JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Practical Comparison of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel to Routine Diagnostic Methods and Potential Impact on Antimicrobial Stewardship in Adult Hospitalized Patients with Lower Respiratory Tract Infections.

Lower respiratory tract infections, including hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia, are common in hospitalized patient populations. Standard methods frequently fail to identify the infectious etiology due to the polymicrobial nature of respiratory specimens and the necessity of ordering specific tests to identify viral agents. The potential severity of these infections combined with a failure to clearly identify the causative pathogen results in administration of empirical antibiotic agents based on clinical presentation and other risk factors. We examined the impact of the multiplexed, semiquantitative BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia panel (PN panel) test on laboratory reporting for 259 adult inpatients submitting bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens for laboratory analysis. The PN panel demonstrated a combined 96.2% positive percent agreement (PPA) and 98.1% negative percent agreement (NPA) for the qualitative identification of 15 bacterial targets compared to routine bacterial culture. Semiquantitative values reported by the PN panel were frequently higher than values reported by culture, resulting in semiquantitative agreement (within the same log10 value) of 43.6% between the PN panel and culture; however, all bacterial targets reported as >105 CFU/ml in culture were reported as ≥105 genomic copies/ml by the PN panel. Viral targets were identified by the PN panel in 17.7% of specimens tested, of which 39.1% were detected in conjunction with a bacterial target. A review of patient medical records, including clinically prescribed antibiotics, revealed the potential for antibiotic adjustment in 70.7% of patients based on the PN panel result, including discontinuation or de-escalation in 48.2% of patients, resulting in an average savings of 6.2 antibiotic days/patient.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app