Use of the T2Bacteria Panel, a molecular rapid diagnostic test (mRDT), resulted in 90% sensitivity and specificity in identifying five common bacterial pathogens for proven bloodstream infections: Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Escherichia coli, according to a recent study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.1.Nguyen M.H. et al.Ann Intern Med. 2019; 170: 845-852Google Scholar These findings have implications for health-system clinicians, including pharmacists. Blood cultures are the gold standard for diagnosing bloodstream infections, but results often take too long for patients who need early interventions (such as those with sepsis). The T2Bacteria Panel quickly identifies select pathogens directly from whole blood samples without the need for cultures. “The main advantage of the T2Bacteria Panel is the ability to detect these targeted bacteria directly from whole blood samples in a couple of hours as opposed to a couple of days with conventional microbiology cultures,” noted Elias B. Chahine, PharmD, FCCP, FFSHP, BCPS, BCIDP, professor of pharmacy practice at Gregory School of Pharmacy, Palm Beach Atlantic University. “This advantage may translate into a more rapid initiation of an appropriate antibiotic regimen or a more rapid switch to an appropriate antibiotic regimen.” Researchers conducted a diagnostic accuracy study to compare the performance of the T2Bacteria Panel with that of a single set of blood cultures in diagnosing proven, probable, and possible bloodstream infections caused by T2Bacteria-targeted organisms (i.e., E. faecium, S. aureus, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, and E. coli).1.Nguyen M.H. et al.Ann Intern Med. 2019; 170: 845-852Google Scholar The study included data from 1,427 patients for whom blood cultures were ordered. Testing yielded 39 positive blood cultures (3%) and 181 positive results for the T2Bacteria Panel (13%). Of the 39 positive blood cultures, 35 were positive per the T2Bacteria Panel results, and 4 were negative. The rate of negative blood cultures with a positive T2Bacteria Panel result was 10% (146 of 1,427). The researchers noted that blood culture and T2Bacteria Panel results were concordant in 90% of the samples and discordant in 10%. The mean times from start of blood culture incubation to positivity and species identification were 38.5 hours and 71.7 hours, respectively, whereas the mean times to species identification were much shorter with the T2Bacteria Panel: 3.61 to 7.70 hours depending on the number of samples tested. In their 2016 guidelines for implementing an antibiotic stewardship program, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) recommend the use of mRDTs in addition to conventional microbiology cultures and routine reporting on blood specimens only if combined with an active antibiotic stewardship program.2.Barlam T.F. et al.Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 62: e51-e77Crossref PubMed Scopus (1171) Google Scholar The IDSA/SHEA guidelines note that this is a weak recommendation supported by moderate-quality evidence. To maximize cost-effectiveness, institutions should carefully select a mRDT platform based on the needs of their patient populations and on local resistance patterns, Chahine said. He noted that the main disadvantage of the T2Bacteria Panel compared with other available mRDTs is its inability to detect other organisms beyond the five targeted bacteria. Another disadvantage of mRDTs is their inability to provide information on the pathogens’ susceptibilities to antimicrobials. Chahine also said that integration of an mRDT into an antibiotic stewardship program should be accompanied by a checklist before, during, and after implementation and should involve infectious diseases physicians, pharmacists, and microbiologists. A well-trained infectious diseases physician or pharmacist should be available to act on the results as soon as they become available. Most but not all positive experiences of using mRDTs come from large academic medical centers with robust antibiotic stewardship programs. As more outcome data emerge on mRDTs, clinicians will become more comfortable justifying their costs and using them in clinical practice.