TY - JOUR
T1 - Point-of-care urine culture for managing urinary tract infection in primary care
T2 - A randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness
AU - Butler, Christopher C.
AU - Francis, Nick A.
AU - Thomas-Jones, Emma
AU - Longo, Mirella
AU - Wootton, Mandy
AU - Llor, Carl
AU - Little, Paul
AU - Moore, Michael
AU - Bates, Janine
AU - Pickles, Timothy
AU - Kirby, Nigel
AU - Gillespie, David
AU - Rumsby, Kate
AU - Brugman, Curt
AU - Gal, Micaela
AU - Hood, Kerenza
AU - Verheij, Theo
N1 - Funding Information:
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement number 282512.
Publisher Copyright:
© British Journal of General Practice.
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/4/1
Y1 - 2018/4/1
N2 - Background The effectiveness of using point-of-care (POC) urine culture in primary care on appropriate antibiotic use is unknown. Aim To assess whether use of the Flexicult™ SSIUrinary Kit, which quantifies bacterial growth and determines antibiotic susceptibility at the point of care, achieves antibiotic use that is more often concordant with laboratory culture results, when compared with standard care. Design and setting Individually randomised trial of females with uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) in primary care research networks (PCRNs) in England, the Netherlands, Spain, and Wales. Method Multilevel regression compared outcomes between the two groups while controlling for clustering. Results In total, 329 participants were randomised to POC testing (POCT) and 325 to standard care, and 324 and 319 analysed. Fewer females randomised to the POCT arm than those who received standard care were prescribed antibiotics at the initial consultation (267/324 [82.4%] versus 282/319 [88.4%], odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.88). Clinicians indicated the POCT result changed their management for 190/301 (63.1%). Despite this, there was no statistically significant difference between study arms in antibiotic use that was concordant with laboratory culture results (primary outcome) at day 3 (39.3% POCT versus 44.1% standard care, OR 0.84, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.20), and there was no evidence of any differences in recovery, patient enablement, UTI recurrences, re-consultation, antibiotic resistance, and hospitalisations at follow-up. POCT culture was not cost-effective. Conclusion Point-of-care urine culture was not effective when used mainly to adjust immediate antibiotic prescriptions. Further research should evaluate use of the test to guide initiation of 'delayed antibiotics'.
AB - Background The effectiveness of using point-of-care (POC) urine culture in primary care on appropriate antibiotic use is unknown. Aim To assess whether use of the Flexicult™ SSIUrinary Kit, which quantifies bacterial growth and determines antibiotic susceptibility at the point of care, achieves antibiotic use that is more often concordant with laboratory culture results, when compared with standard care. Design and setting Individually randomised trial of females with uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) in primary care research networks (PCRNs) in England, the Netherlands, Spain, and Wales. Method Multilevel regression compared outcomes between the two groups while controlling for clustering. Results In total, 329 participants were randomised to POC testing (POCT) and 325 to standard care, and 324 and 319 analysed. Fewer females randomised to the POCT arm than those who received standard care were prescribed antibiotics at the initial consultation (267/324 [82.4%] versus 282/319 [88.4%], odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.88). Clinicians indicated the POCT result changed their management for 190/301 (63.1%). Despite this, there was no statistically significant difference between study arms in antibiotic use that was concordant with laboratory culture results (primary outcome) at day 3 (39.3% POCT versus 44.1% standard care, OR 0.84, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.20), and there was no evidence of any differences in recovery, patient enablement, UTI recurrences, re-consultation, antibiotic resistance, and hospitalisations at follow-up. POCT culture was not cost-effective. Conclusion Point-of-care urine culture was not effective when used mainly to adjust immediate antibiotic prescriptions. Further research should evaluate use of the test to guide initiation of 'delayed antibiotics'.
KW - Antimicrobial drug resistance
KW - Bacterial infections
KW - Cost-benefit analysis
KW - Drug resistance
KW - Point-of-care testing
KW - Urinary tract infections
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044848059&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3399/bjgp18X695285
DO - 10.3399/bjgp18X695285
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85044848059
SN - 0960-1643
VL - 68
SP - e268-e278
JO - British Journal of General Practice
JF - British Journal of General Practice
IS - 669
ER -