Cargando…

1996. Enteric Multiplex PCR Testing: Antimicrobial Stewardship Friend or Foe

BACKGROUND: There are advantages and challenges associated with enteric multiplex PCR testing. Fast turnaround time can lead to prompt pathogen identification and antibiotic initiation, decreased length of stay and decreased time in isolation. Challenges include identification of multiple organisms,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ellen Acree, Mary, McElvania, Erin, Charnot-Katsikas, Angella, Beavis, Kathleen, Matushek, Scott, Pettit, Natasha N
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6808753/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1676
_version_ 1783461812417593344
author Ellen Acree, Mary
McElvania, Erin
Charnot-Katsikas, Angella
Beavis, Kathleen
Matushek, Scott
Pettit, Natasha N
author_facet Ellen Acree, Mary
McElvania, Erin
Charnot-Katsikas, Angella
Beavis, Kathleen
Matushek, Scott
Pettit, Natasha N
author_sort Ellen Acree, Mary
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are advantages and challenges associated with enteric multiplex PCR testing. Fast turnaround time can lead to prompt pathogen identification and antibiotic initiation, decreased length of stay and decreased time in isolation. Challenges include identification of multiple organisms, carrier state detection, and detection of organisms with uncertain pathogenic potential, which can lead to unnecessary antibiotic use. METHODS: Two institutions transitioned from stool culture to stool PCR testing for identification of diarrheal pathogens. On February 1, 2016, Center 1 employed the BioFire® FilmArray® GI Panel, which detects 22 organisms and includes targets of unclear clinical significance. Center 2 implemented the BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel on 3/6/2019, which reports 4 bacterial known pathogens. Fluoroquinolone (FQ) and third-generation cephalosporin (TGC) prescribing in response to positive PCR testing was assessed over a 1 month period. Antibiotics were counted when prescribed within 72 hours of the collection date. RESULTS: At Center 1, 332 GI PCR panels were ordered, 94 (28.3%) were positive and 15 (16%) were treated; 4 received an FQ (26%), and 11 (73%) received a TGC. Center 1 organisms included 44 Clostridioides difficile, 27 Norovirus, 8 Enteropathogenic E. coli, 7 Sapovirus, 4 Campylobacter species, 2 Giardia lamblia, 2 Rotavirus, 1 Shigella/Enteroinvasive E. coli and 1 Salmonella species. Of 642 PCR tests ordered at Center 2, 16 (2.5%) were positive and 11 (69%) were treated; 10 (91%) received a FQ, and 1 (9%) received a TGC. Center 2 organisms included 8 non-typhoidal Salmonella species, 5 Aeromonas species, 2 Shigella sonnei and 1 Salmonella typhi. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an enteric multiplex PCR test with targets of uncertain clinical significance is more likely to yield an abnormal result than a PCR test with only known pathogens. However, careful interpretation of results can avoid unnecessary antimicrobial use. Antimicrobial stewardship teams should work in tandem with microbiology laboratories to implement enteric multiplex PCR tests and monitor the impact on antibiotic use. Larger studies are needed to definitively assess the impact of the GI panel on antimicrobial prescribing within the context of patient comorbidities and institutional practices. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6808753
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68087532019-10-28 1996. Enteric Multiplex PCR Testing: Antimicrobial Stewardship Friend or Foe Ellen Acree, Mary McElvania, Erin Charnot-Katsikas, Angella Beavis, Kathleen Matushek, Scott Pettit, Natasha N Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: There are advantages and challenges associated with enteric multiplex PCR testing. Fast turnaround time can lead to prompt pathogen identification and antibiotic initiation, decreased length of stay and decreased time in isolation. Challenges include identification of multiple organisms, carrier state detection, and detection of organisms with uncertain pathogenic potential, which can lead to unnecessary antibiotic use. METHODS: Two institutions transitioned from stool culture to stool PCR testing for identification of diarrheal pathogens. On February 1, 2016, Center 1 employed the BioFire® FilmArray® GI Panel, which detects 22 organisms and includes targets of unclear clinical significance. Center 2 implemented the BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel on 3/6/2019, which reports 4 bacterial known pathogens. Fluoroquinolone (FQ) and third-generation cephalosporin (TGC) prescribing in response to positive PCR testing was assessed over a 1 month period. Antibiotics were counted when prescribed within 72 hours of the collection date. RESULTS: At Center 1, 332 GI PCR panels were ordered, 94 (28.3%) were positive and 15 (16%) were treated; 4 received an FQ (26%), and 11 (73%) received a TGC. Center 1 organisms included 44 Clostridioides difficile, 27 Norovirus, 8 Enteropathogenic E. coli, 7 Sapovirus, 4 Campylobacter species, 2 Giardia lamblia, 2 Rotavirus, 1 Shigella/Enteroinvasive E. coli and 1 Salmonella species. Of 642 PCR tests ordered at Center 2, 16 (2.5%) were positive and 11 (69%) were treated; 10 (91%) received a FQ, and 1 (9%) received a TGC. Center 2 organisms included 8 non-typhoidal Salmonella species, 5 Aeromonas species, 2 Shigella sonnei and 1 Salmonella typhi. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an enteric multiplex PCR test with targets of uncertain clinical significance is more likely to yield an abnormal result than a PCR test with only known pathogens. However, careful interpretation of results can avoid unnecessary antimicrobial use. Antimicrobial stewardship teams should work in tandem with microbiology laboratories to implement enteric multiplex PCR tests and monitor the impact on antibiotic use. Larger studies are needed to definitively assess the impact of the GI panel on antimicrobial prescribing within the context of patient comorbidities and institutional practices. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6808753/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1676 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. 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
Ellen Acree, Mary
McElvania, Erin
Charnot-Katsikas, Angella
Beavis, Kathleen
Matushek, Scott
Pettit, Natasha N
1996. Enteric Multiplex PCR Testing: Antimicrobial Stewardship Friend or Foe
title 1996. Enteric Multiplex PCR Testing: Antimicrobial Stewardship Friend or Foe
title_full 1996. Enteric Multiplex PCR Testing: Antimicrobial Stewardship Friend or Foe
title_fullStr 1996. Enteric Multiplex PCR Testing: Antimicrobial Stewardship Friend or Foe
title_full_unstemmed 1996. Enteric Multiplex PCR Testing: Antimicrobial Stewardship Friend or Foe
title_short 1996. Enteric Multiplex PCR Testing: Antimicrobial Stewardship Friend or Foe
title_sort 1996. enteric multiplex pcr testing: antimicrobial stewardship friend or foe
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6808753/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1676
work_keys_str_mv AT ellenacreemary 1996entericmultiplexpcrtestingantimicrobialstewardshipfriendorfoe
AT mcelvaniaerin 1996entericmultiplexpcrtestingantimicrobialstewardshipfriendorfoe
AT charnotkatsikasangella 1996entericmultiplexpcrtestingantimicrobialstewardshipfriendorfoe
AT beaviskathleen 1996entericmultiplexpcrtestingantimicrobialstewardshipfriendorfoe
AT matushekscott 1996entericmultiplexpcrtestingantimicrobialstewardshipfriendorfoe
AT pettitnatashan 1996entericmultiplexpcrtestingantimicrobialstewardshipfriendorfoe