Search

Background Laboratory testing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) is not routinely performed in primary care. Their etiology is usually unknown, and although RTIs are mainly of viral origin, the contribution of different respiratory viruses is uncertain. Our study aims to increase our insight into the epidemiology of respiratory viruses in primary care and to evaluate the accuracy of the general practitioner's (GP's) clinical diagnosis of influenza virus infection. Methods We prospectively recruited patients who presented with RTI symptoms at a primary care facility in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, during the 2015-2016 winter season. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients were summarized using a questionnaire. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected and tested with a multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay detecting 14 respiratory viruses. Results One or more respiratory viruses were present in 42.5% of the patients (n = 353). The most frequently detected viruses were rhinovirus (11.6%), human coronavirus (8.8%), and influenza A virus (7.6%). Sensitivity of GP's clinical diagnosis for influenza virus infection was 52.6% and specificity was 78.3%. Conclusions Despite the use of a sensitive polymerase chain reaction, a respiratory virus could be detected in less than half of the patients visiting the GP with RTI symptoms. It is difficult to clinically distinguish influenza from other causes of RTIs. Correct etiological diagnosis of RTIs is needed because it contributes to differential diagnosis, might give direction to development of specific antiviral therapies and vaccines, reduce unnecessary prescription of antibiotics, and clarifies the clinical spectrum of the different respiratory viruses.

Background Inappropriately high levels of antibiotics are still prescribed in primary health care for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Access to diagnostic point-of-care tests (POCTs) for RTIs might reduce this over-prescription. Objective The purpose of our study was to determine the diagnostic performance and clinical feasibility of a recently developed diagnostic POCT for respiratory viruses, the mariPOC®, in a Dutch primary healthcare setting. Methods In patients with RTI symptoms presenting to a family practice during the 2015–2016 winter season, we determined the test’s sensitivity and specificity relative to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing performed in a laboratory. The clinical feasibility of the POCT was evaluated by interviewing general practitioners (GPs). Results One or more respiratory viruses were detected in 54.9% of the patients (n = 204). For influenza A virus (n = 24), sensitivity of the POCT was 54.2% and specificity was 98.9%; for influenza B virus (n = 18), sensitivity was 72.2% and specificity 99.5%; and for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (n = 12), sensitivity was 50.0% and specificity 100%. In samples with higher viral load, sensitivity was 85.7% for influenza A, 78.6% for influenza B and 85.7% for RSV. The availability of a diagnostic test for respiratory viruses was appreciated by both patients and GPs. Conclusions Our study shows that diagnostic POCTs for respiratory viruses might contribute to a precise and evidence-based diagnosis of RTIs and could positively influence prescription of antibiotics by GPs. However, before implementation in primary healthcare, diagnostic accuracy of the POCT needs improvement and it is impact on clinical decision making should be further assessed.