TY - JOUR T1 - Impact of turnaround time on outcome with point-of-care testing for respiratory viruses: a <em>post hoc</em> analysis from a randomised controlled trial JF - European Respiratory Journal JO - Eur Respir J DO - 10.1183/13993003.00555-2018 SP - 1800555 AU - Nathan J Brendish AU - Ahalya K Malachira AU - Kate R Beard AU - Sean Ewings AU - Tristan W Clark Y1 - 2018/01/01 UR - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2018/05/31/13993003.00555-2018.abstract N2 - Respiratory viruses are detected in around 40–50% of adults hospitalised with acute respiratory illness (ARI) [1, 2]. Routine laboratory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing generally takes several hours to several days to generate results to clinicians so cannot be used to inform decision making in real-time. Decisions about hospitalisation, antibiotics, antivirals and side room isolation therefore need to be made presumptively and reviewed when results are available. Newer rapid molecular test platforms are accurate, easy to use, and generate a result in 1 hour or less, making them potentially deployable as point-of-care tests (POCT) in clinical areas [3]. Recently, we reported on a large pragmatic randomised controlled trial (ResPOC) which evaluated the impact of POCT using the FilmArray Respiratory Panel (which tests for a comprehensive range of viruses) in adults presenting to hospital with ARI [4]. The study showed that POCT was associated with reductions in hospital length of stay (LOS) overall and reductions in antibiotics use in patients with exacerbation of airways disease. Although this evidence would suggest that rapid molecular testing needs to be performed within clinical areas for these improved clinical outcomes, it has been suggested that rapid molecular test platforms used within centralised laboratories might also be associated with these clinical benefits, although the turnaround times (TAT) are likely to be much longer. In this follow-on study we evaluate the impact of POCT TAT on clinical outcomes with a view to determining how rapid molecular testing for respiratory viruses should be best implemented in clinical practice.FootnotesThis manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.Conflict of interest: Dr. Brendish has been an investigator and recruited patients into clinical trials of antivirals sponsored by Gilead and Janssen.Conflict of interest: Dr. Malachira has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Beard has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Ewings has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Clark reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from BioFire LLC, non-financial support from BioFire LLC, grants from NIHR Post Doctoral Fellowship, grants from NIHR Health Technology Assessment Grant, outside the submitted work; and Dr Clark has been a Principal Investigator or Chief Investigator for industry sponsored trials of antivirals (Gilead, Janssen) ER -