The Clinical Utility of Methicillin Resistant ...

1 downloads 0 Views 577KB Size Report
Diane M. Parente1, Cheston B. Cunha2,3, Eleftherios Mylonakis2,3, Tristan T. Timbrook4. 5. 6. 1. Department of Pharmacy, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI, ...
Full Manuscript in .doc format only [no PDFs]

Click here to download Full Manuscript in .doc format only [no PDFs] Manuscript_Clean_12.20.17.docx

1

The Clinical Utility of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nasal

2

Screening to Rule Out MRSA Pneumonia: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis with Antimicrobial

3

Stewardship Implications

4 5

Diane M. Parente1, Cheston B. Cunha2,3, Eleftherios Mylonakis2,3, Tristan T. Timbrook4

6 7

1. Department of Pharmacy, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI, USA

8

2. Infectious Disease Division, Rhode Island Hospital and The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI,

9 10 11 12

USA 3. Division of Infectious Diseases, Brown University, Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI, USA 4. Department of Pharmacy, University of Utah Health Care, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

13 14

Corresponding Author: Diane M. Parente, PharmD, Infectious Diseases and Antimicrobial

15

Stewardship Clinical Pharmacist, Department of Pharmacy, The Miriam Hospital, 164 Summit

16

Avenue, Providence, RI 02906, Tel: (401) 793-3306; E-mail: [email protected]

17

Alternate Corresponding Author: Tristan T. Timbrook, PharmD, MBA, BCPS, Antimicrobial

18

Stewardship Clinical Pharmacist, University of Utah Health Care, 50 N. Medical Drive,

19

Pharmacy Administration, Room A-050, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, Tel: (502) 608-7817, E-mail:

20

[email protected]

21

Keywords: MRSA nasal screening, pneumonia, antimicrobial stewardship, meta-analysis

22

Running title: MRSA nasal screen meta-analysis

23

Summary: MRSA nares screening had a high NPV for ruling out MRSA pneumonia but a low

24

PPV for predicting MRSA pneumonia. MRSA nares screening can be a stewardship tool to

25

streamline empiric antibiotic therapy among those not nares colonized with MRSA.

26 1

27

ABSTRACT

28

Background: Recent literature has highlighted MRSA nasal screening as a possible

29

antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) tool for avoiding unnecessary empiric MRSA therapy

30

for pneumonia, yet current guidelines recommend MRSA therapy based on risk factors. The

31

objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic value of MRSA nasal screening in

32

MRSA pneumonia.

33 34

Methods: Pubmed and EMBASE were searched from inception to November 2016 for English

35

studies evaluating MRSA nasal screening and development of MRSA pneumonia. Data analysis

36

was performed using a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity,

37

and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values.

38 39

Results: Twenty-two studies, comprising of 5,163 patients met our inclusion criteria. Pooled

40

sensitivity and specificity of MRSA nares screen for all MRSA pneumonia types was 70.9% and

41

90.3%, respectively. With a 10% prevalence of potential MRSA pneumonia, the calculated PPV

42

was 44.8% while the NPV was 96.5%.

43

community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) were at

44

85% and 92.1%, respectively. For CAP and HCAP both the PPV and NPV increased to 56.8%

45

and 98.1%, respectively. In comparison, for MRSA ventilated-associated pneumonia (VAP), the

46

sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV was 40.3%, 93.7%, 35.7%, and 94.8%, respectively.

The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRSA

47 48

Conclusion: Nares screening for MRSA had a high specificity and NPV for ruling out MRSA

49

pneumonia, particularly in cases of CAP/HCAP. Based on the NPV, utilization of MRSA nares

50

screening is a valuable tool for AMS to streamline empiric antibiotic therapy, especially among

51

patients with pneumonia that are not colonized with MRSA.

2

52

BACKGROUND

53

Current guidelines for the treatment of pneumonia published by the American Thoracic Society

54

(ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommend empiric methicillin-

55

resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) coverage in at-risk patients, yet MRSA pneumonia

56

has a low prevalence [1, 2]. While initiating appropriate empiric antibiotics in a timely manner is

57

critical, prescribers are often challenged on whom to initiate anti-MRSA coverage to and when

58

therapy should be de-escalated. Current guidelines do not provide guidance on de-escalation

59

before the availability of respiratory culture results; which may take up to 96 hours to process, or

60

in the absence thereof. As a result, patients are frequently continued on anti-MRSA therapy,

61

such as vancomycin, thereby contributing to unfavorable consequences of antimicrobial

62

overuse, including increased risk of adverse events, antimicrobial resistance, drug-drug

63

interactions, and increased expense [3].

64 65

S. aureus, including MRSA, is a common colonizer of the nares. The absence of MRSA nares

66

colonization has reported to be a negative predictor of MRSA pulmonary infections, specifically

67

pneumonia.

68

prevention purposes. However, recent literature has highlighted MRSA nasal screening as a

69

useful antimicrobial stewardship screening test for avoiding unnecessary empiric MRSA

70

therapy, including vancomycin [4, 5]. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the

71

diagnostic value of MRSA nasal screening in ruling out potential MRSA pneumonia.

Traditionally, nares surveillance for MRSA is used for infection control and

3

72

METHODS

73

Literature Review

74

We reviewed Pubmed and EMBASE from 1971 and 1974, respectively, to March 1, 2017 for

75

studies in English evaluating MRSA nasal screening and development of MRSA pneumonia.

76

We used the search string: (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus OR MRSA) AND (nasal

77

OR nares) AND (pneumonia OR respiratory OR lower respiratory tract infections). Citation titles

78

and abstracts were reviewed for relevance, and subsequently, full-text reviews were performed

79

on all potentially relevant studies. Bibliographies of included articles were reviewed for

80

additional studies of relevance. Conference proceedings from IDWeek, the Interscience

81

Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, and the European Congress of Clinical

82

Microbiology and Infectious Diseases from 2007 to 2016 were also reviewed utilizing the

83

keywords “nares” and “nasal” to identify unpublished studies.

84 85

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

86

Studies were included if they contained information on both positive rates of MRSA nasal

87

surveillance screenings either using culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and reported

88

the rates of culture confirmed MRSA pneumonia for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP),

89

hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP), or ventilator-

90

associated pneumonia (VAP). Studies were excluded if they were non-English, only utilized

91

MRSA surveillance culture studies from other body sites (e.g. throat swab), or zero event

92

studies (e.g. absence of MRSA pneumonia diagnosed).

93 94

Outcomes

95

Outcomes evaluated for the clinical utility of MRSA nasal screening for predicting MRSA

96

pneumonia included the performance characteristics of sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds

97

ratios, likelihood ratios, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values

4

98

(NPVs). Additionally, factors affecting test performance and heterogeneity among studies were

99

assessed.

100 101

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

102

Two investigators (D.M.P. and T.T.T.) independently reviewed the literature. Differences in

103

article selection were resolved by consensus. Each investigator evaluated the included studies

104

for possible sources of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist [6]. Data were extracted from the

105

studies on rates of positive MRSA nasal surveillance screens, rates of MRSA pneumonia, study

106

designs, setting, patient population and sample size, pneumonia classification and assessment

107

definitions if present, respiratory culture type, and timing of surveillance screens.

108 109

Data Analysis

110

Performance characteristics were evaluated using a bivariate model for diagnostic meta-

111

analysis to calculate the pooled sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratio, likelihood ratios,

112

PPVs, and NPVs. Random effects modeling was employed on the assumption of heterogeneity

113

in measurements among studies. PPVs and NPVs were calculated using the pooled MRSA

114

pneumonia prevalence among the included studies overall and by pneumonia type for

115

CAP/HCAP, HAP, and VAP. Pooled prevalence was calculated using a random effects model

116

and excluded studies of only S. aureus pneumonia cohorts. Publication bias was assessed with

117

the Deeks test [7]. Possible sources of heterogeneity were evaluated using meta-regression.

118

Heterogeneity was determined with a Cochran’s Q statistic of p