4.2 Article

The impact analysis of a multiplex PCR respiratory panel for hospitalized pediatric respiratory infections in Japan

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 82-85

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2019.07.014

关键词

Antimicrobial stewardship; Multiplex PCR; Rapid molecular test; Rapid antigen test; Respiratory infection; Pediatrics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Rapid molecular diagnosis of infections has contributed to timely treatments and antimicrobial stewardship. However, the benefit and cost-effectiveness vary in each country or community because they have different standard practices and health care systems. In Japan, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been frequently used for pediatric respiratory infections. We investigated the impact and cost-effectiveness of a multiplex PCR (mPCR) respiratory panel for pediatric respiratory infections in a Japanese community hospital. Methods: We replaced RATs with an mPCR respiratory panel (FilmArray (R)) for admitted pediatric respiratory infections on March 26, 2018. We compared the days of antimicrobial therapy (DOT) and length of stay (LOS) during the mPCR period (March 2018 to April 2019) with those of the RAT period (March 2012 to March 2018). Results: During the RAT and mPCR periods, 1132 and 149 patients were analyzed. The DOT/case was 12.82 vs 8.56 (p < 0.001), and the LOS was 8.18 vs 6.83 days (p = 0.032) in the RAT and mPCR groups, respectively. The total costs during admissions were \258,824 ($2331.7) and \243,841 ($2196.8)/case, respectively. Pathogen detection rates were 30.2% vs 87.2% (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Compared to conventional RATs, the mPCR test contributed to a reduction in the DOT and LOS in a Japanese community hospital for admission-requiring pediatric respiratory infections. However, a proper stewardship program is essential to further reduce the unnecessary usage of antimicrobials. (C) 2019 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据