Dataset Information

Pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of a routine molecular point-of-care 'test-and-treat' strategy for influenza in adults hospitalised with acute respiratory illness (FluPOC): trial protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Influenza infections often remain undiagnosed in patients admitted to hospital due to lack of routine testing. When tested for, the diagnosis and treatment of influenza are often delayed due to the slow turnaround times of centralised laboratory PCR testing. Newer molecular systems, have comparable accuracy to laboratory PCR testing, and can generate a result in under 1 hour, making them potentially deployable as point-of-care tests (POCTs). High-quality evidence for the impact of routine POCT for influenza on clinical outcomes is, however, currently lacking. This large pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial aims to address this evidence gap.

Methods and analysis

The FluPOC trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial evaluating adults admitted to a large teaching hospital and a district general hospital with an acute respiratory illness, during influenza season and defined by Public Health England. Up to 840 patients will be recruited over up to three influenza seasons, and randomised (1:1) to receive either POCT using the FilmArray respiratory panel, or routine clinical care. Clinical and infection control teams will be informed of the results in real time and where influenza is detected clinical teams will be encouraged to offer neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI) treatment in accordance with national guidelines. Those allocated to standard clinical care will have a swab taken for later analysis to allow assessment of missed diagnoses. The outcomes assessment will be by retrospective case note analysis. The outcome measures include the proportion of influenza-positive patients detected and appropriately treated with NAIs, isolation facility use, antibiotic use, length of hospital stay, complications and mortality.

Ethics and dissemination

Prior to commencing the study, approval was obtained from the South Central Hampshire A Ethics Committee (reference 17/SC/0368, granted 7 September 2017). Results generated from this protocol will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at national and international conferences.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN17197293.

SUBMITTER: Beard K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6937093 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRespiratory virus infection is a common cause of hospitalisation in adults. Rapid point-of-care testing (POCT) for respiratory viruses might improve clinical care by reducing unnecessary antibiotic use, shortening length of hospital stay, improving influenza detection and treatment, and rationalising isolation facility use; however, insufficient evidence exists to support its use over standard clinical care. We aimed to assess the effect of routine POCT on a broad range of clinical outcomes including antibiotic use.MethodsIn this pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) within 24 h of presenting to the emergency department or acute medical unit of a large UK hospital with acute respiratory illness or fever higher than 37·5°C (≤7 days duration), or both, over two winter seasons. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an internet-based allocation sequence with random permuted blocks, to have a molecular POC test for respiratory viruses or routine clinical care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received antibiotics while hospitalised (up to 30 days). Secondary outcomes included duration of antibiotics, proportion of patients receiving single doses or brief courses of antibiotics, length of stay, antiviral use, isolation facility use, and safety. Analysis was by modified intention to treat, excluding patients who declined intervention or were withdrawn for protocol violations. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number 90211642, and has been completed.FindingsBetween Jan 15, 2015, and April 30, 2015, and between Oct 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016, we enrolled 720 patients (362 assigned to POCT and 358 to routine care). Six patients withdrew or had protocol violations. 301 (84%) of 360 patients in the POCT group received antibiotics compared with 294 (83%) of 354 controls (difference 0·6%, 95% CI -4·9 to 6·0; p=0·84). Mean duration of antibiotics did not differ between groups (7·2 days [SD 5·1] in the POCT group vs 7·7 days [4·9] in the control group; difference -0·4, 95% CI -1·2 to 0·4; p=0·32). 50 (17%) of 301 patients treated with antibiotics in the POCT group received single doses or brief courses of antibiotics (<48 h) compared with 26 (9%) of 294 patients in the control group (difference 7·8%, 95% CI 2·5 to 13·1; p=0·0047; number needed to test=13). Mean length of stay was shorter in the POCT group (5·7 days [SD 6·3]) than in the control group (6·8 days [7·7]; difference -1·1, 95% CI -2·2 to -0·3; p=0·0443). Appropriate antiviral treatment of influenza-positive patients was more common in the POCT group (52 [91%] of 57 patients) than in the control group (24 [65%] of 37 patients; difference 26·4%, 95% CI 9·6 to 43·2; p=0·0026; number needed to test=4). We found no differences in adverse outcomes between the groups (77 [21%] of 360 patients in the POCT group vs 88 [25%] of 354 patients in the control group; -3·5%, -9·7 to 2·7; p=0·29).InterpretationRoutine use of molecular POCT for respiratory viruses did not reduce the proportion of patients treated with antibiotics. However, the primary outcome measure failed to capture differences in antibiotic use because many patients were started on antibiotics before the results of POCT could be made available. Although POCT was not associated with a reduction in the duration of antibiotics overall, more patients in the POCT group received single doses or brief courses of antibiotics than did patients in the control group. POCT was also associated with a reduced length of stay and improved influenza detection and antiviral use, and appeared to be safe.FundingUniversity of Southampton.

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).

Project description:IntroductionPeople experiencing homelessness suffer from poor outcomes after hospitalisation due to systemic barriers to care, suboptimal transitions of care, and intersecting health and social burdens. Case management programmes have been shown to improve housing stability, but their effects on broad posthospital outcomes in this population have not been rigorously evaluated. The Navigator Programme is a Critical Time Intervention case management programme that was developed to help homeless patients with their postdischarge needs and to link them with community-based health and social services. This randomised controlled trial examines the impact of the Navigator Programme on posthospital outcomes among adults experiencing homelessness.Methods and analysisThis is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial testing the effectiveness of the Navigator Programme at an urban academic teaching hospital and an urban community teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada. Six hundred and forty adults experiencing homelessness who are admitted to the hospital will be randomised to receive support from a Homeless Outreach Counsellor for 90 days after hospital discharge or to usual care. The primary outcome is follow-up with a primary care provider (physician or nurse practitioner) within 14 days of hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes include postdischarge mortality or readmission, number of days in hospital, number of emergency department visits, self-reported care transition quality, and difficulties meeting subsistence needs. Quantitative outcomes are being collected over a 180-day period through linked patient-reported and administrative health data. A parallel mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted to explore intervention context, implementation and mechanisms of impact.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Unity Health Toronto Research Ethics Board. Participants will be required to provide written informed consent. Results of the main trial and process evaluation will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and shared with hospital leadership, community partners and policy makers.Trial registration numberNCT04961762.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate the effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in the third trimester in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes in low risk pregnancies compared with usual care and the effect of this policy on maternal outcomes and obstetric interventions. DESIGN:Pragmatic, multicentre, stepped wedge cluster randomised trial. SETTING:60 midwifery practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:13 046 women aged 16 years or older with a low risk singleton pregnancy. INTERVENTIONS:60 midwifery practices offered usual care (serial fundal height measurements with clinically indicated ultrasonography). After 3, 7, and 10 months, a third of the practices were randomised to the intervention strategy. As well as receiving usual care, women in the intervention strategy were offered two routine biometry scans at 28-30 and 34-36 weeks' gestation. The same multidisciplinary protocol for detecting and managing fetal growth restriction was used in both strategies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome measure was a composite of severe adverse perinatal outcomes: perinatal death, Apgar score <4, impaired consciousness, asphyxia, seizures, assisted ventilation, septicaemia, meningitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leucomalacia, or necrotising enterocolitis. Secondary outcomes were two composite measures of severe maternal morbidity, and spontaneous labour and birth. RESULTS:Between 1 February 2015 and 29 February 2016, 60 midwifery practices enrolled 13 520 women in mid-pregnancy (mean 22.8 (SD 2.4) weeks' gestation). 13 046 women (intervention n=7067, usual care n=5979) with data based on the national Dutch perinatal registry or hospital records were included in the analyses. Small for gestational age at birth was significantly more often detected in the intervention group than in the usual care group (179 of 556 (32%) v 78 of 407 (19%), P<0.001). The incidence of severe adverse perinatal outcomes was 1.7% (n=118) for the intervention strategy and 1.8% (n=106) for usual care. After adjustment for confounders, the difference between the groups was not significant (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.20). The intervention strategy showed a higher incidence of induction of labour (1.16, 1.04 to 1.30) and a lower incidence of augmentation of labour (0.78, 0.71 to 0.85). Maternal outcomes and other obstetric interventions did not differ between the strategies. CONCLUSION:In low risk pregnancies, routine ultrasonography in the third trimester along with clinically indicated ultrasonography was associated with higher antenatal detection of small for gestational age fetuses but not with a reduced incidence of severe adverse perinatal outcomes compared with usual care alone. The findings do not support routine ultrasonography in the third trimester for low risk pregnancies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Netherlands Trial Register NTR4367.

Project description:BackgroundEarly and accessible testing for influenza with point-of-care testing (POCT) can be a critical factor for deciding to begin antiviral treatment. More than 10,000 pharmacies across the USA offer Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-waived POCT for infectious diseases, such as influenza A/B. Knowledge of barriers and facilitators to large-scale POCT implementation may be useful in scaling POCT for influenza test-and-treat services (Flu POCT). The objective of this study was to explore the experiences of pharmacists who were early adopters of Flu POCT and treatment under collaborative practice agreement in community pharmacy settings.MethodsQualitative research design with in-depth, semi-structured virtual video interviews of licensed US community pharmacists. Interview questions were derived from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviewees were selected via a purposeful sampling of pharmacists who were enrolled in a nationwide clinical trial involving pharmacy-based influenza test-and-treat under a collaborative agreement. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. A deductive analytic approach was used via constructs from the CFIR.ResultsSix pharmacists were interviewed. Interviews ranged from 28 to 70 min, with an average length of 46 min. Four broad themes emerged from the data, and each had corresponding subthemes and supporting quotes: influence of the Flu POCT service characteristics on pharmacy implementation, influence of factors outside of the pharmacy setting in Flu POCT implementation, factors within the pharmacy setting influencing implementation, and process of implementing Flu POCT. A novel pharmacy-based Flu POCT implementation framework is presented.ConclusionsImplementation of community pharmacy-based Flu POCT services is feasible; but, a thorough understanding of both barriers and facilitators to their implementation is needed to increase the spread and scale of these programs. Specifically, pharmacy stakeholders should focus efforts on increasing patient and provider awareness, pharmacist acceptance, leadership support, and support of health providers external to the pharmacy to improve implementation success.