diagnostic strategy achieved meaningful reductions in patient-reported antibiotic consumption without impairing COPD health status or increasing costs. There were no associated harms and both patients and clinicians valued the diagnostic strategy.

Future work: implementation studies that also build on our qualitative findings could help determine the effect of this intervention over the longer term.

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24346473.

Funding: this project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Text
C-reactive protein - Version of Record
Available under License Other.
Download (1MB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 1 March 2020

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 441350
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/441350
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: ec266526-e9da-4b0d-8e8d-542028270fb0
ORCID for Nick A Francis: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-8939-7312

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 Jun 2020 16:31
Last modified: 10 Jan 2022 03:19

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Nick A Francis ORCID iD
Author: David Gillespie
Author: Patrick White
Author: Janine Bates
Author: Rachel Lowe
Author: Bernadette Sewell
Author: Rhiannon Phillips
Author: Helen Stanton
Author: Nigel Kirby
Author: Mandy Wootton
Author: Emma Thomas-Jones
Author: Kerenza Hood
Author: Carl Llor
Author: Jochen Cals
Author: Hasse Melbye
Author: Gurudutt Naik
Author: Micaela Gal
Author: Deborah Fitzsimmons
Author: Mohammed Fasihul Alam
Author: Evgenia Riga
Author: Ann Cochrane
Author: Christopher C Butler

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 http://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.

×