Department of Clinical Microbiology, University Limerick Hospital Group, Limerick, Ireland.
Centre for Interventions in Infection, Inflammation & Immunity (4i) and School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
PLoS One. 2021 Oct 12;16(10):e0258552. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258552. eCollection 2021.
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.
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.
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.
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.
尽管基于培养的方法仍然是微生物分析的主要手段,但先进的分子方法越来越多地补充了检测方法。自 21 世纪初 16s 和 18s 核糖体 RNA PCR 的出现以来,人们对其用于病原体检测的效用产生了兴趣。然而,评估其对抗菌药物处方影响的研究有限。我们报告了一项单中心经验,即 16s 和 18s PCR 检测对抗菌治疗的影响,包括成本分析。
回顾性收集了 2014 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月期间所有送检 16s 和 18s PCR 检测的样本数据。将结果与任何基于培养的结果进行比较。评估重点是基于 PCR 结果对抗菌药物治疗的任何改变,或将结果用作微生物学诊断的支持证据。
在此期间,310 份与 268 名患者相关的样本被转介进行 16s/18s rRNA PCR 检测。对 234 份样本进行了培养。对 83 份样本进行了富集培养。300 份送检 16s PCR 的样本中,82 份(20.8%)结果阳性。当进行培养时,富集培养仅降低了 16s PCR 阳性结果的检出率(4/36[11.1%]与 14/35[40.0%],p=0.030,发现了病原体)。67 份样本中 18s PCR 有 9 个阳性结果。16s PCR 结果影响 6 名患者(2.2%)的抗菌药物改变。我们估计,16s PCR 检测导致抗菌药物治疗有一个显著改变的成本为 3340 欧元。18s PCR 未改变抗菌药物治疗。
16s PCR 结果对抗菌药物治疗的影响有限。结果的相对较长周转时间影响了其实际意义。在专门的外科中心或通过缩短周转时间,其用途可能会增加。对于要求进行 16s PCR 的样本,应考虑进行富集培养。18s PCR 在临床管理中的应用证据有限,可能需要进一步研究。