An interventional study of CRP point of care testing in Cough, sponsored by University of California, San Francisco. Completed at 2 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2011-05-23.
Sponsored by University of California, San Francisco · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic
We aim to evaluate the impact of a CRP-guided management algorithm for adults with acute cough illness. More specifically, we will examine both process of care and clinical outcomes:
We have developed a CRP-guided management algorithm based on recent studies in which the accuracy of CRP for identifying patients with pneumonia was confirmed.(10;11) Importantly, these 2 studies each confirmed that CRP levels provide additional diagnostic support beyond that gained from application of clinical prediction rules. In the proposed study, we will recommend that physicians first assess the probability of pneumonia based on clinical findings, in accordance with current practice recommendations as follows: 1) Low Clinical Suspicion (\<5% probability of pneumonia): Absence of fever (T>38C), tachycardia (HR>100), or tachypnea (RR>24), and normal chest examination. These patients should receive symptomatic therapy, and do not require CXR or antibiotic treatment; 2) High Clinical Suspicion (>30% probability of pneumonia): At least 1 abnormal vital sign and abnormal chest examination. These patients receive CXR and antibiotics based on CXR findings or high clinical suspicion; 3) Intermediate Clinical Suspicion (5-30%): All others. Current practice guidelines recommend considering CXR in these patients, however no further guidance is provided for the management of these patients.
After assessing the clinical probability of pneumonia, CRP levels will be provided for a random subset of patients. A CRP level \<10 mg/L corresponds with a very low probability of bacterial pneumonia. Thus, for patients with low and intermediate-probability of pneumonia based on clinical grounds, a CRP \<10 mg/L should confirm that no CXR or antibiotics are necessary in routine cases (See attached algorithm). A CRP level > 100 mg/L corresponds with a substantially elevated probability of pneumonia. Thus, for patients with low and intermediate-probability of pneumonia based on clinical grounds, a CRP >100 mg/L would support CXR ordering, and for patients with high clinical suspicion, antibiotic therapy should be considered regardless of the CXR result (since studies show that CXR misses about 10% of community-acquired pneumonia confirmed with follow-up CXR or chest computed tomography). Overall, the addition of CRP test results would reduce the need for CXR ordering and antibiotic therapy in cases with an intermediate clinical probability of pneumonia and a low CRP level; and increase the need for CXR ordering and possibly antibiotic therapy in cases with intermediate or high clinical probability of pneumonia and a high CRP level. In this way, we hypothesize that the CRP-guided management algorithm will improve the proportion of patients with acute cough illness who receive appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the ED.
We suspect that most patients with clinically apparent pneumonia will have high CRP levels. However, pneumonia can be a difficult diagnosis to make when patients present with atypical clinical manifestations (e.g. the elderly or COPD patients), or in practice settings where radiography is not readily available. In these settings, the addition of CRP testing may help identify a small number of pneumonia cases that might otherwise go undetected and result in delays in appropriate care. In the large number of patients with intermediate probability of pneumonia, such as adults with acute cough illness who have abnormal vital signs, but normal examinations, particularly in RSV and influenza season, a CRP level \< 10 mg/L could provide clinically significant reassurance to refrain from further testing or empiric antibiotic treatment. A normal CRP level may also provide support to clinicians who are receiving pressure from patients to prescribe antibiotics when they are not clinically indicated. Indirect or future benefits to society are possible if research results show that CRP-guided management strategies can decrease the costs of health care.
Randomization using a random number generator will be conducted by investigators at the data coordinating center (Philadelphia, PA), and results placed in sequentially number study packets. The study personnel that enroll patients will be blinded to the randomization result until after the patient has provided informed consent to participate in the study.
Interventions
Human Subjects Procedures
355 studies on the registry are indexed under Cough; 71 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 139 is above the median of 71 across 270 interventional studies indexed under Cough.
Browse Cough studies →University of California, San Francisco is the lead sponsor of 2,164 studies on the registry; 368 are open to participants now.
Of its 267 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 199 (75%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Chest X-ray utilization, Antibiotic treatment, Time in emergency department, Subsequent office or emergency department visits (within 2 weeks; Subsequent hospitalization, Time-to-illness resolution
Satisfaction with care
The record gives a start of Oct 2005, a primary completion of Mar 2006 and a completion of Jul 2006. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in May 2011. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of California, San Francisco →