Current state and practice variation in the use of Meningitis/Encephalitis (ME) FilmArray panel in children.

BACKGROUND: The Meningitis/Encephalitis FilmArray® Panel (ME panel) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and provides rapid results when assessing patients with suspected meningitis or encephalitis. These patients are evaluated by various subspecialties including pediatric hospital medicine (PHM), pediatric emergency medicine (PEM), pediatric infectious diseases, and pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) physicians. The objective of this study was to evaluate the current use of the ME panel and describe the provider and subspecialty practice variation. METHODS: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey via the American Academy of Pediatrics Section of Hospital Medicine (AAP-SOHM) ListServe, Brown University PEM ListServe, and PICU Virtual pediatric system (VPS) Listserve. RESULTS: A total of 335 participants out of an estimated 6998 ListServe subscribers responded to the survey. 68% reported currently using the ME panel at their institutions. Among test users, most reported not having institutional guidelines on test indications (75%) or interpretation (76%). 58% of providers self-reported lack of knowledge of the test's performance characteristics. Providers from institutions that have established guidelines reported higher knowledge compared to those that did not (51% vs. 38%; p = 0.01). More PHM providers reported awareness of ME panel performance characteristics compared to PEM physicians (48% vs. 27%; p = 0.004); confidence in test interpretation was similar between both groups (72 vs. 69%; p = 0.80). CONCLUSION: Despite the widespread use of the ME panel, few providers report having institutional guidelines on test indications or interpretation. There is an opportunity to provide knowledge and guidance about the ME panel among various pediatric subspecialties.

Symmetry-breaking in branching epithelia: cells on micro-patterns under flow challenge the hypothesis of positive feedback by a secreted autocrine inhibitor of motility.

Branching morphogenesis of epithelia involves division of cells into leader (tip) and follower (stalk) cells. Published work on cell lines in culture has suggested that symmetry-breaking takes place via a secreted autocrine inhibitor of motility, the inhibitor accumulating more in concave regions of the culture boundary, slowing advance of cells there, and less in convex areas, allowing advance and a further exaggeration of the concave/convex difference. Here we test this hypothesis using a two-dimensional culture system that includes strong flow conditions to remove accumulating diffusible secretions. We find that, while motility does indeed follow boundary curvature in this system, flow makes no difference: this challenges the hypothesis of control by a diffusible secreted autocrine inhibitor.

Evaluation of Discordant Results Between FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel and Conventional Testing in Pediatric Patients: A Multisite Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis panel (MEP) has an 11% false-positive and 2.2% false-negative rate compared with conventional testing. We describe clinical characteristics, treatment decisions, and outcomes in children with discordant results between MEP and conventional testing. METHODS: We conducted a multisite review of patients ≤ 18 years with suspected central nervous system infection and positive results by MEP or conventional testing (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] culture, herpes simplex virus [HSV] polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and enterovirus [EV] PCR). Descriptive results are provided for patients with discordant results. Comparison between group 1 (MEP and CSF culture positive) and group 2 (MEP positive, CSF culture negative, or showing a different pathogen) was made by Mann-Whitney test for continuous and Fisher's test for categorical variables. RESULTS: A total of 355 patients had at least one pathogen identified. More than half of patients with bacterial pathogens identified that are included in the MEP had discordant results (30/52; 58%). There were 28 samples with bacterial pathogen identified on MEP only, 1 with different bacterial pathogens on MEP and culture, and 1 with Escherichia coli identified on CSF culture only. Patients in group 1 were more likely to have CSF pleocytosis, elevated CSF protein, and decreased CSF glucose than group 2 (P < .05). Two patients were HSV positive by MEP while HSV negative by PCR. Ten patients had discordant results between MEP and EV PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Discordant results between MEP and conventional testing are common. Treatment decisions based on a positive MEP should be made in the appropriate clinical context.