A multicenter randomized control trial: Point‐of‐care syndromic assessment versus standard testing in urgent care center patients with acute respiratory illness

Abstract Objective Syndromic assessment with multiplex polymerase chain reaction (mPCR) testing in patients with acute respiratory illness (ARI) allows for simultaneous identification of multiple possible infectious etiologies. Point‐of‐care (POC) syndromic assessment can be conducted in a clinical...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Andrew C. Meltzer, Aditya Loganathan, Seamus Moran, Soroush Shahamatdar, Luis W. Dominguez, Joel Willis, Wei Zhang, Xinyi Zhang, Yan Ma
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2024-10-01
Series:Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/emp2.13306
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849407117352501248
author Andrew C. Meltzer
Aditya Loganathan
Seamus Moran
Soroush Shahamatdar
Luis W. Dominguez
Joel Willis
Wei Zhang
Xinyi Zhang
Yan Ma
author_facet Andrew C. Meltzer
Aditya Loganathan
Seamus Moran
Soroush Shahamatdar
Luis W. Dominguez
Joel Willis
Wei Zhang
Xinyi Zhang
Yan Ma
author_sort Andrew C. Meltzer
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Objective Syndromic assessment with multiplex polymerase chain reaction (mPCR) testing in patients with acute respiratory illness (ARI) allows for simultaneous identification of multiple possible infectious etiologies. Point‐of‐care (POC) syndromic assessment can be conducted in a clinical setting, such as an urgent care center (UCC), without requiring certified laboratories. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether POC syndromic assessment improved patient satisfaction for patients seen at an UCC with ARI; secondary objectives included whether syndromic assessment reduced self‐isolation time, increased diagnostic confidence, and reduced overall antibiotic utilization. Methods We conducted an unblinded multicenter randomized controlled trial on UCC patients with an ARI. Patients were randomized to either SC (defined as standard UCC testing for ARI) or syndromic assessment with POC mPCR. Patients were surveyed for patient satisfaction, self‐isolation plans, diagnostic confidence, and overall antibiotic utilization. Results Among the 360 patients enrolled, those in the syndromic assessment group were more satisfied with the time required to communicate the results (98.4% vs. 42.4%, p < 0.001) on day of treatment, more likely to resume normal activities sooner (83.3% vs. 69.4%, p = 0.039), and more confident in their illness cause (60.7% vs. 29.6%, p < 0.001); however, the rate of antibiotic utilization did not differ (33.5% vs. 26%, p = 1.0). Conclusion In conclusion, our study provides evidence supporting the use of syndromic assessment in UCCs for ARI diagnosis, including patient‐centered outcomes such as greater confidence in diagnosis and more efficient isolation strategies. This study did not show a difference in more clinically oriented outcomes, such as a change in antibiotic utilization. Future studies should identify clinical care pathways to improve antibiotic stewardship for likely viral syndromes and whether the increased initial cost of syndromic assessment is offset by the clinical benefits and subsequent cost savings.
format Article
id doaj-art-45e63161bbc945659fcddac339b11e2d
institution Kabale University
issn 2688-1152
language English
publishDate 2024-10-01
publisher Elsevier
record_format Article
series Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open
spelling doaj-art-45e63161bbc945659fcddac339b11e2d2025-08-20T03:36:11ZengElsevierJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open2688-11522024-10-0155n/an/a10.1002/emp2.13306A multicenter randomized control trial: Point‐of‐care syndromic assessment versus standard testing in urgent care center patients with acute respiratory illnessAndrew C. Meltzer0Aditya Loganathan1Seamus Moran2Soroush Shahamatdar3Luis W. Dominguez4Joel Willis5Wei Zhang6Xinyi Zhang7Yan Ma8Department of Emergency Medicine The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Washington District of Columbia USADepartment of Emergency Medicine The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Washington District of Columbia USADepartment of Emergency Medicine The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Washington District of Columbia USADepartment of Emergency Medicine The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Washington District of Columbia USADepartment of Emergency Medicine The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Washington District of Columbia USADepartment of Emergency Medicine The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Washington District of Columbia USADepartment of Mathematics and Statistics University of Arkansas Little Rock Little Rock Arkansas USADepartment of Biostatistics University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USADepartment of Biostatistics University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USAAbstract Objective Syndromic assessment with multiplex polymerase chain reaction (mPCR) testing in patients with acute respiratory illness (ARI) allows for simultaneous identification of multiple possible infectious etiologies. Point‐of‐care (POC) syndromic assessment can be conducted in a clinical setting, such as an urgent care center (UCC), without requiring certified laboratories. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether POC syndromic assessment improved patient satisfaction for patients seen at an UCC with ARI; secondary objectives included whether syndromic assessment reduced self‐isolation time, increased diagnostic confidence, and reduced overall antibiotic utilization. Methods We conducted an unblinded multicenter randomized controlled trial on UCC patients with an ARI. Patients were randomized to either SC (defined as standard UCC testing for ARI) or syndromic assessment with POC mPCR. Patients were surveyed for patient satisfaction, self‐isolation plans, diagnostic confidence, and overall antibiotic utilization. Results Among the 360 patients enrolled, those in the syndromic assessment group were more satisfied with the time required to communicate the results (98.4% vs. 42.4%, p < 0.001) on day of treatment, more likely to resume normal activities sooner (83.3% vs. 69.4%, p = 0.039), and more confident in their illness cause (60.7% vs. 29.6%, p < 0.001); however, the rate of antibiotic utilization did not differ (33.5% vs. 26%, p = 1.0). Conclusion In conclusion, our study provides evidence supporting the use of syndromic assessment in UCCs for ARI diagnosis, including patient‐centered outcomes such as greater confidence in diagnosis and more efficient isolation strategies. This study did not show a difference in more clinically oriented outcomes, such as a change in antibiotic utilization. Future studies should identify clinical care pathways to improve antibiotic stewardship for likely viral syndromes and whether the increased initial cost of syndromic assessment is offset by the clinical benefits and subsequent cost savings.https://doi.org/10.1002/emp2.13306acute respiratory illnesspoint‐of‐care testsyndromic assessmenturgent care
spellingShingle Andrew C. Meltzer
Aditya Loganathan
Seamus Moran
Soroush Shahamatdar
Luis W. Dominguez
Joel Willis
Wei Zhang
Xinyi Zhang
Yan Ma
A multicenter randomized control trial: Point‐of‐care syndromic assessment versus standard testing in urgent care center patients with acute respiratory illness
Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open
acute respiratory illness
point‐of‐care test
syndromic assessment
urgent care
title A multicenter randomized control trial: Point‐of‐care syndromic assessment versus standard testing in urgent care center patients with acute respiratory illness
title_full A multicenter randomized control trial: Point‐of‐care syndromic assessment versus standard testing in urgent care center patients with acute respiratory illness
title_fullStr A multicenter randomized control trial: Point‐of‐care syndromic assessment versus standard testing in urgent care center patients with acute respiratory illness
title_full_unstemmed A multicenter randomized control trial: Point‐of‐care syndromic assessment versus standard testing in urgent care center patients with acute respiratory illness
title_short A multicenter randomized control trial: Point‐of‐care syndromic assessment versus standard testing in urgent care center patients with acute respiratory illness
title_sort multicenter randomized control trial point of care syndromic assessment versus standard testing in urgent care center patients with acute respiratory illness
topic acute respiratory illness
point‐of‐care test
syndromic assessment
urgent care
url https://doi.org/10.1002/emp2.13306
work_keys_str_mv AT andrewcmeltzer amulticenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT adityaloganathan amulticenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT seamusmoran amulticenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT soroushshahamatdar amulticenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT luiswdominguez amulticenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT joelwillis amulticenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT weizhang amulticenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT xinyizhang amulticenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT yanma amulticenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT andrewcmeltzer multicenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT adityaloganathan multicenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT seamusmoran multicenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT soroushshahamatdar multicenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT luiswdominguez multicenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT joelwillis multicenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT weizhang multicenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT xinyizhang multicenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness
AT yanma multicenterrandomizedcontroltrialpointofcaresyndromicassessmentversusstandardtestinginurgentcarecenterpatientswithacuterespiratoryillness