Diagnosis and treatment outcomes from prebronchodilator spirometry performed alongside lung cancer screening in a Lung Health Check programme.

INTRODUCTION: Incorporating spirometry into low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer may help identify people with undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although the downstream impacts are not well described. METHODS: Participants attending a Lung Health Check (LHC) as part of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial were offered spirometry alongside LDCT screening. Results were communicated to the general practitioner (GP), and those with unexplained symptomatic airflow obstruction (AO) fulfilling agreed criteria were referred to the Leeds Community Respiratory Team (CRT) for assessment and treatment. Primary care records were reviewed to determine changes to diagnostic coding and pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: Of 2391 LHC participants undergoing prebronchodilator spirometry, 201 (8.4%) fulfilled the CRT referral criteria of which 151 were invited for further assessment. Ninety seven participants were subsequently reviewed by the CRT, 46 declined assessment and 8 had already been seen by their GP at the time of CRT contact. Overall 70 participants had postbronchodilator spirometry checked, of whom 20 (29%) did not have AO. Considering the whole cohort referred to the CRT (but excluding those without AO postbronchodilation), 59 had a new GP COPD code, 56 commenced new pharmacotherapy and 5 were underwent pulmonary rehabilitation (comprising 2.5%, 2.3% and 0.2% of the 2391 participants undergoing LHC spirometry). CONCLUSIONS: Delivering spirometry alongside lung cancer screening may facilitate earlier diagnosis of COPD. However, this study highlights the importance of confirming AO by postbronchodilator spirometry prior to diagnosing and treating patients with COPD and illustrates some downstream challenges in acting on spirometry collected during an LHC.

Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic Use in COVID-19 Hospitalised Patients (PEACH): Protocol for a Retrospective Observational Study.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel virus responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although COVID-19 is a viral illness, many patients admitted to hospital are prescribed antibiotics, based on concerns that COVID-19 patients may experience secondary bacterial infections, and the assumption that they may respond well to antibiotic therapy. This has led to an increase in antibiotic use for some hospitalised patients at a time when accumulating antibiotic resistance is a major global threat to health. Procalcitonin (PCT) is an inflammatory marker measured in blood samples and widely recommended to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. The PEACH study will compare patient outcomes from English and Welsh hospitals that used PCT testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with those from hospitals not using PCT. It will help to determine whether, and how, PCT testing should be used in the NHS in future waves of COVID-19 to protect patients from antibiotic overuse. PEACH is a retrospective observational cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards in England and Wales. The primary objective is to measure the difference in antibiotic use between COVID-19 patients who did or did not have PCT testing at the time of diagnosis. Secondary objectives include measuring differences in length of stay, mortality, intensive care unit admission, and resistant bacterial infections between these groups.

An exploratory assessment of the impact of a novel risk assessment test on breast cancer clinic waiting times and workflow: a discrete event simulation model.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer clinics across the UK have long been struggling to cope with high demand. Novel risk prediction tools - such as the PinPoint test - could help to reduce unnecessary clinic referrals. Using early data on the expected accuracy of the test, we explore the potential impact of PinPoint on: (a) the percentage of patients meeting the two-week referral target, and (b) the number of clinic 'overspill' appointments generated (i.e. patients having to return to the clinic to complete their required investigations). METHODS: A simulation model was built to reflect the annual flow of patients through a single UK clinic. Due to current uncertainty around the exact impact of PinPoint testing on standard care, two primary scenarios were assessed. Scenario 1 assumed complete GP adherence to testing, with only non-referred cancerous cases returning for delayed referral. Scenario 2 assumed GPs would overrule 20% of low-risk results, and that 10% of non-referred non-cancerous cases would also return for delayed referral. A range of sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of key uncertainties on the model results. Service reconfiguration scenarios, removing individual weekly clinics from the clinic schedule, were also explored. RESULTS: Under standard care, 66.3% (95% CI: 66.0 to 66.5) of patients met the referral target, with 1,685 (1,648 to 1,722) overspill appointments. Under both PinPoint scenarios, > 98% of patients met the referral target, with overspill appointments reduced to between 727 (707 to 746) [Scenario 1] and 886 (861 to 911) [Scenario 2]. The reduced clinic demand was sufficient to allow removal of one weekly low-capacity clinic [N = 10], and the results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The findings from this early analysis indicate that risk prediction tools could have the potential to alleviate pressure on cancer clinics, and are expected to have increased utility in the wake of heightened pressures resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research is required to validate these findings with real world evidence; evaluate the broader clinical and economic impact of the test; and to determine outcomes and risks for patients deemed to be low-risk on the PinPoint test and therefore not initially referred.

Perceived feasibility, facilitators and barriers to incorporating point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 into emergency medical services by ambulance service staff: a survey-based approach.

OBJECTIVES: This body of work aimed to elicit ambulance service staff's perceptions on the barriers and facilitators to adoption, and clinical utility of incorporating rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing during ambulance assessments. DESIGN: A mixed-methods survey-based project using a framework analysis method to organise qualitative data. SETTING: Emergency and non-emergency care ambulatory services in the UK were approached to take part. PARTICIPANTS: Current, practising members of the UK ambulance service (paramedics, technicians, assistants and other staff) were included in this body of work. RESULTS: Survey 1: 226 responses were collected between 3 December 2020 and 11 January 2021, 179 (79.2%) of which were completed in full. While the majority of respondents indicated that an ambulance-based testing strategy was feasible in concept (143/190, 75.3%), major barriers to adoption were noted. Many open-ended responses cited concerns regarding misuse of the service by the general public and other healthcare services, timing and conveyance issues, and increased workloads, alongside training and safety concerns. Survey 2: 26 responses were received between 8 February 2021 and 22 February 2021 to this follow-up survey. Survey 2 revealed conveyance decision-making, and risk stratification to be the most frequently prioritised use cases among ambulance service staff. Optimal test characteristics for clinical adoption according to respondents were; accuracy (above 90% sensitivity and specificity), rapidity (<30 min time to results) and ease of sample acquisition. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of commercially available lateral flow devices are unlikely to be supported by paramedics as their duty of care requires both rapid and accurate results that can inform clinical decision making in an emergency situation. Further investigation is needed to define acceptable test characteristics and criteria required for ambulance service staff to be confident and supportive of deployment of a SARS-CoV-2 test in an emergency care setting.

Diagnosing myeloma in general practice: how might earlier diagnosis be achieved?

Smith et al describe the issues with the current diagnostic process for myeloma in general practice, explore the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and identify alternative strategies that may improve the early diagnosis. Around half of myeloma patients have three or more pre-referral consultations and around one-third are diagnosed through emergency presentation. Improving the timeliness of myeloma diagnosis is vital to improving patient outcomes, but is difficult to achieve because of complex, non-specific, and varied presentations. Improving GP education on the salient features of multiple myeloma presentation and the investigations required for diagnosis, alongside ensuring adequate safety netting for patients with persistent, unexplained symptoms, should be urgent priorities. Changes to general practice consultations following the COVID-19 pandemic have made myeloma diagnosis more difficult, and, over the longer term, research is required to develop intelligent and technological strategies that support physician decision making and reduce diagnostic delay.

Development and validation of multivariable machine learning algorithms to predict risk of cancer in symptomatic patients referred urgently from primary care: a diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate tests to assess the risk of any cancer for patients referred to the NHS Urgent Suspected Cancer (2-week wait, 2WW) clinical pathways. SETTING: Primary and secondary care, one participating regional centre. PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of data from 371 799 consecutive 2WW referrals in the Leeds region from 2011 to 2019. The development cohort was composed of 224 669 consecutive patients with an urgent suspected cancer referral in Leeds between January 2011 and December 2016. The diagnostic algorithms developed were then externally validated on a similar consecutive sample of 147 130 patients (between January 2017 and December 2019). All such patients over the age of 18 with a minimum set of blood counts and biochemistry measurements available were included in the cohort. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve Area Under Curve (AUC), calibration curves RESULTS: We present results for two clinical use-cases. In use-case 1, the algorithms identify 20% of patients who do not have cancer and may not need an urgent 2WW referral. In use-case 2, they identify 90% of cancer cases with a high probability of cancer that could be prioritised for review. CONCLUSIONS: Combining a panel of widely available blood markers produces effective blood tests for cancer for NHS 2WW patients. The tests are affordable, and can be deployed rapidly to any NHS pathology laboratory with no additional hardware requirements.

Procalcitonin evaluation of antibiotic use in COVID-19 hospitalized patients during the first wave of COVID-19: the PEACH study

Background A minority of patients presenting to hospital with COVID-19 have bacterial coinfection. Procalcitonin testing may help identify patients for whom antibiotics should be prescribed or withheld. The PEACH study describes the use of procalcitonin in English and Welsh hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. There is a lack of clear evidence to support its use in lung infections, which means in some hospitals, clinicians have used the procalcitonin test to guide antibiotic decisions in COVID-19, whilst in other hospitals, they have not. Our study is analysing data from hospitals that did and did not use procalcitonin testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will determine whether and how procalcitonin testing should be used in the NHS in future waves of COVID-19 to protect patients from antibiotic overuse. Methods To assess whether the use of PCT testing, to guide antibiotic prescribing, safely reduced antibiotic use among patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic, we are answering this question through three different, and complimentary, work streams (WS), each with discrete work packages (WP): (i) Work Stream 1: utilization of PCT testing to guide antibiotic prescribing during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic;(ii) Work Stream 2: patient-level impact of PCT testing on antibiotic exposure and clinical outcome (main work stream currently in analysis);and (iii) Work Stream 3: health economics analysis of PCT testing to guide antibiotics in COVID-19. Results Our first publication from Work Stream 1 (Antibiotics 2021, 10: 516) used a web-based survey to gather data from antimicrobial leads about the use of procalcitonin testing. Responses were received from 148/151 (98%) eligible hospitals. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was widespread introduction and expansion of PCT use in NHS hospitals. The number of hospitals using PCT in emergency/acute admissions rose from 17 (11%) to 74/146 (50.7%) and use in ICU increased from 70 (47.6%) to 124/147 (84.4%). This increase happened predominantly in March and April 2020, preceding NICE guidance. Approximately half of hospitals used PCT as a single test to guide decisions to discontinue antibiotics and half used repeated measurements. There was marked variation in the thresholds used for empirical antibiotic cessation and guidance about interpretation of values. Conclusions Procalcitonin testing has been widely adopted in the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic in an unevidenced, heterogeneous way and in conflict with relevant NICE guidance. Further research is needed urgently that assesses the impact of this change on antibiotic prescribing and patient safety. Work Stream 2 is ongoing, and results will be published once available.

COVID-19 rapid diagnostics: practice review.

Point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 could enable rapid rule-in and/or rule-out of COVID-19, allowing rapid and accurate patient cohorting and potentially reducing the risk of nosocomial transmission. As COVID-19 begins to circulate with other more common respiratory viruses, there is a need for rapid diagnostics to help clinicians test for multiple potential causative organisms simultaneously.However, the different technologies available have strengths and weaknesses that must be understood to ensure that they are used to the benefit of the patient and healthcare system. Device performance is related to the deployed context, and the diagnostic characteristics may be affected by user experience.This practice review is written by members of the UK's COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation programme. We discuss relative merits and test characteristics of various commercially available technologies. We do not advocate for any given test, and our coverage of commercially supplied tests is not intended to be exhaustive.

Integrating Early Economic Evaluation into Target Product Profile development for medical tests: advantages and potential applications.

Target Product Profiles (TPPs) outline the characteristics that new health technologies require to address an unmet clinical need. To date, published TPPs for medical tests have focused on infectious diseases, mostly in the context of low- and middle-income countries. Recently, there have been calls for a broader use of TPPs as a mechanism to ensure that diagnostic innovation is aligned with clinical needs, yet the methodology underpinning TPP development remains suboptimal. Here, we propose that early economic evaluation (EEE) should be integrated within the TPP methodology to create a more rigorous framework for the development of "fit-for-purpose" tests. We discuss the potential benefits that EEE could bring to the core activities underpinning TPP development-scoping, drafting, consensus building, and updating-and argue that using EEE to help inform TPPs provides a more objective, evidence-based, and transparent approach to defining test specifications.

Use of Procalcitonin during the First Wave of COVID-19 in the Acute NHS Hospitals: A Retrospective Observational Study.

A minority of patients presenting to hospital with COVID-19 have bacterial co-infection. Procalcitonin testing may help identify patients for whom antibiotics should be prescribed or withheld. This study describes the use of procalcitonin in English and Welsh hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A web-based survey of antimicrobial leads gathered data about the use of procalcitonin testing. Responses were received from 148/151 (98%) eligible hospitals. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was widespread introduction and expansion of PCT use in NHS hospitals. The number of hospitals using PCT in emergency/acute admissions rose from 17 (11%) to 74/146 (50.7%) and use in Intensive Care Units (ICU) increased from 70 (47.6%) to 124/147 (84.4%). This increase happened predominantly in March and April 2020, preceding NICE guidance. Approximately half of hospitals used PCT as a single test to guide decisions to discontinue antibiotics and half used repeated measurements. There was marked variation in the thresholds used for empiric antibiotic cessation and guidance about interpretation of values. Procalcitonin testing has been widely adopted in the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic in an unevidenced, heterogeneous way and in conflict with relevant NICE guidance. Further research is needed urgently that assesses the impact of this change on antibiotic prescribing and patient safety.

Unmet clinical needs for COVID-19 tests in UK health and social care settings.

There is an urgent requirement to identify which clinical settings are in most need of COVID-19 tests and the priority role(s) for tests in these settings to accelerate the development of tests fit for purpose in health and social care across the UK. This study sought to identify and prioritize unmet clinical needs for COVID-19 tests across different settings within the UK health and social care sector via an online survey of health and social care professionals and policymakers. Four hundred and forty-seven responses were received between 22nd May and 15th June 2020. Hospitals and care homes were recognized as the settings with the greatest unmet clinical need for COVID-19 diagnostics, despite reporting more access to laboratory molecular testing than other settings. Hospital staff identified a need for diagnostic tests for symptomatic workers and patients. In contrast, care home staff expressed an urgency for screening at the front door to protect high-risk residents and limit transmission. The length of time to test result was considered a widespread problem with current testing across all settings. Rapid tests for staff were regarded as an area of need across general practice and dental settings alongside tests to limit antibiotics use.

At what times during infection is SARS-CoV-2 detectable and no longer detectable using RT-PCR-based tests? A systematic review of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are pivotal to detecting current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and duration of detectable virus indicating potential for infectivity. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) systematic review of longitudinal studies of RT-PCR test results in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, LitCOVID, medRxiv, and COVID-19 Living Evidence databases. We assessed risk of bias using a QUADAS-2 adaptation. Outcomes were the percentage of positive test results by time and the duration of detectable virus, by anatomical sampling sites. RESULTS: Of 5078 studies screened, we included 32 studies with 1023 SARS-CoV-2 infected participants and 1619 test results, from - 6 to 66 days post-symptom onset and hospitalisation. The highest percentage virus detection was from nasopharyngeal sampling between 0 and 4 days post-symptom onset at 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 93) dropping to 54% (95% CI 47 to 61) after 10 to 14 days. On average, duration of detectable virus was longer with lower respiratory tract (LRT) sampling than upper respiratory tract (URT). Duration of faecal and respiratory tract virus detection varied greatly within individual participants. In some participants, virus was still detectable at 46 days post-symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR misses detection of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection; early sampling minimises false negative diagnoses. Beyond 10 days post-symptom onset, lower RT or faecal testing may be preferred sampling sites. The included studies are open to substantial risk of bias, so the positivity rates are probably overestimated.