The Impact of Implementation of Rapid QuickFISH Testing for Detection of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci at a Community-Based Hospital

Approaches to Reduce Use and Duration of Anti-MRSA Agents for Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs: A Review of Recent Literature

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have the potential to effectively deescalate unnecessary methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) coverage. This review summarizes literature published from 2014 through 2021 describing contemporary ASP methods and their resulting effectiveness at reducing anti-MRSA agent use (ie vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, ceftaroline, and clindamycin). This review of the literature examined the following strategies, which had reports of success in either decreasing the use or duration of anti-MRSA agents: prospective review and feedback, antibiotic timeouts, health system or department protocol changes, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and rapid testing of patient samples. Most of the current literature continue to support most ASP interventions including antibiotic timeouts, pathways, and molecular testing including MRSA nasal PCRs and rapid diagnostic testing can be successful at reducing unnecessary anti-MRSA use.

Application of Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization for Quick Identification of Microorganisms from Positive Blood Cultures

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic potential of the fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) method for quick identification of microorganisms from positive blood cultures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: QuickFISH BC is a multicolor, qualitative nucleic acid hybridization assay using specific fluorescent-labeled probes for identification of Gram-positive bacteria (S. aureus, Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp. – CoNS, E. faecalis, and E. faecium); Gram-negative bacteria (E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and K. pneumoniaе), and fungi (C. albicans, C. tropicalis, and C. glabrata). This method applied to 72 positive blood cultures obtained from patients admitted at the University Hospital St. George – Plovdiv. A preliminary selection based on Gram staining was performed before the application of the FISH test. All microorganisms were subject to identification by routine biochemical tests, semi-automated and automated systems as well. Statistical data processing included descriptive statistics, nonparametric analysis for testing hypotheses by SPSS v. 22.0, and Microsoft Excel software. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: FISH detected microorganisms in 63 (87.5%) positive blood cultures, whereas no fluorescent signal was observed in 9 (12.5%). The latter was because not all the microorganisms we identified are included in the test spectrum, for example – Enterobacter spp. and Acinetobacter spp. By FISH, we found S. aureus in 10 (15.9%) cases, CoNS in 20 (31.6%), E. faecalis in 4 (6.4%), and E. faecium in 4 (6.4%). E. coli (n = 7; 11.1%) was the leading cause of bacteremia among Gram-negative bacteria, whereas C. albicans predominated (n = 4; 6.4%) among fungi. CONCLUSION: QuickFISH BC is a rapid and accurate screening method for the identification of some of the most frequent pathogens causing bacteremia. This enables the initiation of the early and adequate antimicrobial therapy. The lack of pathogen identification from positive blood cultures using this method implies the need to continue identification with other tests.

Rapid versus standard antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide treatment of bloodstream infection

BACKGROUND

Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility tests are expected to reduce the time to clinically important results of a blood culture. This might enable clinicians to better target therapy to a person's needs, and thereby, improve health outcomes (mortality, length of hospital stay), and reduce unnecessary prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics; thereby reducing antimicrobial resistance rates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of rapid susceptibility testing versus standard susceptibility testing for bloodstream infections (BSIs).

SEARCH METHODS

To identify studies with selected outcomes, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, and two trials registries, between 1987 and October 2020. We used 'bloodstream infection' and 'antimicrobial susceptibility tests' as search terms. We had no language or publication status limitations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (with a time-to-result of ≤ 8 hours) versus conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in people with a BSI caused by any bacteria, as identified by a positive blood culture.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references, full-text reports of potentially relevant studies, extracted data from the studies, and assessed risk of bias. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved with a third review author. For mortality, a dichotomous outcome, we extracted the number of events in each arm, and presented a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to compare rapid susceptibility testing to conventional methods. We used Review Manager 5.4 to meta-analyse the data. For other outcomes, which are time-to-event outcomes (time-to-discharge from hospital, time-to-first appropriate antibiotic change), we conducted qualitative narrative synthesis, due to heterogeneity of outcome measures.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials, with 1638 participants. For rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.46; 6 RCTs, 1638 participants; low-certainty evidence). In subgroup analysis, for rapid genotypic or molecular antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.49; 4 RCTs, 1074 participants; low-certainty evidence). For phenotypic rapid susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups  (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.35; 2 RCTs, 564 participants; low-certainty evidence). In qualitative analysis, rapid susceptibility testing may make little or no difference in time-to-discharge (4 RCTs, 1165 participants; low-certainty evidence). In qualitative analysis, rapid genotypic susceptibility testing compared to conventional testing may make little or no difference in time-to-appropriate antibiotic (3 RCTs, 929 participants; low-certainty evidence). In subgroup analysis, rapid phenotypic susceptibility testing compared to conventional testing may improve time-to-appropriate antibiotic (RR -17.29, CI -45.05 to 10.47; 2 RCTs, 564 participants; low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The theoretical benefits of rapid susceptibility testing have not been demonstrated to directly improve mortality, time-to-discharge, or time-to-appropriate antibiotic in these randomized studies. Future large prospective studies should be designed to focus on the most clinically meaningful outcomes, and aim to optimize blood culture pathways.

Evaluation of QuickFISH and maldi Sepsityper for identification of bacteria in bloodstream infection

BACKGROUND

Early detection of bacteria and their antibiotic susceptibility patterns are critical to guide therapeutic decision-making for optimal care of septic patients. The current gold standard, blood culturing followed by subculture on agar plates for subsequent identification, is too slow leading to excessive use of broad-spectrum antibiotic with harmful consequences for the patient and, in the long run, the public health. The aim of the present study was to assess the performance of two commercial assays, QuickFISH® (OpGen) and Maldi Sepsityper™ (Bruker Daltonics) for early and accurate identification of microorganisms directly from positive blood cultures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During two substudies of positive blood cultures, the two commercial assays were assessed against the routine method used at the clinical microbiology laboratory, Unilabs AB, at Skaraborg Hospital, Sweden.

RESULTS

The Maldi Sepsityper™ assay enabled earlier microorganism identification. Using the cut-off for definite species identification according to the reference method (>2.0), sufficiently accurate species identification was achieved, but only among Gram-negative bacteria. The QuickFISH^® assay was time-saving and showed high concordance with the reference method, 94.8% (95% CI 88.4-98.3), when the causative agent was covered by the QuickFISH^® assay.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the commercial assays may shorten the time to identification of causative agents in bloodstream infections and can be a good complement to the current clinical routine diagnostics. Nevertheless, the performance of the commercial assays is considerably affected by the characteristics of the causative agents.

Advances in Rapid Molecular Blood Culture Diagnostics: Healthcare Impact, Laboratory Implications, and Multiplex Technologies

BACKGROUND

For far too long, the diagnosis of bloodstream infections has relied on time-consuming blood cultures coupled with traditional organism identification and susceptibility testing. Technologies to define the culprit in bloodstream infections have gained sophistication in recent years, notably by application of molecular methods.

CONTENT

In this review, we summarize the tests available to clinical laboratories for molecular rapid identification and resistance marker detection in blood culture bottles that have flagged positive. We explore the cost-benefit ratio of such assays, covering aspects that include performance characteristics, effect on patient care, and relevance to antibiotic stewardship initiatives.

SUMMARY

Rapid blood culture diagnostics represent an advance in the care of patients with bloodstream infections, particularly those infected with resistant organisms. These diagnostics are relatively easy to implement and appear to have a positive cost-benefit balance, particularly when fully incorporated into a hospital's antimicrobial stewardship program.

Impact of QuickFISH in addition to antimicrobial stewardship on vancomycin use and resource utilization in cancer patients with coagulase-negative staphylococcal blood cultures

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of rapidly identifying coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) from positive blood cultures combined with an established antimicrobial stewardship (AS) programme at a tertiary cancer centre.

METHODS

We compared cancer patients ≥18 years old who between 01/1/13 and 12/31/13 had one or more positive CoNS blood culture(s) identified by Staphylococcus QuickFISH® (a peptide nucleic acid fluorescence in situ hybridization assay) with cancer patients ≥18 years old who had CoNS identified by standard microbiological techniques between 01/01/11 and 12/31/11 (baseline). Positive blood culture results were reported to the clinician by microbiology staff; restricted antibiotics (e.g., vancomycin) required approval by the AS team.

RESULTS

There were 196 baseline and 103 QuickFISH patients. Faster median time to organism identification (33 (IQR 27-46) versus 49 (IQR 39-63) hours, p < 0.001), more vancomycin avoidance (51/103 (50%) versus 60/196 (31%), p 0.002), shorter median antibiotic duration (1 (IQR 0-3) versus 2 (IQR 0-6) days, p 0.019), fewer central venous catheter (CVC) removals (14/78 (18%) versus 57/160 (36%), p 0.004), and reduced vancomycin level monitoring (16/52 (31%) versus 71/136 (52%), p 0.009) were observed in the QuickFISH group. QuickFISH implementation was predictive of a lower likelihood of antibiotic therapy prescription (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.20-0.62, p < 0.001). Prior transplant (RR 1.47, 95%CI 1.13-1.92, p 0.004), neutropenia (RR 1.47, 95%CI 1.09-1.99, p 0.012), multiple positive blood cultures (RR 4.23, 95%CI 3.23-5.54, p < 0.001), and CVC (RR 1.60, 95%CI 1.02-2.53, p 0.043) were independent factors for antibiotic duration.

CONCLUSIONS

QuickFISH implementation plus AS support leads to greater avoidance of vancomycin therapy and improved resource utilization in cancer patients with CoNS blood cultures.

Multiplex PCR for Detection and Identification of Microbial Pathogens

 Multiplexed nucleic acid-based tests for infectious disease have become a standard part of clinical laboratory practice. These tests provide a comprehensive syndrome-based approach to determine the etiological agent of disease. The technology underlying these different systems is reviewed here with a special focus on the BioFire FilmArray® platform. The literature on the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of these platforms for respiratory, blood culture, and gastrointestinal infections is discussed. Although there are reports showing a clear benefit to the patient or to the healthcare system from adopting a syndromic molecular approach, it is also apparent that clinical laboratories and healthcare providers are still learning how to take full advantage of the new systems. Finally, some improvements to this technology that should appear in the next few years are discussed. These include automated pathogen-specific surveillance based on aggregating the data from these systems, a move toward point-of-care syndromic testing, and further decreases in time to result of the tests.

Microbiological diagnosis of device-related biofilm infections

Medical device-related infections cause undue patient distress, increased morbidity and mortality and pose a huge financial burden on healthcare services. The pathogens are frequently distributed heterogeneously in biofilms, which can persist without being effectively cleared by host immune defenses and antibiotic therapy. At present, there is no 'gold standard' available to reveal the presence of device-related biofilm infections. However, adequate sample collection and logistics, standardised diagnostic methods, and interpretation of results by experienced personnel are important steps in efficient diagnosis and treatment of these infections. The focus of this mini review is on prosthethic joint and cardiovascular implantable device infections, which exemplify permanent devices that are placed in a sterile body site. These device-related infections represent some of the most challenging in terms of both diagnosis and treatment.