Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 6;15(2):e0228596.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228596. eCollection 2020.

Impact of the BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal panel on patient care and infection control

Julian D Machiels  1 , Amelieke J H Cremers  1 , Muriël C G T van Bergen-Verkuyten  1 , Sandra J M Paardekoper-Strijbosch  1 , Kelly C J Frijns  1 , Heiman F L Wertheim  1 , Janette Rahamat-Langendoen  1 , Willem J G Melchers  1
Affiliations

Impact of the BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal panel on patient care and infection control

Julian D Machiels et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objectives: Conventional routine PCR testing for gastrointestinal infections is generally based on pathogen related panels specifically requested by clinicians and can be erroneous and time consuming. The BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal (GI) panel combines 22 pathogens into a single cartridge-based test on a random-access system, thereby reducing the turnaround time to less than 2 hours. We described the clinical impact of implementing the BioFire FilmArray on patients with gastroenteritis in our hospital.

Methods: Patients attending a Dutch tertiary care center (Radboud University Medical Center), from whom stool samples were obtained, were eligible for inclusion. The clinicians selected one or a combination of different routinely performed PCR panels (bacterial panel, viral panel, clostridium testing, and three parasitic panels) based on clinical history and symptoms. All samples were in parallel tested with the FilmArray. We retrospectively collected patient data regarding infection control and patient management to assess the potential impact of implementing the FilmArray.

Results: In total 182 patients were included. Routine PCR detected one or more pathogens in 52 (28.6%) patients compared to 72 (39.6%) using the FilmArray. Turnaround time (including transport) decreased from median 53 hours for the routine PCR to 16 hours for the FilmArray. Twenty-six patients could have been removed from isolation 29 hours sooner, 3.6 antibiotic days could have been saved and in five patients additional imaging testing (including colonoscopies) could have been prevented.

Conclusion: The theoretical implementation of the BioFire FilmArray GI panel in patients with clinical suspicion of gastroenteritis resulted in a significant better patient management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

BioFire Diagnostics provided the system and the cartridges to perform the tests. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Additional pathogens found by the FilmArray compared to the mostly requested panel or combination of panels on the routine PCR.
Number of pathogens found in the FilmArray and the mostly requested panels on the routine PCR. * significant result.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Additional pathogens found by the FilmArray compared to the panel on the routine PCR.
Both the panel on the routine are matched and contain the same pathogens. Number of additional pathogens found that are included in the FilmArray and the routine PCR. * significant result.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Turnaround times from collection to reporting in median hours.
Turnaround times from collection to reporting to the clinician in median hours. Time of ordering was used as a proxy for time of collection.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Flow chart of the patients admitted to the hospital and their isolation status according to the rest result of the routine PCR.
Flow chart of the patients admitted to the hospital and their isolation status according to the rest result of the routine PCR. $ in 1 patient isolation status was missing. # 3 were positive in the FilmArray. * 5 patients were tested positive in the FilmArray and 26 patients tested negative. ^ 4 patients were tested positive in FilmArray.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. de Wit M.A., Koopmans M.P., Kortbeek L.M., Wannet W.J., Vinje J., van Leusden F., et al., Sensor, a population-based cohort study on gastroenteritis in the Netherlands: incidence and etiology. Am J Epidemiol, 2001. 154(7): p. 666–74. 10.1093/aje/154.7.666 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Friesema I.H., Lugner A.K., and van Duynhoven Y.T., Costs of gastroenteritis in the Netherlands, with special attention for severe cases. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 2012. 31(8): p. 1895–900. 10.1007/s10096-011-1518-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bos J., Schultsz C., Van Gool T., Bauer M., and Prins J., Swab guideline antimicrobial therapy in acute infectious diarrhea. 2014.
    1. Mattila L., Clinical features and duration of traveler's diarrhea in relation to its etiology. Clin Infect Dis, 1994. 19(4): p. 728–34. 10.1093/clinids/19.4.728 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Riddle M.S., DuPont H.L., and Connor B.A., ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Acute Diarrheal Infections in Adults. Am J Gastroenterol, 2016. 111(5): p. 602–22. 10.1038/ajg.2016.126 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms