Differences in antibiotic and antiviral use in people with confirmed influenza: a retrospective comparison of rapid influenza PCR and multiplex respiratory virus PCR tests.

BACKGROUND: Influenza is a highly contagious respiratory virus with clinical impacts on patient morbidity, mortality and hospital bed management. The effect of rapid nucleic acid testing (RPCR) in comparison to standard multiplex PCR (MPCR) diagnosis in treatment decisions is unclear. This study aimed to determine whether RPCR influenza testing in comparison to standard MPCR testing was associated with differences in antibiotic and antiviral (oseltamivir) utilisation and hospital length of stay in emergency department and inpatient hospital settings. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of positive influenza RPCR and MPCR patients was performed utilising data from the 2017 influenza season. Medical records of correlating patient presentations were reviewed for data collection. An analysis of RPCR versus MPCR patient outcomes was performed examining test turnaround time, antibiotic initiation, oseltamivir initiation and hospital length of stay for both emergency department and inpatient hospital stay. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess oseltamivir use in high risk populations for influenza complications. Statistical significance was assessed using Mann-Whitney test for numerical data and Chi-squared test for categorical data. Odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were calculated where appropriate. RESULTS: Overall, 122 RPCR and 362 MPCR positive influenza patients were included in this study. Commencement of antibiotics was less frequent in the RPCR than MPCR cohorts (51% vs 67%; p < 0.01, OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.34-0.79). People at high risk of complications from influenza who were tested with the RPCR were more likely to be treated with oseltamivir compared to those tested with the MPCR (76% vs 63%; p = 0.03, OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.07-3.08). Hospital length of stay was not impacted when either test was used in the emergency department and inpatient settings. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest utilisation of RPCR testing in influenza management can improve antibiotic stewardship through reduction in antibiotic use and improvement in oseltamivir initiation in those at higher risk of complications. Further research is required to determine other factors that may have influenced hospital length of stay and a cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken to determine the financial impact of the RPCR test.

Reduction in cycle time for a rapid polymerase chain reaction diagnostic test at the point of care.

Background: Rapid testing facilitates safe and effective diagnosis, but the true speed of the process is the time from collection of a sample to delivery of an accurate and reliable test result - 'end-to-end' time. Transport, unpacking and relaying of information can extend this time considerably beyond the minimum laboratory turnaround times as stipulated by PCR testing protocols. Aim/Objective: This study aimed to minimise time needed to ascertain SARS-CoV-2 status prior to treatment in a UK Dental Hospital using a novel, mobile, direct to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) workflow. Methods: Process flow analysis and PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act) cycles for rapid continuous improvement were employed in a service improvement programme. Primerdesign™ q16 rapid PCR instruments and PROmate® COVID-19 direct assays were used for molecular testing. Findings/Results: We showed a reduction in real-world end-to-end time for a diagnostic test from 240 min to 85 min (65% reduction) over a 4-week period. Discussion: New rapid technologies have become available that reduce analytical time to under 90 min, but the real-world clinical implementation of the test requires a fully integrated workflow from clinic to reporting.

Comparison of the Simplexa HSV1 & 2 Direct kit and laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays for herpes simplex virus detection.

BACKGROUND: Rapid detection and differentiation of herpes simplex viruses (HSV) is important for patient management and treatment, especially in HSV meningoencephalitis. OBJECTIVES: Results of Simplexa HSV1 & 2 Direct kit (Focus Diagnostics), an FDA-cleared sample-to-result method providing results in ∼ 75 min, were compared to those of laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays (LDT) for detection of HSV1 and HSV2. STUDY DESIGN: Samples tested included 168 cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) collected prospectively and 150 tested retrospectively: 81 from clinical testing and 69 from subjects in a neonatal herpes study; and 53 plasma and sera. Each sample was tested by both methods on the same day. RESULTS: Three of 318 CSF had invalid Simplexa Direct results and negative LDT results. Three neonatal samples with low HSV viral loads by LDT could not be typed; two were HSV2 positive and one was negative by Simplexa Direct. Of 312 CSF with valid, type-specific results, HSV1 was detected in 16 by LDT and in 17 by Simplexa Direct; HSV2 was detected in 48 by LDT and in 49 by Simplexa Direct. Concordance rates were 98.4% (κ 0.84) and 97.1% (κ 0.89) for HSV1 and HSV2, respectively. Positive percent agreements were 87.5% for HSV1 and 91.7% for HSV2. Two and four CSF were positive only by LDT and three and five were positive only by Simplexa Direct for HSV1 and HSV2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Simplexa HSV1 & 2 assay performed well compared to an established LDT. The faster turn-around-time compared to LDT will allow for more rapid antiviral treatment and better patient management.