Clinical and Financial Impact of a Diagnostic Stewardship Program for Children with Suspected Central Nervous System Infection

The foundation for the microbiology laboratory's essential role in diagnostic stewardship: an ASM Laboratory Practices Subcommittee report

Diagnostic stewardship (DxS) has gained traction in recent years as a cross-disciplinary method to improve the quality of patient care while appropriately managing resources within the healthcare system. Clinical microbiology laboratorians have been highly engaged in DxS efforts to guide best practices with conventional microbiology tests and more recently with molecular infectious disease diagnostics. Laboratories can experience resistance to their role in DxS, especially when the clinical benefits, motivations for interventions, and underlying regulatory requirements are not clearly conveyed to stakeholders. Clinical laboratories must not only ensure ethical practices but also meet obligatory requirements to steward tests responsibly. In this review, we aim to support clinical microbiology laboratorians by providing the background and resources that demonstrate the laboratory's essential role in DxS. The heart of this review is to collate regulatory and accreditation requirements that, in essence, mandate DxS practices as a long-standing, core element of high-quality laboratory testing to deliver the best possible patient care. While examples of the clinical impact of DxS are plentiful in the literature, here, we focus on the operational and regulatory justification for the laboratory's role in stewardship activities.

Comment on Cuesta et al. An Assessment of a New Rapid Multiplex PCR Assay for the Diagnosis of Meningoencephalitis. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 802

In April 2024, the manuscript by Cuesta et al [...].

Diagnostic stewardship in infectious diseases: a scoping review

Introduction. The term 'diagnostic stewardship' is relatively new, with a recent surge in its use within the literature. Despite its increasing popularity, a precise definition remains elusive. Various attempts have been made to define it, with some viewing it as an integral part of antimicrobial stewardship. The World Health Organization offers a broad definition, emphasizing the importance of timely, accurate diagnostics. However, inconsistencies in the use of this term still persist, necessitating further clarification.Gap Statement. There are currently inconsistencies in the definition of diagnostic stewardship used within the academic literature.Aim. This scoping review aims to categorize the use of diagnostic stewardship approaches and define this approach by identifying common characteristics and factors of its use within the literature.Methodology. This scoping review undertook a multi-database search from date of inception until October 2022. Any observational or experimental study where the authors define the intervention to be diagnostic stewardship from any clinical area was included. Screening of all papers was undertaken by a single reviewer with 10% verification by a second reviewer. Data extraction was undertaken by a single reviewer using a pre-piloted form. Given the wide variation in study design and intervention outcomes, a narrative synthesis approach was applied. Studies were clustered around common diagnostic stewardship interventions where appropriate.Results. After duplicate removal, a total of 1310 citations were identified, of which, after full-paper screening, 105 studies were included in this scoping review. The classification of an intervention as taking a diagnostic stewardship approach is a relatively recent development, with the first publication in this field dating back to 2017. The majority of research in this area has been conducted within the USA, with very few studies undertaken outside this region. Visual inspection of the citation map reveals that the current evidence base is interconnected, with frequent references to each other's work. The interventions commonly adopt a restrictive approach, utilizing hard and soft stops within the pre-analytical phase to restrict access to testing. Upon closer examination of the outcomes, it becomes evident that there is a predominant focus on reducing the number of tests rather than enhancing the current test protocol. This is further reflected in the limited number of studies that report on test performance (including protocol improvements, specificity and sensitivity).Conclusion. Diagnostic stewardship seems to have deviated from its intended course, morphing into a rather rudimentary instrument wielded not to enhance but to constrict the scope of testing. Despite the World Health Organization's advocacy for an ideology that promotes a more comprehensive approach to quality improvement, it may be more appropriate to consider alternative regional narratives when categorizing these types of quality improvement interventions.

Evaluating the Impact of the BioFire FilmArray in Childhood Meningitis: An Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Multiplex polymerase chain reaction assays have the potential to reduce antibiotic use and shorten length of inpatient stay in children with suspected central nervous system infection by obtaining an early microbiological diagnosis. The clinical impact of the implementation of the BioFire FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel on the management of childhood meningitis was evaluated at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford and Children's Health Ireland at Temple Street in Dublin.

METHODS

Children who had lumbar punctures performed as part of a septic screen were identified retrospectively through clinical discharge coding and microbiology databases from April 2017 to December 2018. Anonymized clinical and laboratory data were collected. Comparison of antibiotic use, length of stay and outcome at discharge was made with a historical cohort in Oxford (2012-2016), presenting before implementation of the FilmArray.

RESULTS

The study included 460 children who had a lumbar puncture as part of an evaluation for suspected central nervous system infection. Twelve bacterial cases were identified on the FilmArray that were not detected by conventional bacterial culture. Bacterial culture identified one additional case of bacterial meningitis, caused by Escherichia coli , which had not been identified on the FilmArray. Duration of antibiotics was shorter in children when FilmArray was used than before its implementation; enterovirus meningitis (median: 4 vs. 5 days), human parechovirus meningitis (median: 4 vs. 4.5 days) and culture/FilmArray-negative cerebrospinal fluid (median: 4 vs. 6 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a FilmArray can identify additional bacterial cases of meningitis in children that had been negative by traditional culture methods. Children with viral meningitis and culture-negative meningitis received shorter courses of antibiotics and had shorter hospital stays when FilmArray was used. Large studies to evaluate the clinical impact and cost effectiveness of incorporating the FilmArray into routine testing are warranted.

A decade of clinical microbiology: top 10 advances in 10 years: what every infection preventionist and antimicrobial steward should know

The past 10 years have brought paradigm-shifting changes to clinical microbiology. This paper explores the top 10 transformative innovations across the diagnostic spectrum, including not only state of the art technologies but also preanalytic and post-analytic advances. Clinical decision support tools have reshaped testing practices, curbing unnecessary tests. Innovations like broad-range polymerase chain reaction and metagenomic sequencing, whole genome sequencing, multiplex molecular panels, rapid phenotypic susceptibility testing, and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry have all expanded our diagnostic armamentarium. Rapid home-based testing has made diagnostic testing more accessible than ever. Enhancements to clinician-laboratory interfaces allow for automated stewardship interventions and education. Laboratory restructuring and consolidation efforts are reshaping the field of microbiology, presenting both opportunities and challenges for the future of clinical microbiology laboratories. Here, we review key innovations of the last decade.

Improving antimicrobial use through better diagnosis: The relationship between diagnostic stewardship and antimicrobial stewardship

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) exist to optimize antibiotic use, reduce selection for antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms, and improve patient outcomes. Rapid and accurate diagnosis is essential to optimal antibiotic use. Because diagnostic testing plays a significant role in diagnosing patients, it has one of the strongest influences on clinician antibiotic prescribing behaviors. Diagnostic stewardship, consequently, has emerged to improve clinician diagnostic testing and test result interpretation. Antimicrobial stewardship and diagnostic stewardship share common goals and are synergistic when used together. Although ASP requires a relationship with clinicians and focuses on person-to-person communication, diagnostic stewardship centers on a relationship with the laboratory and hardwiring testing changes into laboratory processes and the electronic health record. Here, we discuss how diagnostic stewardship can optimize the "Four Moments of Antibiotic Decision Making" created by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and work synergistically with ASPs.

Evaluation of the Novel CE-IVD-Marked Multiplex PCR QIAstat-Dx Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel

Central nervous system (CNS) infections such as meningitis and encephalitis are life-threatening conditions that demand hospital care and prompt identification of the causative agent. Since 2015, there has been only one CE-IVD-marked rapid multiplexed diagnostic assay in cassette format for bacterial and viral detection from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF): the BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis (ME) panel. In the beginning of 2022, Qiagen introduced the QIAstat-Dx meningitis/encephalitis panel. It is a CE-IVD-marked multiplex PCR cassette test intended for the identification of suspected infectious meningitis, encephalitis, or meningoencephalitis caused by bacterial, viral, or fungal pathogens. In this study, we evaluated patient and quality control samples using the QIAstat-Dx meningitis/encephalitis panel and compared the results to those of the BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel and reference methods (current routine analysis methods in our laboratory, PCR, or cultivation). The combined positive percent agreement between the two panel assays was 100%, and the negative percent agreement was 94%. We further compared specifically herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1), HSV-2, and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) dilution series using six commercial herpesvirus assays, including the two cassette tests. The results suggested that real-time PCR methods (with separate extraction) were the most sensitive methods. When comparing the cassette tests, the BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel produced more positive results than the QIAstat-Dx meningitis/encephalitis panel in the herpesvirus analyses. IMPORTANCE The diagnosis of infectious meningitis and encephalitis relies mostly on specific PCR and culturing methods, but commercial syndromic panel assays are bringing a change in diagnostics. With multiplexed analysis, the identification of the pathogen is potentially faster, and less sample material is needed. The novel QIAstat-Dx meningitis/encephalitis panel assay is intended for the rapid identification of pathogens from cerebrospinal fluid for suspected central nervous system (CNS) infection, which is a life-threatening condition and difficult to diagnose. We studied the performance of this panel assay using patient samples and dilution series of selected viruses. The evaluation data for this novel meningitis/encephalitis panel assay are useful for other clinical laboratories and organizations using or considering using this test.

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07789-2.

Opportunities for Antimicrobial Stewardship in Caring for Febrile Pediatric Inpatients in Abu Dhabi

Antimicrobial stewardship programs seek to improve patient outcomes, reduce cost, and hinder development of antimicrobial resistance. Collection of inpatient antimicrobial use data is foundational to these programs, and decisions to initiate and discontinue antibiotics are potentially amenable to improvement. In order to better understand our current practices and with a view toward improved antimicrobial stewardship, we reviewed charts of previously healthy children to age 16 years hospitalized with fever (without an evident localized source) and/or other findings suggestive of serious bacterial infection. Of 105 patients (18% 0-2 months of age, 42% 3-12 months, 25% 2-5 years), 100 (95%) received antibiotics, 72% for more than 2 days. Of 98 patients with negative body fluid cultures, 23 received antibiotics for 2 days or less, and 70 received antimicrobial therapy for more than 2 days. Focusing on selective initiation and earlier discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy in hospitalized children might reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.