Improved diagnostic policy for respiratory tract infections essential for patient management in the emergency department

ADLM Guidance Document on Laboratory Diagnosis of Respiratory Viruses

Respiratory viral infections are among the most frequent infections experienced worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for testing and currently several tests are available for the detection of a wide range of viruses. These tests vary widely in terms of the number of viral pathogens included, viral markers targeted, regulatory status, and turnaround time to results, as well as their analytical and clinical performance. Given these many variables, selection and interpretation of testing requires thoughtful consideration. The current guidance document is the authors' expert opinion based on the preponderance of available evidence to address key questions related to best practices for laboratory diagnosis of respiratory viral infections including who to test, when to test, and what tests to use. An algorithm is proposed to help laboratories decide on the most appropriate tests to use for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections.

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.

Rapid Multiplex PCR for Respiratory Viruses Reduces Time to Result and Improves Clinical Care: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The clinical impact of rapid sample-to-answer 'syndromic' multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for respiratory viruses is not clearly established. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate this impact for patients with possible acute respiratory tract infection in the hospital setting.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases from 2012 to present and conference proceedings from 2021 for studies comparing clinical impact outcomes between multiplex PCR testing and standard testing.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies with 17,321 patient encounters were included in this review. Rapid multiplex PCR testing was associated with a reduction of -24.22hours (95% CI -28.70 to -19.74hours) in the time to results. Hospital length of stay was decreased by -0.82 days (95% CI -1.52 to -0.11 days). Among influenza positive patients, antivirals were more likely to be given (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48) and appropriate infection control facility use was more common with rapid multiplex PCR testing (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates a reduction in time to results and length of stay for patients overall along with improvements in appropriate antiviral and infection control management among influenza positive patients. This evidence supports the routine use of rapid sample-to-answer multiplex PCR testing for respiratory viruses in the hospital setting.

COVID-19 rapid molecular point-of-care testing is effective and cost-beneficial for the acute care of trauma patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy and cost benefit of a rapid molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) device detecting COVID-19 within a traumatological emergency department.

BACKGROUND

Despite continuous withdrawal of COVID-19 restrictions, hospitals will remain particularly vulnerable to local outbreaks which is reflected by a higher institution-specific basic reproduction rate. Patients admitted to the emergency department with unknown COVID-19 infection status due to a- or oligosymptomatic COVID-19 infection put other patients and health care workers at risk, while fast diagnosis and treatment is necessary. Delayed testing results in additional costs to the health care system.

METHODS

From the 8th of April 2021 until 31st of December 2021, all patients admitted to the emergency department were tested with routine RT-PCR and rapid molecular POCT device (Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19). COVID-19-related additional costs for patients admitted via shock room or emergency department were calculated based on internal cost allocations.

RESULTS

1133 rapid molecular tests resulted in a sensitivity of 83.3% (95% CI 35.9-99.6%), specificity of 99.8% (95% CI 99.4-100%), a positive predictive value of 71.4% (95% CI 29-96.3%) and a negative predictive value of 99.9% (95% CI 99.5-100%) as compared to RT-PCR. Without rapid COVID-19 testing, each emergency department and shock room admission with subsequent surgery showed additional direct costs of 2631.25€, without surgery of 729.01€.

CONCLUSION

Although rapid molecular COVID-19 testing can initially be more expensive than RT-PCR, subsequent cost savings, improved workflows and workforce protection outweigh this effect by far. The data of this study support the use of a rapid molecular POCT device in a traumatological emergency department.

Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 and the BioFire FilmArray RP2.1 for the Rapid Detection of Respiratory Pathogens Including SARS-CoV-2

Point-of-care syndromic panels allow for simultaneous and rapid detection of respiratory pathogens from nasopharyngeal swabs. The clinical performance of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel RP2.0 (QIAstat-Dx RP2.0) and the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory panel RP2.1 (BioFire RP2.1) was evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other common respiratory pathogens. A total of 137 patient samples were retrospectively selected based on emergency department admission, along with 33 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples tested using a WHO laboratory developed test. The limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 was initially evaluated for both platforms. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 500 copies/mL and had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 85%. The BioFire RP2.1 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 50 copies/mL and had a PPA of 97%. Both platforms showed a negative percent agreement of 100% for SARS-CoV-2. Evaluation of analytical specificity from a range of common respiratory targets showed a similar performance between each platform. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 had an overall PPA of 82% (67–100%) in clinical samples, with differences in sensitivity depending on the respiratory target. Both platforms can be used to detect acute cases of SARS-CoV-2. While the QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 is suitable for detecting respiratory viruses within a clinical range, it has less analytical and clinical sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 compared to the BioFire RP2.1.

Impact of multiplexed respiratory viral panels on infection control measures and antimicrobial stewardship: a review of the literature

Multiplexed respiratory viral panels (MRVP) have recently been added to the diagnostic work-up of respiratory infections. This review provides a summary of the main literature of MRVP for patients with regard to 3 different topics. Can the results of MRVP reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics, can they guide the use of appropriate antiviral therapy and do they have an added value with respect to infection control measures? Literature was searched for based on a defined search string using both the PubMed and Embase database. Twenty-five articles report on the impact of MRVP on antibiotic therapy. In all the articles where active antimicrobial stewardship was performed (e.g., education/advice on interpreting results of MRVP) (N = 9), a reduction in antibiotic therapy was shown (with exception of 2 studies). Three studies evaluating the effect of MRVP on antimicrobial use in a population that is not suspected of having bacterial pneumonia (e.g., absence of radiology suggestive for bacterial infection or low PCT) found a positive impact on antibiotic therapy. Eight studies with a short TAT (< 7 h) had a positive impact on use of antibiotic therapy. Eleven studies focused on the impact of MRVP on antiviral use. In contrast to antibiotic reduction, all studies systematically objectified improved antiviral use as a consequence of MRVP results. With regard to the impact of MRVP on infection control, eleven articles were withheld. All these studies led to a more accurate use of infection control measures by detecting unidentified pathogens or stopping isolation precautions in case of a negative MRVP result. MRVP don’t reduce antibiotic therapy in all populations. Reduction seems more likely if the following factors are present: active antimicrobial stewardship, low likelihood of a bacterial infection, and a short turnaround time to result. With respect to antiviral therapy, all studies have an impact but the targeted use of antivirals is so far not that evidence based for all viral respiratory pathogens. Regarding infection control measures, the potential impact of MRVP is high because of the need of additional isolation precautions for many respiratory viruses, although logistical problems can occur.

A discussion of syndromic molecular testing for clinical care

Current molecular detection methods for single or multiplex pathogens by real-time PCR generally offer great sensitivity and specificity. However, many infectious pathogens often result in very similar clinical presentations, complicating the test-order for physicians who have to narrow down the causative agent prior to in-house PCR testing. As a consequence, the intuitive response is to start empirical therapy to treat a broad spectrum of possible pathogens. Syndromic molecular testing has been increasingly integrated into routine clinical care, either to provide diagnostic, epidemiological or patient management information. These multiplex panels can be used to screen for predefined infectious disease pathogens simultaneously within a 1 h timeframe, creating opportunities for rapid diagnostics. Conversely, syndromic panels have their own challenges and must be adaptable to the evolving demands of the clinical setting. Firstly, questions have been raised regarding the clinical relevance of some of the targets included in the panels and secondly, there is the added expense of integration into the clinical laboratory. Here, we aim to discuss some of the factors that should be considered before performing syndromic testing rather than traditional low-plex in-house PCR.

Digital microbiology

BACKGROUND

Digitalization and artificial intelligence have an important impact on the way microbiology laboratories will work in the near future. Opportunities and challenges lie ahead to digitalize the microbiological workflows. Making efficient use of big data, machine learning, and artificial intelligence in clinical microbiology requires a profound understanding of data handling aspects.

OBJECTIVE

This review article summarizes the most important concepts of digital microbiology. The article gives microbiologists, clinicians and data scientists a viewpoint and practical examples along the diagnostic process.

SOURCES

We used peer-reviewed literature identified by a PubMed search for digitalization, machine learning, artificial intelligence and microbiology.

CONTENT

We describe the opportunities and challenges of digitalization in microbiological diagnostic processes with various examples. We also provide in this context key aspects of data structure and interoperability, as well as legal aspects. Finally, we outline the way for applications in a modern microbiology laboratory.

IMPLICATIONS

We predict that digitalization and the usage of machine learning will have a profound impact on the daily routine of laboratory staff. Along the analytical process, the most important steps should be identified, where digital technologies can be applied and provide a benefit. The education of all staff involved should be adapted to prepare for the advances in digital microbiology.