BackgroundOver the past decade, detection of bacterial and fungal DNA by universal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has been increasingly used for organism identification in culture negative tissue samples. Few studies have assessed the diagnostic utility of this test in real-world clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of this test by examining available clinical information, test results and the impact on patient management.MethodsWe performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients who had clinical specimens sent for universal PCR from August 2013 to April 2016. Clinical data were extracted from medical records. Odds ratios were calculated and patients testing positive/negative were compared with univariate logistic regression. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values were calculated by comparing the test result with a gold standard composite final clinical diagnosis determined by 3 independent reviewers based on all available clinical information.Results71 tissue samples were included, of which 21(29.6%) were positive. 12 bacteria, 3 mycobacteria and 7 fungi were identified. The number of leukocytes in the gram stain (odds ratio, OR 1.57, P = 0.04) and presence of inflammation on histopathological examination (OR 5.69, P = 0.02) were found to be significantly associated with a positive result. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values were 56%, 95%, 91% and 70% respectively. Management was altered in 22 patients, 9 of whom had a positive and 13 had a negative result.ConclusionThese findings suggest that the universal PCR assay has significant clinical utility, but the yield of this test can be optimized by careful patient/specimen selection. Utility was highest in patients with microscopic evidence of inflammation by gram stain or histopathlogical examination. Specificity was high. The use of this complex, difficult to interpret, and expensive test should be limited to infectious disease physicians incorporating all available clinical information to optimize performance.Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.
Background Despite well-defined criteria for use of antibiotics in patients presenting with mild to moderate Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (AECOPD), their overuse is widespread. We hypothesized that following implementation of a molecular multiplex respiratory viral panel (RVP), AECOPD patients with viral infections would be more easily identified, limiting antibiotic use in this population. The primary objective of our study was to investigate if availability of the RVP decreased antibiotic prescription at discharge among patients with AECOPD. Methods This is a single center, retrospective, before (pre-RVP) - after (post-RVP) study of patients admitted to a tertiary medical center from January 2013 to March 2016. The primary outcome was antibiotic prescription at discharge. Groups were compared using univariable and multivariable logistic-regression. Results A total of 232 patient-episodes were identified, 133 following RVP introduction. Mean age was 68.1 (pre-RVP) and 68.3 (post-RVP) years respectively ( p = 0.88). Patients in pre-RVP group were similar to the post-RVP group with respect to gender ( p = 0.54), proportion of patients with BMI < 21( p = 0.23), positive smoking status ( p = 0.19) and diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA, p = 0.16). We found a significant reduction in antibiotic prescription rate at discharge in patients admitted with AECOPD after introduction of the respiratory viral assay (pre-RVP 77.8% vs. post-RVP 63.2%, p = 0.01). In adjusted analyses, patients in the pre-RVP group [OR 2.11 (CI: 1.13–3.96), p = 0.019] with positive gram stain in sputum [OR 4.02 (CI: 1.61–10.06), p = 0.003] had the highest odds of antibiotic prescription at discharge. Conclusions In patients presenting with mild to moderate Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (AECOPD), utilization of a comprehensive respiratory viral panel can significantly decrease the rate of antibiotic prescription at discharge.
Background: The Tufts Medical Center Antimicrobial Stewardship (ASP) Team has partnered with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) to provide broad-based educational programs (BBEP) to long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in an effort to improve ASP and infection control practices. LTCFs have consistently expressed interest in individualized and hands-on involvement by ASP experts, yet they lack resources. The goal of this study was to determine whether “enhanced” individualized guidance provided by an ASP expert would lead to antibiotic start decreases in LTCFs participating in our pilot study. Methods: A pilot study was conducted to test the feasibility and efficacy of providing enhanced ASP and infection control practices to LTCFs. In total, 10 facilities already participating in MDPH BBEP and submitting monthly antibiotic start data were enrolled, were stratified by bed size and presence of dementia unit, and were randomized 1:1 to the “enhanced” group (defined as reviewing protocols and antibiotic start cases, providing lectures and feedback to staff and answering questions) versus the “nonenhanced” group. Antibiotic start data were validated and collected prospectively from January 2018 to July 2019, and the interventions began in April 2019. Due to staff turnover and lack of engagement, intervention was not possible in 2 of the 5 LTCFs randomized to the enhanced group, which were therefore analyzed as a nonenhanced group. An incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% CIs were calculated comparing the antibiotic start rate per 1,000 resident days between periods in the pilot groups. Results: The average bed sizes for enhanced groups versus nonenhanced groups were 121 (±71.0) versus 108 (±32.8); the average resident days per facility per month were 3,415.7 (±2,131.2) versus 2,911.4 (±964.3). Comparatively, 3 facilities in the enhanced group had dementia unit versus 4 in the nonenhanced group. In the per protocol analysis, the antibiotic start rate in the enhanced group before versus after the intervention was 11.35 versus 9.41 starts per 1,000 resident days (IRR, 0.829; 95% CI, 0.794–0.865). The antibiotic start rate in the nonenhanced group before versus after the intervention was 7.90 versus 8.23 antibiotic starts per 1,000 resident days (IRR, 1.048; 95% CI, 1.007–1.089). Physician hours required for ASP for the enhanced group totaled 8.9 (±2.2) per facility per month. Conclusions: Although the number of hours required for intervention by an expert was not onerous, maintaining engagement proved difficult and in 2 facilities could not be achieved. A statistically significant 20% decrease in the antibiotic start rate was achieved in the enhanced group after interventions, potentially reflecting the benefit of enhanced ASP support by an expert.Funding: This study was funded by the Leadership in Epidemiology, Antimicrobial Stewardship, and Public Health (LEAP) fellowship training grant award from the CDC.Disclosures: None
BackgroundBloodstream infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with favorable clinical outcomes associated with early optimal antibiotic selection. Rapid diagnostics have become a key part in achieving this. Biofire Filmarray® was introduced at our institution for rapid blood culture (BC) identification, coupled with antimicrobial stewardship (AS) interventions. We aimed to assess the impact of this test on time to adequate antimicrobial therapy in a setting with pre-existing effective AS interventions.MethodsAn observational retrospective chart review, pre and post study was performed. We reviewed adult positive BC before and after implementation of Biofire. Outcomes were: (1) time from BC result reported to health care provider to start of adequate antimicrobial therapy,(2) time to stopping antimicrobial therapy in BC thought to be contaminants, (3) time to any change in antimicrobial therapy and (4) a composite outcome of outcomes 1 and 2. A univariate Cox proportional hazards model was performed.Results326 positive BC were analyzed, 173 before and 153 after Biofire implementation. At the time of healthcare provider notification, 77 were not on adequate antimicrobials, with median time to adequate therapy of 6.98 hours. (IQR 3.93–23.96) before and 6.1 hours. (IQR 1.84–20.95) after implementation, P = 0.48. There were 75 BC classified as contaminants and median time to stopping antimicrobials was 48.28 (IQR 18.56–89.36) vs. 45.25 hours. (IQR 15.12–100.60), P = 0.61. Time to any change in any antimicrobial therapy was similar with a median of 13.05 (IQR 4.00–36.77) vs. 10.90 hours. (IQR 2.97–31.10), P = 0.87. Analysis of the composite outcome revealed a median of 23.95 (6.29–58.50) vs. 14.82 (IQR 4.07–44.79) hours. (Hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 0.96–1.84, P = 0.09).ConclusionImplementation of the Biofire Filmarray® did not have a statistically significant effect on our composite outcome of time to adequate therapy and time to discontinuation in the case of contaminants. Our findings suggests that when added to other effective AS surveillance and interventions, the magnitude of the clinical impact of rapid PCR diagnostics for BC identification is minimal.Disclosures D. R. Snydman, Merck: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee; Shire: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.