Evidence Hub

Causes of fever in primary care in Southeast Asia and the performance of C-reactive protein in discriminating bacterial from viral pathogens

Althaus T, Thaipadungpanit J, Greer RC, Swe MMM, Dittrich S, Peerawaranun P, Smit PW, Wangrangsimakul T et al.

International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases, 2020

773 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Objectives: This study investigated causes of fever in the primary levels of care in Southeast Asia, and evaluated whether C-reactive protein (CRP) could distinguish bacterial from viral pathogens.

Methods: Blood and nasopharyngeal swab specimens were taken from children and adults with fever (>37.5 °C) or history of fever (<14 days) in Thailand and Myanmar.

Results: Of 773 patients with at least one blood or nasopharyngeal swab specimen collected, 227 (29.4%) had a target organism detected. Influenza virus type A was detected in 85/227 cases (37.5%), followed by dengue virus (30 cases, 13.2%), respiratory syncytial virus (24 cases, 10.6%) and Leptospira spp. (nine cases, 4.0%). Clinical outcomes were similar between patients with a bacterial or a viral organism, regardless of antibiotic prescription. CRP was higher among patients with a bacterial organism compared with those with a viral organism (median 18 mg/L, interquartile range [10-49] versus 10 mg/L [≤8-22], p = 0.003), with an area under the curve of 0.65 (95% CI 0.55-0.75).

Conclusions: Serious bacterial infections requiring antibiotics are an exception rather than the rule in the first line of care. CRP testing could assist in ruling out such cases in settings where diagnostic uncertainty is high and routine antibiotic prescription is common. The original CRP randomised controlled trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02758821.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 773 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free