ObjectiveTo identify the key diagnostic features and causes of fever of unknown origin (FUO) in Japanese patients.DesignMulticentre prospective study.SettingSixteen hospitals affiliated with the Japanese Society of Hospital General Medicine, covering the East and West regions of Japan.ParticipantsPatient aged ≥20 years diagnosed with classic FUO (axillary temperature≥38.0°C at least twice within a 3-week period, cause unknown after three outpatient visits or 3 days of hospitalisation). A total of 141 cases met the criteria and were recruited from January 2016 to December 2017.InterventionJapanese standard diagnostic examinations.Outcome measuresData collected include usual biochemical blood tests, inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C reactive (CRP) protein level, procalcitonin level), imaging results, autopsy findings (if performed) and final diagnosis.ResultsThe most frequent age group was 65–79 years old (mean: 58.6±9.1 years). The most frequent cause of FUO was non-infectious inflammatory disease. After a 6-month follow-up period, 21.3% of cases remained undiagnosed. The types of diseases causing FUO were significantly correlated with age and prognosis. Between patients with and without a final diagnosis, there was no difference in CRP level between patients with and without a final diagnosis (p=0.121). A significant difference in diagnosis of a causative disease was found between patients who did or did not receive an ESR test (p=0.041). Of the 35 patients with an abnormal ESR value, 28 (80%) had causative disease identified.ConclusionsAge may be a key factor in the differential diagnosis of FUO; the ESR test may be of value in the FUO evaluation process. These results may provide clinicians with insight into the management of FUO to allow adequate treatment according to the cause of the disease.

No abstract

The present study identified inflammatory markers that should be considered in the differential diagnosis of classical FUO, providing useful information for future diagnosis.

BackgroundInfluenza infections can spread rapidly, and influenza outbreaks are a major public health concern worldwide. Early detection of signs of an influenza pandemic is important to prevent global outbreaks. Development of information and communications technologies for influenza surveillance, including participatory surveillance systems involving lay users, has recently increased. Many of these systems can estimate influenza activity faster than the conventional influenza surveillance systems. Unfortunately, few of these influenza-tracking systems are available in Japan.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the flu-tracking ability of Flu-Report, a new influenza-tracking mobile phone app that uses a self-administered questionnaire for the early detection of influenza activity.MethodsFlu-Report was used to collect influenza-related information (ie, dates on which influenza infections were diagnosed) from November 2016 to March 2017. Participants were adult volunteers from throughout Japan, who also provided information about their cohabiting family members. The utility of Flu-Report was evaluated by comparison with the conventional influenza surveillance information and basic information from an existing large-scale influenza-tracking system (an automatic surveillance system based on electronic records of prescription drug purchases).ResultsInformation was obtained through Flu-Report for approximately 10,094 volunteers. In total, 2134 participants were aged <20 years, 6958 were aged 20-59 years, and 1002 were aged ≥60 years. Between November 2016 and March 2017, 347 participants reported they had influenza or an influenza-like illness in the 2016 season. Flu-Report-derived influenza infection time series data displayed a good correlation with basic information obtained from the existing influenza surveillance system (rho, ρ=.65, P=.001). However, the influenza morbidity ratio for our participants was approximately 25% of the mean influenza morbidity ratio for the Japanese population. The Flu-Report influenza morbidity ratio was 5.06% (108/2134) among those aged <20 years, 3.16% (220/6958) among those aged 20-59 years, and 0.59% (6/1002) among those aged ≥60 years. In contrast, influenza morbidity ratios for Japanese individuals aged <20 years, 20-59 years, and ≥60 years were recently estimated at 31.97% to 37.90%, 8.16% to 9.07%, and 2.71% to 4.39%, respectively.ConclusionsFlu-Report supports easy access to near real-time information about influenza activity via the accumulation of self-administered questionnaires. However, Flu-Report users may be influenced by selection bias, which is a common issue associated with surveillance using information and communications technologies. Despite this, Flu-Report has the potential to provide basic data that could help detect influenza outbreaks.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid influenza antigen detection test (RIADT) and determine which symptoms are relevant to results.DesignSingle-centre, cross-sectional study.SettingPrimary care centre, Tokyo, Japan.Participants82 consecutive outpatients presenting with upper respiratory symptoms and fever ≥37°C at any time from symptom onset, between December 2010 and April 2011.Main outcome measuresResults of history and physical examination including age, sex, temperature, time of test from symptom onset, vaccination record and current symptoms (sore throat, arthralgia and/or myalgia, headache, chills, cough and/or throat phlegm, nasal discharge) were recorded. The RIADT and a fully automated respiratory virus nucleic acid test (Verigene Respiratory Virus Plus; VRV), the latter being the gold standard, were performed. Patients were divided into four groups: false negative (FN), RIADT− and VRV+; true positive (TP), RIADT+ and VRV+; true negative (TN), RIADT− and VRV−; and false positive, RIADT+ and VRV−. Groups were compared regarding age, sex, temperature, time of test from symptom onset, vaccination record and symptoms.ResultsRIADT sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 72.9% (95% CI 61.5% to 84.2%), 91.3% (79.7% to 102.8%), 95.6% (89.5% to 101.6%) and 56.8% (40.8% to 72.7%), respectively. Time from symptom onset to test was shorter for the FN group than the TP group (p=0.009). No significant differences were detected for the other factors assessed. Results revealed higher temperatures for FN than TN patients (p=0.043), and more FN than TN patients had chills (p=0.058).ConclusionsThe RIADT sensitivity was low, due to early administration of the test. In the epidemic season, the RIADT should not be used for suspected influenza until 12 h after symptom onset. A positive RIADT firmly supports the influenza diagnosis; a negative result does not confirm its absence. High fever and chills might indicate influenza, but additional tests are sometimes necessary.