651. Multi-Center Evaluation of the BioFire® FilmArray® Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel for the Detection of Microorganisms and Resistance Markers in Positive Blood Cultures

New evidence for managing Gram-negative bloodstream infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gram-negative bloodstream infections (GNBSI) are common and carry considerable mortality. Treatment is complicated by increasing antimicrobial resistance, posing a challenge for timely appropriate antibiotics and limiting the choices of effective definitive therapy. The present review aims to summarize recent studies addressing the management of GNBSI.

RECENT FINDINGS

New rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for pathogen identification and antibiotic susceptibility are associated with improved antimicrobial stewardship and reduced length of stay. No mortality benefit or patient-related outcomes are reported. Data regarding the use of new beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitors (BLBLIs) for treating multidrug resistance Gram-negative bacteria is supportive, though questions regarding combinations, optimal dosing, mode of administration, and resistance emergence remain to be clarified. Current data regarding cefiderocol necessitates further studies in order to support its use in GNBSI. Shortened (≤7 days) duration of therapy and early oral step down for GNBSI are supported by the literature. The role of repeated blood cultures should be further defined.

SUMMARY

RDTs should be implemented to improve antibiotic stewardship. Clinical implications on patient-related outcomes should be evaluated. New BLBLIs show promise in the treatment of GNBSI. Additional data are needed regarding the use of cefiderocol. Antibiotic therapy should be shortened and early oral step down should be considered.

Mathematical model of the cost-effectiveness of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel molecular rapid diagnostic test compared with conventional methods for identification of Escherichia coli bloodstream infections

BACKGROUND

Gram-negative pathogens, such as Escherichia coli, are common causes of bloodstream infections (BSIs) and increasingly demonstrate antimicrobial resistance. Molecular rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) offer faster pathogen identification and susceptibility results, but higher costs compared with conventional methods. We determined the cost-effectiveness of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel, as a type of mRDT, compared with conventional methods in the identification of E. coli BSIs.

METHODS

We constructed a decision analytic model comparing BCID with conventional methods in the identification and susceptibility testing of hospitalized patients with E. coli BSIs from the perspective of the public healthcare payer. Model inputs were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by determining the per-patient admission cost, the QALYs garnered and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) where applicable. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model. All costs reflect 2019 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

The Monte Carlo probabilistic analyses resulted in cost savings ($27 070.83 versus $35 649.81) and improved QALYs (8.65 versus 7.10) in favour of BCID. At a willingness to pay up to $100 000, BCID had a 72.6%-83.8% chance of being cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed length of stay and cost per day of hospitalization to have the most substantial impact on costs and QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

BCID was found to be cost-saving when used to diagnose E. coli BSI compared with conventional testing. Cost savings were most influenced by length of stay and cost per day of hospitalization.