4.6 Article

Rapid detection of enterovirus in cerebrospinal fluid by a fully-automated PCR assay is associated with improved management of aseptic meningitis in adult patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 58-62

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2014.11.001

关键词

Enterovirus; Meningitis; PCR; CSF; Management; Rapid

类别

资金

  1. Quality Control Program of the Lausanne University Hospital [127]
  2. Foundation for the Advancement in Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (FAMMID), Lausanne, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Enterovirus (EV) is the most frequent cause of aseptic meningitis (AM). Lack of microbiological documentation results in unnecessary antimicrobial therapy and hospitalization. Objectives: To assess the impact of rapid EV detection in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) by a fully-automated PCR (GeneXpert EV assay, GXEA) on the management of AM. Study design: Observational study in adult patients with AM. Three groups were analyzed according to EV documentation in CSF: group A = no PCR or negative PCR (n = 17), group B = positive real-time PCR (n = 20), and group C = positive GXEA (n = 22). Clinical, laboratory and health-care costs data were compared. Results: Clinical characteristics were similar in the 3 groups. Median turn-around time of EV PCR decreased from 60 h (IQR (interquartile range) 44-87) in group B to 5 h (IQR 4-11) in group C (p < 0.0001). Median duration of antibiotics was 1 (IQR 0-6), 1 (0-1.9), and 0.5 days (single dose) in groups A, B, and C, respectively (p < 0.001). Median length of hospitalization was 4 days (2.5-7.5), 2 (1-3.7), and 0.5 (0.3-0.7), respectively (p < 0.001). Median hospitalization costs were $5458 (2676-6274) in group A, $2796 (2062-5726) in group B, and $921 (765-1230) in group C (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Rapid EV detection in CSF by a fully-automated PCR improves management of AM by significantly reducing antibiotic use, hospitalization length and costs. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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