SummaryBackgroundInappropriate antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infections is common in primary health care, but distinguishing serious from self-limiting infections is difficult, particularly in low-resource settings. We assessed whether C-reactive protein point-of-care testing can safely reduce antibiotic use in patients with non-severe acute respiratory tract infections in Vietnam.MethodWe did a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial in ten primary health-care centres in northern Vietnam. Patients aged 1–65 years with at least one focal and one systemic symptom of acute respiratory tract infection were assigned 1:1 to receive either C-reactive protein point-of-care testing or routine care, following which antibiotic prescribing decisions were made. Patients with severe acute respiratory tract infection were excluded. Enrolled patients were reassessed on day 3, 4, or 5, and on day 14 a structured telephone interview was done blind to the intervention. Randomised assignments were concealed from prescribers and patients but not masked as the test result was used to assist treatment decisions. The primary outcome was antibiotic use within 14 days of follow-up. All analyses were prespecified in the protocol and the statistical analysis plan. All analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population and the analysis of the primary endpoint was repeated in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered under number NCT01918579.FindingsBetween March 17, 2014, and July 3, 2015, 2037 patients (1028 children and 1009 adults) were enrolled and randomised. One adult patient withdrew immediately after randomisation. 1017 patients were assigned to receive C-reactive protein point-of-care testing, and 1019 patients were assigned to receive routine care. 115 patients in the C-reactive protein point-of-care group and 72 patients in the routine care group were excluded in the intention-to-treat analysis due to missing primary endpoint. The number of patients who used antibiotics within 14 days was 581 (64%) of 902 patients in the C-reactive protein group versus 738 (78%) of 947 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·49, 95% CI 0·40–0·61; p<0·0001). Highly significant differences were seen in both children and adults, with substantial heterogeneity of the intervention effect across the 10 sites (I2=84%, 95% CI 66–96). 140 patients in the C-reactive protein group and 137 patients in the routine care group missed the urine test on day 3, 4, or 5. Antibiotic activity in urine on day 3, 4, or 5 was found in 267 (30%) of 877 patients in the C-reactive protein group versus 314 (36%) of 882 patients in the routine treatment group (OR 0·78, 95% CI 0·63–0·95; p=0·015). Time to resolution of symptoms was similar in both groups. Adverse events were rare, with no deaths and a total of 14 hospital admissions (six in the C-reactive protein group and eight in the control group).InterpretationC-reactive protein point-of-care testing reduced antibiotic use for non-severe acute respiratory tract infection w...

No abstract

AimWe assess the cost-benefit implications of C-reactive protein (CRP) testing in reducing antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory infection in Viet Nam by comparing the incremental costs of CRP testing with the economic costs of antimicrobial resistance averted due to lower antibiotic prescribing.FindingsPatients in the CRP group and the controls incurred similar costs in managing their illness, excluding the costs of the quantitative CRP tests, provided free of charge in the trial context. Assuming a unit cost of $1 per test, the incremental cost of CRP testing was $0.93 per patient. Based on a previous modelling analysis, the 20 percentage point reduction in prescribing observed in the trial implies a societal benefit of $0.82 per patient. With the low levels of adherence to the test results observed in the trial, CRP testing would not be cost-beneficial. The sensitivity analyses showed, however, that with higher adherence to test results their use would be cost-beneficial.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-018-0414-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract