SG-APSIC1123: Diagnostic and infection prevention and control (IPC) performance of rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) compared to conventional culture PCR methods for detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs)
Objectives: In this study, we compared the performance of a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method in detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) and its impact on infection prevention and control (IPC) measures compared with a culture PCR method. Methods: All patients requiring CPO scr...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2023-02-01
|
| Series: | Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2732494X23000785/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1797869460097335296 |
|---|---|
| author | Xiaowei Huan Kyaw Zaw Linn Sharifah Farhanah Clara Chong Hui Ong Pei Yun Hon Yan Sun Weixiang Lian Janis Wanning Loh Angela Chow Benda Sze Peng Ang Janice Wai Yeng Leong Partha P De Oon Tek Ng Marimuthu Kalisvar Shawn Vasoo |
| author_facet | Xiaowei Huan Kyaw Zaw Linn Sharifah Farhanah Clara Chong Hui Ong Pei Yun Hon Yan Sun Weixiang Lian Janis Wanning Loh Angela Chow Benda Sze Peng Ang Janice Wai Yeng Leong Partha P De Oon Tek Ng Marimuthu Kalisvar Shawn Vasoo |
| author_sort | Xiaowei Huan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives: In this study, we compared the performance of a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method in detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) and its impact on infection prevention and control (IPC) measures compared with a culture PCR method. Methods: All patients requiring CPO screening were included. Rectal swabs were collected with double rayon swabs (Copan 139C). They were simultaneously analyzed for the presence of CPOs using rapid PCR assay (Xpert Carba-R assay, Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) and a culture–PCR method (ChromID CARBA-SMART, bioMerieux, Marcy-l’Etoile, France). For CARBA-SMART, only colored colonies (ie, Enterobacterales) were evaluated for CPOs according to the prevailing institutional protocol. We tracked time to CPO detection. Using CPO positivity from either the rapid PCR or the culture PCR method as the gold standard, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of both tests. We calculated the number of epidemiologically linked contacts generated when the first test results were known. We prospectively followed the ward census to identify the putative additional number of contacts generated by the later known result. Contacts were patients who shared the same ward (with overlapping time) as the CPO patients. Results: Between April 2019 and June 2020, culture PCR method detected CPOs in 316 (1.3%) of 24,514 samples (blaOXA48, N = 211; blaNDM, N = 51; blaIMI, N = 21; blaIMP, N = 10; blaKPC, N = 9; mixed genotypes, N = 14). The rapid PCR test detected CPOs in 605(2.5%) of 24,514 samples (blaOXA48, N = 266; blaNDM, N = 161; blaIMP, N = 99; blaVIM, N = 29; blaKPC, N = 15; mixed genotypes, N = 35). The sensitivity of direct PCR and culture PCR methods were 94.2% (95% CI, 92.1%–95.8%) and 43.5% (95% CI, 39.6%–47.4%), respectively. Both tests had 100% specificity. The median times to detection for the rapid PCR and culture PCR methods were 3–4 hours and 4 days, respectively. Compared with rapid PCR, the culture PCR method generated additional 7,415 contacts when it also tested positive for CPOs and an additional 23,135 contacts when it tested negative for CPOs. Conclusions: In our study, the rapid PCR test was more sensitive, identified CPO faster, and generated fewer epidemiologically linked contacts than the culture PCR method. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T00:12:58Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-27c1c074a99944b0a71e3a92253c1a1e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2732-494X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T00:12:58Z |
| publishDate | 2023-02-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology |
| spelling | doaj.art-27c1c074a99944b0a71e3a92253c1a1e2023-03-16T07:24:48ZengCambridge University PressAntimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology2732-494X2023-02-013s26s2610.1017/ash.2023.78SG-APSIC1123: Diagnostic and infection prevention and control (IPC) performance of rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) compared to conventional culture PCR methods for detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs)Xiaowei Huan0Kyaw Zaw Linn1Sharifah Farhanah2Clara Chong Hui Ong3Pei Yun Hon4Yan Sun5Weixiang Lian6Janis Wanning Loh7Angela Chow8Benda Sze Peng Ang9Janice Wai Yeng Leong10Partha P De11Oon Tek Ng12Marimuthu Kalisvar13Shawn Vasoo14National Centre for Infectious Diseases, SingaporeNational Public Health & Epidemiology Unit, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, SingaporeInfectious Disease Research and Training Office, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, SingaporeInfectious Disease Research and Training Office, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, SingaporeInfectious Disease Research Laboratory, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, SingaporeHealth Service and Outcomes Research, National Healthcare Group Pte Ltd, SingaporeClinical Epidemiology, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, SingaporeClinical Epidemiology, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, SingaporeClinical Epidemiology, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, SingaporeInfectious Diseases, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, SingaporeDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, SingaporeDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, SingaporeInfectious Diseases, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, SingaporeInfectious Diseases, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, SingaporeInfectious Diseases, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, SingaporeObjectives: In this study, we compared the performance of a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method in detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) and its impact on infection prevention and control (IPC) measures compared with a culture PCR method. Methods: All patients requiring CPO screening were included. Rectal swabs were collected with double rayon swabs (Copan 139C). They were simultaneously analyzed for the presence of CPOs using rapid PCR assay (Xpert Carba-R assay, Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) and a culture–PCR method (ChromID CARBA-SMART, bioMerieux, Marcy-l’Etoile, France). For CARBA-SMART, only colored colonies (ie, Enterobacterales) were evaluated for CPOs according to the prevailing institutional protocol. We tracked time to CPO detection. Using CPO positivity from either the rapid PCR or the culture PCR method as the gold standard, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of both tests. We calculated the number of epidemiologically linked contacts generated when the first test results were known. We prospectively followed the ward census to identify the putative additional number of contacts generated by the later known result. Contacts were patients who shared the same ward (with overlapping time) as the CPO patients. Results: Between April 2019 and June 2020, culture PCR method detected CPOs in 316 (1.3%) of 24,514 samples (blaOXA48, N = 211; blaNDM, N = 51; blaIMI, N = 21; blaIMP, N = 10; blaKPC, N = 9; mixed genotypes, N = 14). The rapid PCR test detected CPOs in 605(2.5%) of 24,514 samples (blaOXA48, N = 266; blaNDM, N = 161; blaIMP, N = 99; blaVIM, N = 29; blaKPC, N = 15; mixed genotypes, N = 35). The sensitivity of direct PCR and culture PCR methods were 94.2% (95% CI, 92.1%–95.8%) and 43.5% (95% CI, 39.6%–47.4%), respectively. Both tests had 100% specificity. The median times to detection for the rapid PCR and culture PCR methods were 3–4 hours and 4 days, respectively. Compared with rapid PCR, the culture PCR method generated additional 7,415 contacts when it also tested positive for CPOs and an additional 23,135 contacts when it tested negative for CPOs. Conclusions: In our study, the rapid PCR test was more sensitive, identified CPO faster, and generated fewer epidemiologically linked contacts than the culture PCR method.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2732494X23000785/type/journal_article |
| spellingShingle | Xiaowei Huan Kyaw Zaw Linn Sharifah Farhanah Clara Chong Hui Ong Pei Yun Hon Yan Sun Weixiang Lian Janis Wanning Loh Angela Chow Benda Sze Peng Ang Janice Wai Yeng Leong Partha P De Oon Tek Ng Marimuthu Kalisvar Shawn Vasoo SG-APSIC1123: Diagnostic and infection prevention and control (IPC) performance of rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) compared to conventional culture PCR methods for detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology |
| title | SG-APSIC1123: Diagnostic and infection prevention and control (IPC) performance of rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) compared to conventional culture PCR methods for detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) |
| title_full | SG-APSIC1123: Diagnostic and infection prevention and control (IPC) performance of rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) compared to conventional culture PCR methods for detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) |
| title_fullStr | SG-APSIC1123: Diagnostic and infection prevention and control (IPC) performance of rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) compared to conventional culture PCR methods for detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) |
| title_full_unstemmed | SG-APSIC1123: Diagnostic and infection prevention and control (IPC) performance of rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) compared to conventional culture PCR methods for detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) |
| title_short | SG-APSIC1123: Diagnostic and infection prevention and control (IPC) performance of rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) compared to conventional culture PCR methods for detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) |
| title_sort | sg apsic1123 diagnostic and infection prevention and control ipc performance of rapid polymerase chain reaction pcr compared to conventional culture pcr methods for detecting carbapenemase producing organisms cpos |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2732494X23000785/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT xiaoweihuan sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT kyawzawlinn sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT sharifahfarhanah sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT clarachonghuiong sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT peiyunhon sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT yansun sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT weixianglian sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT janiswanningloh sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT angelachow sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT bendaszepengang sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT janicewaiyengleong sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT parthapde sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT oontekng sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT marimuthukalisvar sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos AT shawnvasoo sgapsic1123diagnosticandinfectionpreventionandcontrolipcperformanceofrapidpolymerasechainreactionpcrcomparedtoconventionalculturepcrmethodsfordetectingcarbapenemaseproducingorganismscpos |