Cargando…

The Impact of Biofire Filmarray Respiratory Panel on Antibiotic Usage in the Emergency Department at an Academic Medical Center

BACKGROUND: Biofire respiratory panel is a multiplex PCR test designed to detect 17 pathogens within 1 hour. It has greater sensitivity, specificity, and number of pathogens detected compared with older testing methods. The aim of this research was to evaluate the impact of Biofire respiratory panel...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mehta, Meera, Slain, Douglas, Keller, Lisa, Lasala, P Rocco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5631268/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.854
_version_ 1783269426065309696
author Mehta, Meera
Slain, Douglas
Keller, Lisa
Lasala, P Rocco
author_facet Mehta, Meera
Slain, Douglas
Keller, Lisa
Lasala, P Rocco
author_sort Mehta, Meera
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Biofire respiratory panel is a multiplex PCR test designed to detect 17 pathogens within 1 hour. It has greater sensitivity, specificity, and number of pathogens detected compared with older testing methods. The aim of this research was to evaluate the impact of Biofire respiratory panel on antibiotic usage in the emergency department (ED) of an academic medical center. METHODS: This was an observational chart review. Patients with positive RSV or influenza rapid antigen test or PCR test, and patients with a positive Biofire test were included. RSV or influenza tests were reviewed from July to December 2015, and Biofire tests were reviewed from July to December 2016. The primary outcome was to evaluate the duration of antibiotic therapy in patients with viral respiratory infections diagnosed with RSV and influenza rapid antigen and PCR testing compared with Biofire viral respiratory panel. Secondary outcomes included virus type, antibiotic prescription rates on discharge, number of addmissions, procalcitonin levels, and oseltamivir usage. RESULTS: In 2016, 67% (105/155) of biofire tests were positive. The most common pathogen was rhinovirus and enterovirus (42%). Of the positive results, 23/105 (22%) received antibiotics with 6 patients having antibiotics discontinued within 72 hours. Another 6 patients had bacterial coinfections. A total of 18/105 (17%) received antibiotic prescriptions on discharge. Median days of therapy (DOT) in hospital was 1 day and median DOT for prescriptions was 8.5 days. There were 5 procalcitonin tests and no oseltamivir usage. Overall 38/105 (36%) patients were admitted to inpatient. In 2015, 3% (20/1313) of RSV (14) and influenza (6) rapid antigen and PCR tests were positive. A total of 5/20 (25%) patients received antibiotics, with 3/20 (15%) patients receiving a prescription for outpatient antibiotics. Median DOT in the hospital was 3 days and median DOT for prescriptions was 10 days. There were 2 procalcitonin tests and 2 cases used oseltamivir. Overall 19 patients were admitted. CONCLUSION: Antibiotics are witheld in the majority of patients with positive Biofire testing. Most patients were treated with supportive care measures only. Biofire continues to be a useful tool to identify candidates for antibiotic avoidance in the ED at our institution. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5631268
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56312682017-11-07 The Impact of Biofire Filmarray Respiratory Panel on Antibiotic Usage in the Emergency Department at an Academic Medical Center Mehta, Meera Slain, Douglas Keller, Lisa Lasala, P Rocco Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Biofire respiratory panel is a multiplex PCR test designed to detect 17 pathogens within 1 hour. It has greater sensitivity, specificity, and number of pathogens detected compared with older testing methods. The aim of this research was to evaluate the impact of Biofire respiratory panel on antibiotic usage in the emergency department (ED) of an academic medical center. METHODS: This was an observational chart review. Patients with positive RSV or influenza rapid antigen test or PCR test, and patients with a positive Biofire test were included. RSV or influenza tests were reviewed from July to December 2015, and Biofire tests were reviewed from July to December 2016. The primary outcome was to evaluate the duration of antibiotic therapy in patients with viral respiratory infections diagnosed with RSV and influenza rapid antigen and PCR testing compared with Biofire viral respiratory panel. Secondary outcomes included virus type, antibiotic prescription rates on discharge, number of addmissions, procalcitonin levels, and oseltamivir usage. RESULTS: In 2016, 67% (105/155) of biofire tests were positive. The most common pathogen was rhinovirus and enterovirus (42%). Of the positive results, 23/105 (22%) received antibiotics with 6 patients having antibiotics discontinued within 72 hours. Another 6 patients had bacterial coinfections. A total of 18/105 (17%) received antibiotic prescriptions on discharge. Median days of therapy (DOT) in hospital was 1 day and median DOT for prescriptions was 8.5 days. There were 5 procalcitonin tests and no oseltamivir usage. Overall 38/105 (36%) patients were admitted to inpatient. In 2015, 3% (20/1313) of RSV (14) and influenza (6) rapid antigen and PCR tests were positive. A total of 5/20 (25%) patients received antibiotics, with 3/20 (15%) patients receiving a prescription for outpatient antibiotics. Median DOT in the hospital was 3 days and median DOT for prescriptions was 10 days. There were 2 procalcitonin tests and 2 cases used oseltamivir. Overall 19 patients were admitted. CONCLUSION: Antibiotics are witheld in the majority of patients with positive Biofire testing. Most patients were treated with supportive care measures only. Biofire continues to be a useful tool to identify candidates for antibiotic avoidance in the ED at our institution. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2017-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5631268/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.854 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Mehta, Meera
Slain, Douglas
Keller, Lisa
Lasala, P Rocco
The Impact of Biofire Filmarray Respiratory Panel on Antibiotic Usage in the Emergency Department at an Academic Medical Center
title The Impact of Biofire Filmarray Respiratory Panel on Antibiotic Usage in the Emergency Department at an Academic Medical Center
title_full The Impact of Biofire Filmarray Respiratory Panel on Antibiotic Usage in the Emergency Department at an Academic Medical Center
title_fullStr The Impact of Biofire Filmarray Respiratory Panel on Antibiotic Usage in the Emergency Department at an Academic Medical Center
title_full_unstemmed The Impact of Biofire Filmarray Respiratory Panel on Antibiotic Usage in the Emergency Department at an Academic Medical Center
title_short The Impact of Biofire Filmarray Respiratory Panel on Antibiotic Usage in the Emergency Department at an Academic Medical Center
title_sort impact of biofire filmarray respiratory panel on antibiotic usage in the emergency department at an academic medical center
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5631268/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.854
work_keys_str_mv AT mehtameera theimpactofbiofirefilmarrayrespiratorypanelonantibioticusageintheemergencydepartmentatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT slaindouglas theimpactofbiofirefilmarrayrespiratorypanelonantibioticusageintheemergencydepartmentatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT kellerlisa theimpactofbiofirefilmarrayrespiratorypanelonantibioticusageintheemergencydepartmentatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT lasalaprocco theimpactofbiofirefilmarrayrespiratorypanelonantibioticusageintheemergencydepartmentatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT mehtameera impactofbiofirefilmarrayrespiratorypanelonantibioticusageintheemergencydepartmentatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT slaindouglas impactofbiofirefilmarrayrespiratorypanelonantibioticusageintheemergencydepartmentatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT kellerlisa impactofbiofirefilmarrayrespiratorypanelonantibioticusageintheemergencydepartmentatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT lasalaprocco impactofbiofirefilmarrayrespiratorypanelonantibioticusageintheemergencydepartmentatanacademicmedicalcenter