Cargando…

1225. Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: A Survey of Infectious Disease Providers

BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a promising diagnostic tool in Infectious Diseases (ID). The platform offers high sensitivity, detecting difficult-to-isolate organisms. However, limitations remain in employing NGS broadly, including high cost, unstandardized methods, and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vasishta, Shilpa, Graber, Christopher J, Vijayan, Tara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7776187/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1410
_version_ 1783630623165906944
author Vasishta, Shilpa
Graber, Christopher J
Vijayan, Tara
author_facet Vasishta, Shilpa
Graber, Christopher J
Vijayan, Tara
author_sort Vasishta, Shilpa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a promising diagnostic tool in Infectious Diseases (ID). The platform offers high sensitivity, detecting difficult-to-isolate organisms. However, limitations remain in employing NGS broadly, including high cost, unstandardized methods, and unclear significance of many results. To date, there is no consensus on appropriate use of NGS. Here, we describe perceived utility of NGS among ID physicians at one academic medical center. METHODS: A survey exploring four clinical scenarios was disseminated electronically to ID attendings and fellows. Scenarios #1 (immunocompetent patient without localizing signs) and #2 (immunosuppressed patient with localizing signs) were followed by questions exploring likelihood of sending NGS. Scenarios #3 (immunocompetent patient with prosthetic joint infection) and #4 (immunosuppressed patient with cavitary lung lesion) were followed by questions exploring interpretation of NGS data. RESULTS: Twenty-six physicians responded. Respondents were more likely to send NGS for an immunosuppressed than an immunocompetent patient (8/26 vs. 2/26 respondents, p=0.024), with more respondents noting in the latter casethat NGS might “yield unhelpful/misleading results” (26 /26 vs. 17/23, p=0.0054) or might “not be cost-effective” (21/26 vs. 13/23, p=0.066). Those with over five years of experience tended to be more likely to send NGS (8/27 vs. 2/23 responses across two scenarios, p=0.065), noting more frequently that NGS might “yield a diagnosis not otherwise considered” (16/25 vs. 6/23 responses, p=0.0084) and“avoid painful/high-risk testing” (16/26 vs. 8/23 responses, p=0.062). In scenarios with available NGS data, nearlyhalf (21/49 responses across two scenarios) favored obtaining further diagnostics. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that patient immunosuppression is a salient factor in determining clinical utility of NGS and that physician experience may affect utilization. While NGS is perceived as a useful adjunct to existing data to guide initial management, results are still interpreted with caution and rarely supersede more established methods for definitive diagnosis. Further study is needed to guide evidence-based NGS use. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7776187
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77761872021-01-07 1225. Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: A Survey of Infectious Disease Providers Vasishta, Shilpa Graber, Christopher J Vijayan, Tara Open Forum Infect Dis Poster Abstracts BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a promising diagnostic tool in Infectious Diseases (ID). The platform offers high sensitivity, detecting difficult-to-isolate organisms. However, limitations remain in employing NGS broadly, including high cost, unstandardized methods, and unclear significance of many results. To date, there is no consensus on appropriate use of NGS. Here, we describe perceived utility of NGS among ID physicians at one academic medical center. METHODS: A survey exploring four clinical scenarios was disseminated electronically to ID attendings and fellows. Scenarios #1 (immunocompetent patient without localizing signs) and #2 (immunosuppressed patient with localizing signs) were followed by questions exploring likelihood of sending NGS. Scenarios #3 (immunocompetent patient with prosthetic joint infection) and #4 (immunosuppressed patient with cavitary lung lesion) were followed by questions exploring interpretation of NGS data. RESULTS: Twenty-six physicians responded. Respondents were more likely to send NGS for an immunosuppressed than an immunocompetent patient (8/26 vs. 2/26 respondents, p=0.024), with more respondents noting in the latter casethat NGS might “yield unhelpful/misleading results” (26 /26 vs. 17/23, p=0.0054) or might “not be cost-effective” (21/26 vs. 13/23, p=0.066). Those with over five years of experience tended to be more likely to send NGS (8/27 vs. 2/23 responses across two scenarios, p=0.065), noting more frequently that NGS might “yield a diagnosis not otherwise considered” (16/25 vs. 6/23 responses, p=0.0084) and“avoid painful/high-risk testing” (16/26 vs. 8/23 responses, p=0.062). In scenarios with available NGS data, nearlyhalf (21/49 responses across two scenarios) favored obtaining further diagnostics. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that patient immunosuppression is a salient factor in determining clinical utility of NGS and that physician experience may affect utilization. While NGS is perceived as a useful adjunct to existing data to guide initial management, results are still interpreted with caution and rarely supersede more established methods for definitive diagnosis. Further study is needed to guide evidence-based NGS use. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures Oxford University Press 2020-12-31 /pmc/articles/PMC7776187/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1410 Text en © The Author 2020. 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 Poster Abstracts
Vasishta, Shilpa
Graber, Christopher J
Vijayan, Tara
1225. Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: A Survey of Infectious Disease Providers
title 1225. Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: A Survey of Infectious Disease Providers
title_full 1225. Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: A Survey of Infectious Disease Providers
title_fullStr 1225. Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: A Survey of Infectious Disease Providers
title_full_unstemmed 1225. Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: A Survey of Infectious Disease Providers
title_short 1225. Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: A Survey of Infectious Disease Providers
title_sort 1225. next-generation sequencing in clinical practice: a survey of infectious disease providers
topic Poster Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7776187/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1410
work_keys_str_mv AT vasishtashilpa 1225nextgenerationsequencinginclinicalpracticeasurveyofinfectiousdiseaseproviders
AT graberchristopherj 1225nextgenerationsequencinginclinicalpracticeasurveyofinfectiousdiseaseproviders
AT vijayantara 1225nextgenerationsequencinginclinicalpracticeasurveyofinfectiousdiseaseproviders