A qualitative investigation of paediatric intensive care staff attitudes towards the diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infection in the molecular diagnostics era.

Background: In the past decade, molecular diagnostic syndromic arrays incorporating a range of bacterial and viral pathogens have been described. It is unclear how paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) staff diagnose lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and integrate diagnostic array results into antimicrobial decision-making. Methods: An online survey with eleven questions was distributed throughout paediatric intensive care societies in the UK, continental Europe and Australasia with a total of 755 members. Participants were asked to rate the clinical factors and investigations they used when prescribing for LRTI. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with staff who participated in a single-centre observational study of a 52-pathogen diagnostic array. Results: Seventy-two survey responses were received; most responses were from senior doctors. Whilst diagnostic arrays were used less frequently than routine investigations (i.e. microbiological culture), they were of comparable perceived utility when making antimicrobial decisions. Prescribers reported that for arrays to be clinically impactful, they would need to deliver results within 6 h for stable patients and within 1 h for unstable patients to inform their immediate decision to prescribe antimicrobials. From 16 staff interviews, we identified that arrays were helpful for the diagnosis and screening of bacterial LRTI. Staff reported it could be challenging to interpret results in some cases due to the high sensitivity of the test. Therefore, results were considered within the context of the patient and discussed within the multidisciplinary team. Conclusions: Diagnostic arrays were considered of comparable value to microbiological investigations by PICU prescribers. Our findings support the need for further clinical and economic evaluation of diagnostic arrays in a randomised control trial. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04233268. Registered on 18 January 2020. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44253-023-00008-z.

Effective control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission between healthcare workers during a period of diminished community prevalence of COVID-19.

Previously, we showed that 3% (31/1032)of asymptomatic healthcare workers (HCWs) from a large teaching hospital in Cambridge, UK, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in April 2020. About 15% (26/169) HCWs with symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Rivett et al., 2020). Here, we show that the proportion of both asymptomatic and symptomatic HCWs testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 rapidly declined to near-zero between 25th April and 24th May 2020, corresponding to a decline in patient admissions with COVID-19 during the ongoing UK 'lockdown'. These data demonstrate how infection prevention and control measures including staff testing may help prevent hospitals from becoming independent 'hubs' of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and illustrate how, with appropriate precautions, organizations in other sectors may be able to resume on-site work safely.

Performance evaluation of direct fluorescent antibody, Focus Diagnostics Simplexa™ Flu A/B & RSV and multi-parameter customized respiratory Taqman® array card in immunocompromised patients.

BACKGROUND: Molecular assays for diagnosis of Flu A, Flu B, and RSV with short turn-around-time (TAT) are of considerable clinical importance. In addition, rapid and accurate diagnosis of a large panel of viral and atypical pathogens can be crucial in immunocompromised patients. OBJECTIVES: First, to evaluate the performance of the Simplexa™ Direct assay system in comparison with direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) and customized Taqman® Array Card (TAC) testing for RSV, Flu A, and Flu B in immunocompromised patients. Second, to evaluate different algorithms for the detection of respiratory pathogens in terms of cost, turn-around-time (TAT) and diagnostic yield. STUDY DESIGN: We collected 125 nasopharyngeal swabs (NTS) and 25 BAL samples from symptomatic immunocompromised patients. Samples for which Simplexa™ and TAC results were discordant underwent verification testing. The TAC assay is based on singleplex RT-PCR, targeting 24 viruses, 8 bacteria and 2 fungi simultaneously. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity was significantly lower for DFA testing than for the two molecular methods (p<0.05). Performance characteristics of Simplexa™ testing were not significantly different compared to TAC testing (p>0.1). For BAL samples only, the sensitivity and specificity of the Simplexa™ assay was 100%. In total, 6.7, 16 and 18% of samples were positive for Flu A, Flu B or RSV by DFA, Simplexa™ and TAC testing, respectively. When considering not only these pathogens but also all results for TAC, the method identified 93 samples with one or more respiratory pathogens (62%). A co-infection rate of 15.3% was found by TAC. The estimated costs and TAT were 8.2€ and 2h for DFA, 31.8€ and 1.5h for Simplexa™ and 55€ and 3h for TAC testing. CONCLUSIONS: Performing the Simplexa™ test 24h a day/7 days a week instead of DFA would considerably improve the overall sensitivity and time-to-result, albeit at a higher cost generated in the laboratory. Performing the TAC would increase the diagnostic yield and detection of co-infections significantly.