Outcomes of implementation of the FilmArray meningoencephalitis panel in a tertiary hospital between 2017 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: Acute meningoencephalitis is encountered commonly in the acute hospital setting and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, in addition to significant healthcare costs. Multiplex PCR panels now allow syndromic testing for central nervous system infection. The BioFire® FilmArray® Meningoencephalitis (ME) allows testing of 14 target pathogens using only 0.2mls of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). We conducted a retrospective observational study to assess the performance of the assay and secondarily to observe the clinical utility of negative results by comparing clinical outcomes of aseptic meningitis to bacterial and viral meningoencephalitis. METHODS: Data for CSF samples tested using the FilmArray ME panel from October 2017 to October 2020 were analysed. Detection of bacterial and viral targets was analysed. Admission to critical care area, 90-day readmission rates, average length of stay and 30-day and 90-day mortality were analysed for three groups with following diagnoses: bacterial meningitis, viral meningoencephalitis, or aseptic meningitis. RESULTS: From October 2017 to October 2020, 1926 CSF samples were received in the Clinical Microbiology laboratory. Of those, 543 CSF samples from 512 individual patients were tested using the FilmArray ME panel. Twenty-one bacterial targets and 56 viral targets were detected during the study period. For viral targets, the cumulative specificity was 98.9% (95% confidence interval: 93.1-99.9) when compared to the reference laboratory methods. The outcomes for 30- and 90-day mortality of the aseptic meningitis group were non-inferior relative to the viral meningoencephalitis and bacterial meningitis group. Patients with bacterial meningitis had a longer average length of stay. Aseptic meningitis was associated with a higher 90-day readmission rate than the other 2 groups, but without statistical significance. CONCLUSION: In our hands, implementation of the FilmArray ME panel was relatively straightforward. We experienced a transition in our workflow processes that enabled streamlining of CSF diagnostics and the safe removal of Gram staining in those samples being tested by this molecular assay. Coupled to this improvement, there was a positive clinical impact on patient care due to rapid turnaround time to results.

A retrospective observational study of the impact of 16s and 18s ribosomal RNA PCR on antimicrobial treatment over seven years: A tertiary hospital experience.

BACKGROUND: Although culture-based methods remain a staple element of microbiology analysis, advanced molecular methods increasingly supplement the testing repertoire. Since the advent of 16s and 18s ribosomal RNA PCR in the 2000s, there has been interest in its utility for pathogen detection. Nonetheless, studies assessing the impact on antimicrobial prescribing are limited. We report a single-centre experience of the influence of 16s and 18s PCR testing on antimicrobial treatment, including a cost-analysis. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively for all samples sent for 16s and 18s PCR testing between January 2014 and December 2020. Results were compared to any culture-based result. Assessment focused on any change of antimicrobial treatment based on PCR result, or use of the result as supportive evidence for microbiological diagnosis. RESULTS: 310 samples relevant to 268 patients were referred for 16s/18s rRNA PCR testing during the period. Culture was performed for 234 samples. Enrichment culture was performed for 83 samples. 82 of 300 samples sent for 16s PCR had positive results (20.8%). When culture was performed, enrichment reduced the outcome of 16s PCR only positive results (4/36 [11.1%] versus 14/35 [40.0%], p = 0.030 where a pathogen found). 18s PCR yielded 9 positive results from 67 samples. The 16s PCR result influenced antimicrobial change for 6 patients (2.2%). We estimated the cost for 16s PCR testing to result in one significant change in antimicrobial therapy to be €3,340. 18s PCR did not alter antimicrobial treatment. CONCLUSION: There was limited impact of 16s PCR results on antimicrobial treatments. Relevance to practice was affected by relatively long turn-around-time for results. Utility may be increased in specialised surgical centres, or by reducing turn-around-time. Enrichment culture should be considered on samples where 16s PCR is requested. There remains limited evidence for use of 18s PCR in clinical management, and further studies in this area are likely warranted.