98. Clinical and Pharmacoeconomic Impact of Rapid Diagnostic Pneumonia Panel in Critically Ill Patients Admitted with Nosocomial Pneumonia

• Published in: Open forum infectious diseases Vol. 7; no. Supplement_1; p. S64
• Main Authors: Kerr, Kathryn H, Vyas, Nikunj M, Hou, Cindy
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: US Oxford University Press 31.12.2020
• Subjects: Poster Abstracts
• ISSN: 2328-8957; 2328-8957
• DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.143

Abstract Background Rapid identification of causative organisms and tailored antibiotic therapy is essential to improving patient outcomes in critically ill patients with nosocomial pneumonia (NP). The BioFire ® FilmArray ® Pneumonia Panel (BFPP) can identify and semi-quantify the causative organisms via PCR. However, there is limited evidence of its implementation and utility within antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) in managing NP. Methods This was an IRB-approved retrospective pre- and post-interventional study at an acute care hospital. Critically ill patients were included in the intervention group (IG) with a confirmed diagnosis of NP and had BFPP performed. Patients in IG were matched on a 2:1 ratio to a comparator group (CG) who did not receive BFPP. The primary endpoint was clinical cure (CC), defined as: 1) resolution of symptoms and/or leukocytosis; or 2) radiographic improvement; or 3) expression of CC noted by infectious disease physician. Secondary endpoints include time to escalation, de-escalation, or discontinuation of antibiotics, and inpatient mortality (IM). In addition, a pharmaco-economic analysis of the utilization of this panel was conducted. Results There were 52 patients evaluated, of which 26 were included in IG and 13 were matched to be included in CG. Demographics were similar between the two groups. No difference in CC was observed between IG and CG (38.5% vs 38.5%, p = 1). However, when evaluating ASP interventions, more patients in IG had de-escalation (53.8% vs 15.4%, p = 0.01) and discontinuation (50% vs 7.7%, p = 0.003) performed compared to CG. No difference was seen in escalation of therapy (34.6% vs 30.8%, NS) and IM (26.9% vs 46.2%, p = 0.27). Time to ASP intervention was quicker by 24 hours in IG vs CG (24 vs 48 hours, p = 0.01). No difference was seen in total cost of therapy between the two groups ($289,500 vs $243,705, p = 0.6). However, cost savings of $31,000 was seen in total cost of ICU care in IG vs CG ($144,000 vs $175,000, p = 0.032). Figure 1: ASP Intervention Conclusion There was no observed impact of BFPP on CC and IM in critically ill patients. However, utilization of BFPP led to faster time to ASP interventions and higher rates of de-escalation and discontinuation of antibiotics. When utilized as part of ASP, BFPP can serve to be a cost-effective option for critically ill patients. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures