Severity assessment for lower respiratory tract infections: potential use and validity of the CRB-65 in primary care

Management and documentation of pneumonia - a comparison of patients consulting primary care and emergency care

OBJECTIVE

To compare management and documentation of vital signs, symptoms and infection severity in pneumonia patients seeking primary care and emergency care without referral.

DESIGN

Medical record review of vital signs, examination findings and severity of pneumonia.

SETTING

Primary and emergency care.

SUBJECTS

Two hundred and forty patients diagnosed with pneumonia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Vital signs, examination findings and severity of pneumonia. Assessments of pneumonia severity according to the reviewers, the traffic light score and CRB-65.

RESULTS

Respiratory rate, blood pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation were less often documented in primary care (p < .001). Chest X-ray was performed in 5% of primary care patients vs. 88% of emergency care patients (p < .01). Primary care patients had longer symptom duration, higher oxygen saturation and lower respiratory rate. In total, the reviewers assessed 63% of all pneumonias as mild and 9% as severe. The traffic light scoring model identified 11 patients (9%) in primary care and 53 patients (44%) in emergency care at high risk of severe infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Vital signs were documented less often in primary care than in emergency care. Patients in primary care appear to have a less severe pneumonia, indicating attendance to the correct care level. The traffic light scoring model identified more patients at risk of severe infection than CRB-65, where the parameters were documented to a limited extent.

Prognostic factors and prediction models for hospitalisation and all-cause mortality in adults presenting to primary care with a lower respiratory tract infection: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and synthesise relevant existing prognostic factors (PF) and prediction models (PM) for hospitalisation and all-cause mortality within 90 days in primary care patients with acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were performed. All PF and PM studies on the risk of hospitalisation or all-cause mortality within 90 days in adult primary care LRTI patients were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool and Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool tools for PF and PM studies, respectively. The results of included PF and PM studies were descriptively summarised.

RESULTS

Of 2799 unique records identified, 16 were included: 9 PF studies, 6 PM studies and 1 combination of both. The risk of bias was judged high for all studies, mainly due to limitations in the analysis domain. Based on reported multivariable associations in PF studies, increasing age, sex, current smoking, diabetes, a history of stroke, cancer or heart failure, previous hospitalisation, influenza vaccination (negative association), current use of systemic corticosteroids, recent antibiotic use, respiratory rate ≥25/min and diagnosis of pneumonia were identified as most promising candidate predictors. One newly developed PM was externally validated (c statistic 0.74, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.78) whereas the previously hospital-derived CRB-65 was externally validated in primary care in five studies (c statistic ranging from 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81) to 0.79 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92)). None of the PM studies reported measures of model calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of existing models for individualised risk prediction of 90-day hospitalisation or mortality in primary care LRTI patients in everyday practice is hampered by incomplete assessment of model performance. The identified candidate predictors provide useful information for clinicians and warrant consideration when developing or updating PMs using state-of-the-art development and validation techniques.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022341233.

Incomplete and possibly selective recording of signs, symptoms, and measurements in free text fields of primary care electronic health records of adults with lower respiratory tract infections

OBJECTIVES

To assess the completeness of recording of relevant signs, symptoms, and measurements in Dutch free text fields of primary care electronic health records (EHR) of adults with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective cohort study embedded in a prediction modeling project using routine health care data of the Julius General Practitioners' Network of adult patients with LRTI. Free text fields of 1,000 primary care consultations of LRTI episodes between 2016 and 2019 were manually annotated to retrieve data on the recording of sixteen relevant signs, symptoms, and measurements.

RESULTS

For 12/16 (75%) of the relevant signs, symptoms, and measurements, more than 50% of the values was not recorded. The patterns of recorded values indicated selective recording of positive or abnormal values. Recording rates varied across consultation type (physical consultation vs. home visit), diagnosis (acute bronchitis vs. pneumonia), antibiotic prescription issued (yes vs. no), and between practices.

CONCLUSION

In EHR of primary care LRTI patients, recording of signs, symptoms, and measurements in free text fields is incomplete and possibly selective. When using free text data in EHR-based research, careful consideration of its recording patterns and appropriate missing data handling techniques is therefore required.

Predicting adverse outcomes in adults with a community-acquired lower respiratory tract infection: a protocol for the development and validation of two prediction models for (i) all-cause hospitalisation and mortality and (ii) cardiovascular outcomes

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) are common in primary care and patients at particular risk of adverse outcomes, e.g., hospitalisation and mortality, are challenging to identify. LRTIs are also linked to an increased incidence of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) following the initial infection, whereas concurrent CVD might negatively impact overall prognosis in LRTI patients. Accurate risk prediction of adverse outcomes in LRTI patients, while considering the interplay with CVD, can aid general practitioners (GP) in the clinical decision-making process, and may allow for early detection of deterioration. This paper therefore presents the design of the development and external validation of two models for predicting individual risk of all-cause hospitalisation or mortality (model 1) and short-term incidence of CVD (model 2) in adults presenting to primary care with LRTI.

METHODS

Both models will be developed using linked routine electronic health records (EHR) data from Dutch primary and secondary care, and the mortality registry. Adults aged ≥ 40 years with a GP-diagnosis of LRTI between 2016 and 2019 are eligible for inclusion. Relevant patient demographics, medical history, medication use, presenting signs and symptoms, and vital and laboratory measurements will be considered as candidate predictors. Outcomes of interest include 30-day all-cause hospitalisation or mortality (model 1) and 90-day CVD (model 2). Multivariable elastic net regression techniques will be used for model development. During the modelling process, the incremental predictive value of CVD for hospitalisation or all-cause mortality (model 1) will also be assessed. The models will be validated through internal-external cross-validation and external validation in an equivalent cohort of primary care LRTI patients.

DISCUSSION

Implementation of currently available prediction models for primary care LRTI patients is hampered by limited assessment of model performance. While considering the role of CVD in LRTI prognosis, we aim to develop and externally validate two models that predict clinically relevant outcomes to aid GPs in clinical decision-making. Challenges that we anticipate include the possibility of low event rates and common problems related to the use of EHR data, such as candidate predictor measurement and missingness, how best to retrieve information from free text fields, and potential misclassification of outcome events.

Comprehensive Outpatient Management of Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Can Primary Care Do This? A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The evidence for outpatient management of hemodynamically stable, low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) is mounting. Guidance in identifying patients who are eligible for outpatient (ambulatory) care is available in the literature and society guidelines. Less is known about who can identify patients eligible for outpatient management and in what clinical practice settings.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question, "Can primary care do this?" (provide comprehensive outpatient management of low-risk PE).

METHODS

We undertook a narrative review of the literature on the outpatient management of acute PE focusing on site of care. We searched the English-language literature in PubMed and Embase from January 1, 1950, through July 15, 2019.

RESULTS

We identified 26 eligible studies. We found no studies that evaluated comprehensive PE management in a primary care clinic or general practice setting. In 19 studies, the site-of-care decision making occurred in the Emergency Department (or after a short period of supplemental observation) and in 7 studies the decision occurred in a specialty clinic. We discuss the components of care involved in the diagnosis, outpatient eligibility assessment, treatment, and follow-up of ambulatory patients with acute PE.

DISCUSSION

We see no formal reason why a trained primary care physician could not provide comprehensive care for select patients with low-risk PE. Leading obstacles include lack of ready access to advanced pulmonary imaging and the time constraints of a busy outpatient clinic.

CONCLUSION

Until studies establish safe parameters of such a practice, the question "Can primary care do this?" must remain open.

Meta-analysis of Calibration, Discrimination, and Stratum-Specific Likelihood Ratios for the CRB-65 Score

BACKGROUND

The CRB-65 score is recommended as a decision support tool to help identify patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) who can safely be treated as outpatients.

OBJECTIVE

To perform an updated meta-analysis of the accuracy, discrimination, and calibration of the CRB-65 score using a novel approach to calculation of stratum-specific likelihood ratios.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of accuracy, discrimination, and calibration.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Google, previous systematic reviews, and reference lists of included studies. Data was abstracted and quality assessed in parallel by two investigators. The quality assessment used an adaptation of the TRIPOD and PROBAST criteria. Measures of discrimination, calibration, and stratum-specific likelihood ratios are reported.

KEY RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies met our inclusion criteria and provided usable data. Most studies were set in Europe, none in North America, and 12 were judged to be at low risk of bias. The pooled estimate of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.74 (95% CI 0.71-0.77) for all studies. Calibration was good although there was significant heterogeneity; the pooled estimate of the ratio of observed to expected mortality for all studies was 1.04 (95% CI 0.91-1.19). The corresponding values for studies at low risk of bias where patients could be treated as outpatients or inpatients were 0.76 (0.70-0.81) and 0.88 (0.69-1.13). Summary estimates of stratum-specific likelihood ratios for all studies were 0.19 for the low-risk group, 1.1 for the moderate-risk group, and 4.5 for the high-risk group, and 0.13, 1.3, and 5.6 for studies at low risk of bias where patients could be treated as outpatients or inpatients.

CONCLUSIONS

The CRB-65 is useful for identifying low-risk patients for outpatient therapy. Given a 4% overall mortality risk, patients classified as low risk by the CRB-65 had an outpatient mortality risk of no more than 0.5%.

Development of a prediction tool for patients presenting with acute cough in primary care: a prognostic study spanning six European countries

BACKGROUND

Accurate prediction of the course of an acute cough episode could curb antibiotic overprescribing, but is still a major challenge in primary care.

AIM

The authors set out to develop a new prediction rule for poor outcome (re-consultation with new or worsened symptoms, or hospital admission) in adults presenting to primary care with acute cough.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Data were collected from 2604 adults presenting to primary care with acute cough or symptoms suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) within the Genomics to combat Resistance against Antibiotics in Community-acquired LRTI in Europe (GRACE; www.grace-lrti.org) Network of Excellence.

METHOD

Important signs and symptoms for the new prediction rule were found by combining random forest and logistic regression modelling. Performance to predict poor outcome in acute cough patients was compared with that of existing prediction rules, using the models' area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), and any improvement obtained by including additional test results (C-reactive protein [CRP], blood urea nitrogen [BUN], chest radiography, or aetiology) was evaluated using the same methodology.

RESULTS

The new prediction rule, included the baseline Risk of poor outcome, Interference with daily activities, number of years stopped Smoking (> or <45 years), severity of Sputum, presence of Crackles, and diastolic blood pressure (> or <85 mmHg) (RISSC85). Though performance of RISSC85 was moderate (sensitivity 62%, specificity 59%, positive predictive value 27%, negative predictive value 86%, AUC 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61 to 0.67), it outperformed all existing prediction rules used today (highest AUC 0.53, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.56), and could not be significantly improved by including additional test results (highest AUC 0.64, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.68).

CONCLUSION

The new prediction rule outperforms all existing alternatives in predicting poor outcome in adult patients presenting to primary care with acute cough and could not be improved by including additional test results.

Pneumococcal lower respiratory tract infections in adults: an observational case-control study in primary care in Belgium

Background

Serious lower respiratory tract infections (SLRTIs), especially Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP)-related pneumonia cause considerable morbidity and mortality. Chest imaging, sputum and blood culture are not routinely obtained by general practitioners (GPs). Antibiotic therapy is usually started empirically. The BinaxNOW® and Urine Antigen Detection (UAD) assays have been developed respectively to detect a common antigen from all pneumococcal strains and the 13 pneumococcal serotypes present in the vaccine Prevenar 13® (PCV13).

Methods

OPUS-B was a multicentre, prospective, case-control, observational study of patients with SLRTI in primary care in Belgium, conducted during two winter seasons (2011–2013). A urine sample was collected at baseline for the urine assays. GPs were blinded to the results. All patients with a positive BinaxNOW® test and twice as much randomly selected BinaxNOW® negative patients were followed up. Recorded data included: socio-demographics, medical history, vaccination history, clinical symptoms, CRB-65 score, treatments, hospitalization, blood cultures, healthcare use, EQ-5D score. The objectives were to evaluate the percentage of SP SLRTI within the total number of SLRTIs, to assess the percentage of SP serotypes and to compare the burden of disease between pneumococcal and non-pneumococcal SLRTIs.

Results

There were 26 patients with a BinaxNOW® positive test and 518 patients with a BinaxNOW® negative test. The proportion of pneumococcal SLRTI was 4.8 % (95 % CI: 3.1 %–7.2 %). Sixty-eight percent of positive cases showed serotypes represented in PCV13. In the BinaxNOW-positive patients, women were more numerous, there was less exposure to young children, seasonal influenza vaccination was less frequent, COPD was more frequent, the body temperature and the number of breaths per minute were higher, the systolic blood pressure was lower, the frequency of sputum, infiltrate, chest pain, muscle ache, confusion/disorientation, diarrhoea, pneumonia and exacerbations of COPD was more frequent, EQ-5D index and VAS scale were lower, the number of visits to the GP, of working days lost and of days patients needed assistance were higher.

Conclusions

SP was responsible for approximately 5 % of SLRTIs observed in primary care in Belgium. Pneumococcal infection was associated with a significant increase in morbidity. Sixty-eight percent of serotypes causing SLRTI were potentially preventable by PCV13.

Major advances in managing community-acquired pneumonia

This article is a non-systematic review of selected recent publications in community-acquired pneumonia, including a comparison of various guidelines. Risk stratification of patients has recently been advanced by the addition of several useful biomarkers. The issue of single versus dual antibiotic treatment remains controversial and awaits a conclusive randomized controlled trial. However, in the meantime, there is a working consensus that more severe patients should receive dual therapy.

Hospital admission decision for patients with community-acquired pneumonia

Where to treat patients is probably the single most important decision in the management of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), with a substantial impact on both patients' outcomes and health-care costs. Several factors can contribute to the decision of the site of care for CAP patients, including physicians' experience and clinical judgment and severity scores developed to predict mortality, as well as social and health-care-related issues. The recognition, both in the community and in the emergency department, of the presence of severe sepsis and acute respiratory failure and the coexistence with unstable comorbidities other than CAP are indications for hospital admission. In all the other cases, physician's choice to admit CAP patients should be validated against at least one objective tool of risk assessment, with a clear understanding of each score's limitations.

Variation in family physicians' recording of auscultation abnormalities in patients with acute cough is not explained by case mix. A study from 12 European networks

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data on the diagnostic and prognostic value of auscultation abnormalities may be partly explained by inconsistent use of terminology.

OBJECTIVES

To describe general practitioners use of chest auscultation abnormality terms for patients presenting with acute cough across Europe, and to explore the influence of geographic location and case mix on use of these terms.

METHODS

Clinicians recorded whether 'diminished vesicular breathing', 'wheezes', 'crackles' and 'rhonchi' were present in an observational study of adults with acute cough in 13 networks in 12 European countries. We describe the use of these terms overall and by network, and used multilevel logistic regression to explore variation by network, controlling for patients' gender, age, comorbidities, smoking status and symptoms.

RESULTS

2345 patients were included. Wheeze was the auscultation abnormality most frequently recorded (20.6% overall) with wide variation by network (range: 8.3-30.8%). There was similar variation for other auscultation abnormalities. After controlling for patient characteristics, network was a significant predictor of auscultation abnormalities with odds ratios for location effects ranging from 0.37 to 4.46 for any recorded auscultation abnormality, and from 0.25 to 3.14 for rhonchi.

CONCLUSION

There is important variation in recording chest auscultation abnormalities by general practitioners across Europe, which cannot be explained by differences in patient characteristics. There is a need and opportunity for standardization in the detection and classification of lung sounds.

Prioritising the respiratory research needs of primary care: the International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG) e-Delphi exercise

BACKGROUND

Community-based care, underpinned by relevant primary care research, is an important component of the global fight against non-communicable diseases. The International Primary Care Research Group's (IPCRG's) Research Needs Statement identified 145 research questions within five domains (asthma, rhinitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), smoking, respiratory infections).

AIMS

To use an e-mail Delphi process to prioritise the research questions.

METHODS

An international panel of primary care clinicians scored the clinical importance, feasibility, and international relevance of each question on a scale of 1-5 (5 = most important). In subsequent rounds, informed by the Group's median scores, participants scored overall priority. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement for priority scores 4 or 5.

RESULTS

Twenty-three experts from 21 countries completed all three rounds. Sixty-two questions were prioritised across the five domains. A recurring theme was for 'simple tools' (e.g. questionnaires) enabling diagnosis and assessment in community settings, often with limited access to investigations. Seven questions recorded 100% agreement: these involved pragmatic approaches to the diagnosis of COPD and rhinitis, assessment of asthma and respiratory infections, management of rhinitis, and implementing asthma self-management.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence to underpin the primary care approach to diagnosis and assessment and broad management strategies were overarching priorities. If primary care is to contribute to the global challenge of managing respiratory non-communicable diseases, policymakers, funders, and researchers need to prioritise these questions.