Dataset Information

Multiplex Respiratory Virus Testing for Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Prospective Assessment of Antimicrobial Use and Clinical Outcomes Among Hospitalized Adults.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Respiratory tract infections are frequent causes of hospitalization and initiation of empirical antimicrobial therapy. Testing for a broad panel of respiratory viruses has been advocated as a useful tool for antibiotic stewardship. We conducted a prospective observational study to assess the impact of rapid viral test results on antimicrobial prescriptions and clinical outcomes among hospitalized adults.

Methods

Eight hundred patients admitted with respiratory symptoms were tested by a 12-virus respiratory panel (RVP) during 3 consecutive winters in Montreal, Canada. The primary outcome measure was change in antimicrobial prescriptions (ie, de-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy or commencement of new antimicrobial therapy) after RVP results were available. Clinical outcomes were also assessed.

Results

Influenza virus was identified in 53% of individuals in the study population, and other viruses were identified in 10%. Influenza virus positivity was associated with shorter duration of hospitalization and appropriate antiviral management. Antibiotic management was most significantly correlated with radiographic suspicion of pneumonia and less so with results of the RVP. Positivity for viruses other than influenza virus was not correlated with significantly different outcomes.

Conclusions

Physicians respond to results of testing for influenza virus when managing hospitalized adult patients but respond less to test results for other viruses. These data can inform the design of stewardship interventions and the selection of viral testing panels for hospitalized patients.

SUBMITTER: Semret M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5853820 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:A standard multiplex PCR offers comprehensive testing for respiratory viruses. However, it has traditionally been performed in a referral laboratory with a lengthy turnaround time, which can reduce patient flow through the hospital. We aimed to determine whether the introduction of a rapid PCR, but with limited targets (Cepheid Xpert Flu/RSV XC), was associated with improved outcomes for adults hospitalized with respiratory illness. A controlled quasi-experimental study was conducted across three hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Intervention groups received standard multiplex PCR during the preimplementation, July to December 2016 (n = 953), and rapid PCR during the postimplementation, July to December 2017 (n = 1,209). Control groups (preimplementation, n = 937, and postimplementation, n = 1,102) were randomly selected from adults hospitalized with respiratory illness during the same periods. The outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS) and microbiology test utilization (blood culture, urine culture, sputum culture, and respiratory bacterial and virus serologies). The introduction of rapid PCR was associated with a nonsignificant 8.9-h reduction in median LOS (95% confidence interval [CI], -21.5 h to 3.7 h; P = 0.17) for all patients and a significant 21.5-h reduction in median LOS (95% CI, -36.8 h to -6.2 h; P < 0.01) among patients with positive test results in an adjusted difference-in-differences analysis. For patients receiving test results before disposition, rapid PCR use was associated with a significant reduction in LOS, irrespective of test results. Compared with standard PCR testing, rapid PCR use was significantly associated with fewer blood culture (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.82; P < 0.001), sputum culture (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.68, P < 0.001), bacterial serology (aOR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.55, P < 0.001) and viral serology (aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.53, P < 0.001) tests, but not with fewer urine culture tests (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.12, P = 0.48). Rapid PCR testing of adults hospitalized with respiratory illnesses can deliver benefits to patients and reduce resource utilization. Future research should consider a formal economic analysis and assess its potential impacts on clinical decision making.

Project description:BackgroundRapid molecular diagnostic tests to investigate the microbial aetiology of pneumonias may improve treatment and antimicrobial stewardship in intensive care units (ICUs). Clinicians' endorsement and uptake of these tests is crucial to maximise engagement; however, adoption may be impeded if users harbour unaddressed concerns or if device usage is incompatible with local practice. Accordingly, we strove to identify ICU clinicians' beliefs about molecular diagnostic tests for pneumonias before implementation at the point-of-care.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 critical care doctors working in four ICUs in the United Kingdom. A clinical vignette depicting a fictitious patient with signs of pneumonia was used to explore clinicians' beliefs about the importance of molecular diagnostics and their concerns. Data were analysed thematically.ResultsClinicians' beliefs about molecular tests could be grouped into two categories: perceived potential of molecular diagnostics to improve antibiotic prescribing (Molecular Diagnostic Necessity) and concerns about how the test results could be implemented into practice (Molecular Diagnostic Concerns). Molecular Diagnostic Necessity stemmed from beliefs that positive results would facilitate targeted antimicrobial therapy; that negative results would signal the absence of a pathogen, and consequently that having the molecular diagnostic results would bolster clinicians' prescribing confidence. Molecular Diagnostic Concerns included unfamiliarity with the device's capabilities, worry that it would detect non-pathogenic bacteria, uncertainty whether it would fail to detect pathogens, and discomfort with withholding antibiotics until receiving molecular test results.ConclusionsClinicians believed rapid molecular diagnostics for pneumonias were potentially important and were open to using them; however, they harboured concerns about the tests' capabilities and integration into clinical practice. Implementation strategies should bolster users' necessity beliefs while reducing their concerns; this can be accomplished by publicising the tests' purpose and benefits, identifying and addressing clinicians' misconceptions, establishing a trial period for first-hand familiarisation, and emphasising that, with a swift (e.g., 60-90 min) test, antibiotics can be started and refined after molecular diagnostic results become available.