The purpose of this study is to: 1. Evaluate the clinical performance of a newly available highly-sensitive rapid influenza test, Xpert Flu. 2. Derive and validate an adult clinical decision guideline to guide clinical testing of influenza patients who meed CDC criteria for antiviral treatment. 3. Evaluate impact of rapid influenza testing for antiviral treatment. 4. Determine cost effectiveness of influenza testing and treatment strategies.
Four strategically selected medical centers across the US (representing the West Coast, Southwest, Midwest; and East Coast) will enroll adult subjects presenting to the ED with an acute respiratory illness who fulfill CDC recommended criteria for receiving antiviral therapy. At each of the 4 sites, dedicated research coordinators will approach all adult (age \> 18 years old) ED patients with broadly defined respiratory related complaints and screen for those who meet CDC recommended criteria for antiviral therapy (i.e. those at 'high-risk for complications' or those with 'potential influenza-related complications). Consenting subjects will have a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab collected for both Xpert Flu testing and gold standard reverse transcription-PCR (rt-PCR) testing under a research protocol. The investigators will compare the test results from the rapid flu testing to that of the gold standard rt-PCR testing in order to assess the clinical performance characteristics of the new rapid test (Objective 1). The investigators will also collect demographics and medical historical information using a brief structured data form, which will be used in combination with rt-PCR test results to derive and validate a clinical decision guideline (Objective 2). The investigators will simultaneously randomize 2 of the 4 hospitals to the Rapid Testing Group (which will have systematic rapid flu testing performed with results provided to the clinicians), or the Control Group (which will follow standard of care practice with testing left to the discretion of individual clinicians). This will permit comparison of rates of ED antiviral administration or prescription between the two groups to assess the clinical impact of influenza testing (Objective 3). Finally, cost data from the ED visits and subsequent hospitalization will be collected from subjects in both the rapid testing group and the control group to inform a cost-utility analysis of rapid influenza testing compared to current standard of care (Objective 4).
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
2,011
Participants with recieve rapid influenza testing with Xpert Flu
Maricopa Medical Center
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Olive View - UCLA Medical Center
Sylmar, California, United States
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Truman Medical Center
Kansas City, Missouri, United States
Clinical performance of Xpert Flu
The primary outcome is the sensitivity and specificity of Cepheid Xpert Flu in detecting Influenza, as well as the positive and negative predictive value.
Time frame: one year
Clinical decision guideline
Using rt-PCR as the gold standard for influenza testing, we will initially evaluate signs and symptoms (such as cough, fever, sore throat, shortness of breath, etc.) for their sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio for diagnosing influenza.
Time frame: one year
Clinical Utility of Xpert Flu
Clinical utility is defined here as the proportion of high-risk subjects with confirmed influenza receiving antiviral or antiviral prescriptions in the ED in the Rapid Testing Group compared to the Control Group.
Time frame: one year
Cost-effectiveness
We will perform a cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective comparing the following 4 treatment strategies: 1) treat all; 2) treat none; 3) treat based on clinical judgment; 4) treat based on Xpert Flu.
Time frame: one year
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.