Back

Impact of Diagnostic Stewardship on Ordering Trends and Pathogen Yield from mNGS Studies

Shean, R. C.; Garrett, E.; Malleis, J.; Lieberman, J. A.; Bradley, B. T.

2024-04-22 infectious diseases
10.1101/2024.04.19.24306038 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundGiven the cost and unclear clinical impact of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), laboratory stewardship may improve utilization. This study examines mNGS results from two academic medical centers employing different stewardship approaches. Methods80 mNGS orders (54 CSF and 26 plasma) were identified from 2019 to 2021 at the University of Washington (UW), which requires director-level approval for mNGS orders, and the University of Utah (Utah), which does not restrict ordering. The impact of mNGS results and the relationship to traditional microbiology orders were retrospectively evaluated. Results19% (10/54) CSF and 65% (17/26) plasma studies detected at least one organism. Compared to CSF results, plasma results were more frequently clinically significant (23% vs 7%) and led to more novel diagnoses (15% vs 0%). Results affecting antibiotic management were more common for plasma than CSF (32% vs. 2%). Stewardship practices were not associated with statistically significant differences in results or antimicrobial management. The number and cost of traditional microbiology tests at UW was greater than Utah for CSF mNGS testing (UW: 46 tests, $6237; Utah: 26 tests, $2812; p<0.05) but similar for plasma mNGS (UW: 31 tests, $3975; Utah: 21 tests, $2715; p=0.14). mNGS testing accounted for 30-50% of the total microbiology costs. ConclusionsImproving the diagnostic performance of mNGS by stewardship remains challenging due to low positivity rates and difficulties assessing clinical impact. From a fiscal perspective, stewardship efforts should focus on reducing testing in low-yield populations given the high costs of mNGS relative to overall microbiology testing expenditures.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
53.4%
50% of probability mass above
2
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
7.0%
3
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
4
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
5
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
6
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
7
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
8
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
9
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
10
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
11
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.3%
12
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
13
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
14
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
15
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
16
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
17
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
18
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 75%
0.7%
19
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
20
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.5%
21
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
22
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%