Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WisconsinUSA.
Clin Infect Dis. 2023 Jun 8;76(11):1942-1948. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciad038.
The potential benefits of using rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) in urgent care facilities for clinical care and prescribing practices are understudied. We compared antiviral and antibiotic prescribing, imaging, and laboratory ordering in clinical encounters with and without RIDT results.
We compared patients with acute respiratory infection (ARI) symptoms who received an RIDT and patients who did not at 2 urgent care facilities. Primary analysis using 1-to-1 exact matching resulted in 1145 matched pairs to which McNemar 2 × 2 tests were used to assess the association between the likelihood of prescribing, imaging/laboratory ordering, and RIDT use. Secondary analysis compared the same outcomes using logistic regression among the RIDT-tested population between participants who tested negative (RIDT(-)) and positive (RIDT(+)).
Primary analysis revealed that compared to the non-RIDT-tested population, RIDT(+) patients were more likely to be prescribed antivirals (OR, 10.23; 95% CI, 5.78-19.72) and less likely to be prescribed antibiotics (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, .08-.27). Comparing RIDT-tested to non-RIDT-tested participants, RIDT use increased antiviral prescribing odds (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.25-4.26) and reduced antibiotic prescribing odds (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, .43-.63). Secondary analysis identified increased odds of prescribing antivirals (OR, 28.21; 95% CI, 18.15-43.86) and decreased odds of prescribing antibiotics (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, .13-.30) for RIDT(+) participants compared with RIDT(-).
Use of RIDTs in patients presenting with ARI symptoms influences clinician diagnostic and treatment decision-making, which could lead to improved patient outcomes, population-level reductions in influenza burden, and a decreased threat of antibiotic resistance.
在急症护理机构中,快速流感诊断检测(RIDT)在临床护理和处方实践中的潜在益处尚未得到充分研究。我们比较了有 RIDT 结果和没有 RIDT 结果的临床就诊中抗病毒药物和抗生素的开具、影像学检查和实验室检查情况。
我们比较了在 2 家急症护理机构就诊的急性呼吸道感染(ARI)症状患者,他们接受了 RIDT 检测和未接受 RIDT 检测。使用 1:1 精确匹配的主要分析得出了 1145 对匹配对,使用 McNemar 2×2 检验评估了开具处方、影像学/实验室检查和 RIDT 使用之间的关联。次要分析在接受 RIDT 检测的人群中,比较了 RIDT(-)和 RIDT(+)患者之间的相同结局,使用 logistic 回归进行比较。
主要分析显示,与未接受 RIDT 检测的人群相比,RIDT(+)患者更有可能被开具抗病毒药物(OR,10.23;95%CI,5.78-19.72),不太可能被开具抗生素(OR,0.15;95%CI,0.08-0.27)。比较接受 RIDT 检测和未接受 RIDT 检测的参与者,RIDT 的使用增加了抗病毒药物的开具几率(OR,3.07;95%CI,2.25-4.26),减少了抗生素的开具几率(OR,0.52;95%CI,0.43-0.63)。次要分析发现,与 RIDT(-)患者相比,RIDT(+)患者开具抗病毒药物的几率更高(OR,28.21;95%CI,18.15-43.86),开具抗生素的几率更低(OR,0.20;95%CI,0.13-0.30)。
在出现 ARI 症状的患者中使用 RIDT 会影响临床医生的诊断和治疗决策,这可能会改善患者的预后,降低流感在人群中的负担,并降低抗生素耐药的威胁。