| Title |
Point-of-care procalcitonin test to reduce antibiotic exposure in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of COPD
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s104051 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caspar Corti, Markus Fally, Andreas Fabricius-Bjerre, Katrine Mortensen, Birgitte Nybo Jensen, Helle F Andreassen, Celeste Porsbjerg, Jenny Dahl Knudsen, Jens-Ulrik Jensen |
| Abstract |
This study was conducted to investigate whether point-of-care (POC) procalcitonin (PCT) measurement can reduce redundant antibiotic treatment in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). One-hundred and twenty adult patients admitted with AECOPD were enrolled in this open-label randomized trial. Patients were allocated to either the POC PCT-guided intervention arm (n=62) or the control arm, in which antibiotic therapy followed local guidelines (n=58). The median duration of antibiotic exposure was 3.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 0-10) days in the PCT-arm vs 8.5 (IQR 1-11) days in the control arm (P=0.0169, Wilcoxon) for the intention-to-treat population. The proportion of patients using antibiotics for ≥5 days within the 28-day follow-up was 41.9% (PCT-arm) vs 67.2% (P=0.006, Fisher's exact) in the intention-to-treat population. For the per-protocol population, the proportions were 21.1% (PCT-arm) vs 73.9% (P<0.00001, Fisher's exact). Within 28-day follow-up, one patient died in the PCT-arm and two died in the control arm. A composite harm end point consisting of death, rehospitalization, or intensive care unit admission, all within 28 days, showed no apparent difference. Our study shows that the implementation of a POC PCT-guided algorithm can be used to substantially reduce antibiotic exposure in patients hospitalized with AECOPD, with no apparent harm. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 126 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 13% |
| Researcher | 14 | 11% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 28 | 22% |
| Unknown | 31 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 37% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 38 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#2,078
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,917
of 353,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#70
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.