Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Real-Time Genome Sequencing of Resistant Bacteria Provides Precision Infection Control in an Institutional Setting

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad

Check these out next

1 of 25 Ad

Real-Time Genome Sequencing of Resistant Bacteria Provides Precision Infection Control in an Institutional Setting

Download to read offline

http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/wgs-on-food-safety-management/en/

Real-Time Genome Sequencing of Resistant Bacteria Provides Precision Infection Control in an Institutional Setting. Presentation from the Technical Meeting on the impact of Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) on food safety management and GMI-9, 23-25 May 2016, Rome, Italy.

http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/wgs-on-food-safety-management/en/

Real-Time Genome Sequencing of Resistant Bacteria Provides Precision Infection Control in an Institutional Setting. Presentation from the Technical Meeting on the impact of Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) on food safety management and GMI-9, 23-25 May 2016, Rome, Italy.

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to Real-Time Genome Sequencing of Resistant Bacteria Provides Precision Infection Control in an Institutional Setting (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Real-Time Genome Sequencing of Resistant Bacteria Provides Precision Infection Control in an Institutional Setting

  1. 1. Real-Time Genome Sequencing of Resistant Bacteria Provides Precision Infection Control in an Institutional Setting Dag Harmsen University Hospital Münster, Germany
  2. 2. Antibiotic Resistance: a Global Concern “The problem is so serious that it threatens the achievements of modern medicine. A post-antibiotic era—in which common infections and minor injuries can kill—is a very real possibility for the 21st century.” www.who.int
  3. 3. Setting MRSA, VRE, carbapenem-resistant Gram- negative bacteria (4MDR-GN) are isolated on every ward carbapenem-susceptible but ß-lactame + quinolone-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (3MDR-GN) are isolated only on risk wards
  4. 4. Real-time WGS of Multidrug Resistant (MDR) Bacteria – an Interventional Study • Study goals – Interval I: Is prospective real-time WGS technical feasible on a daily basis and are the results available within a timeframe for infection control interventions? – Interval II: What is the real transmission rate of MDR bacteria – effects of intervention? – Is WGS-based surveillance cost-effective?
  5. 5. Study Timeline Documentation of – turn-around time (TAT) from sample entry to completed sequence (incl. potential repeated sequencing) – epidemiological data Interval I prospective real-time WGS of MRSA, VRE, MDR E. coli, MDR P. aeruginosa Interval II prospective real-time WGS of all MDR bacteria Intervention* change of infection control procedures *Managing board decided after Interval I to retain and expand WGS to all MDR bacterial species and to cost with institutional resources
  6. 6. WGS Methods • Overnight broth culture of pure culture • DNA extraction: Qiagen MagAttract HMW Kit • Library prep: Illumina Nextera XT; aiming for 100x coverage • 250 bp paired-end protocol (v2 chemistry) on a single Illumina MiSeq
  7. 7. Quality Control and Data nalysis • Sequencing run QC – cluster density and Q30 value above manufacturer´s specifications • Data analysis – de novo assembly (CLCbio GWB; Velvet) – SeqSphere+ software (Ridom) for extraction of cgMLST targets using species specific cgMLST schemes • Sequence quality / sample – % good cgMLST targets ≥ 95% → control of the whole procedure (lab & bioinformatics)
  8. 8. Interval I: Prospective Real-time WGS is Feasible • In total 645 MDR bacteria sequenced – 412 MRSA – 102 MDR E. coli – 79 VRE – 52 MDR P. aeruginosa • 58 runs (2-3 runs / week); one run failed due to low Q30 value (59%) • Mean 13 samples / run • 561 (87.0%) samples were immediately successfully sequenced
  9. 9. Interval I: Summary of Sequencing Results & TAT (n = 645 MDR bacteria) Organism (total no.) Mean % of successfully extracted cgMLST targets (total no. targets/scheme*) No. (%) of isolates that required repeated sequencing Mean (SD) turn- around time of all samples without repeaters in days Mean (SD) turn- around time of all samples including failed samples in days S. aureus (412) 98.5 (1861) 38 (9.2) 4.4 (1.6) 5.0 (2.6) E. coli (102) 99.2 (2325) 11 (10.8) 4.4 (1.4) 5.3 (3.0) E. faecium (79) 97.2 (2018) 20 (25.3) 4.1 (1.5) 6.2 (4.6) P. aeruginosa (52) 97.8 (3842) 15 (28.8) 4.8 (1.8) 6.8 (4.0) Total 98.4 84 (13.0) 4.4 (1.5) 5.3 (3.2) *for S. aureus see Leopold et al. 2014. JCM 52: 2365, PubMed ; for the other pathogens preliminary schemes were applied SD, standard deviation Mellmann et al., submitted
  10. 10. Interval I: WGS-based Typing of All MRSA Exhibiting 71 Different spa Types Epidemic curve of all 412 MRSA (each box = single isolate) Mellmann et al., submitted
  11. 11. Interval I: Diversity of LA-MRSA of spa Type t011 (n=66) Minimum-spanning tree based on allelic profiles based on 1,861 target genes, pairwise ignoring missing data (mean missing targets: 35); cluster threshold ≤ 6 differing alleles transmission unlikely transmission possible Mellmann et al., submitted
  12. 12. Interval I: Cost Calculation for Sequencing • Prerequisites – 645 isolates, overall including all repeats 752 samples sequenced – 13 samples / run • Included costs for – Reagents – Staff (experienced technician, E9 TVL) – Full depreciation of MiSeq and computer hardware (over 3 years, 1500 samples p.a.) and software licenses
  13. 13. Interval I: Costs for Sequencing Organism (total no.) € / sample (incl. VAT) € / isolate (incl. 16.6% repeated samples; incl. VAT) % of overall costs Reagents 122.26 142.54 70.4 Staff 16.89 19.69 9.7 Miseq and hardware depreciation, software licenses 33.54 40.27 19.9 Total 173.68 202.49 Mellmann et al., submitted
  14. 14. Interval I: Conclusions • WGS on a routine basis is feasible • Mean measured TAT of 4.4 to 5.3 days influence decisions to implement or change extraordinary infection control measures • Transmission events are rare in our setting
  15. 15. Intervention and Interval II • Change of infection control procedures (11 Jul 14) – Stopping of preemptive isolation of patients on risk wards (adult ICUs, adult & children cancer wards) carrying Gram-negative MDR resistant against Piperacillin + 3rd Gen. Cephalosporins + Fluorquinolones but susceptible against Carbapenems (i. e. 3MDR-GN) • Interval II: prospective WGS of all MDR bacteria (15 Oct 14 – 15 Apr 15)
  16. 16. Interval II: Sequenced MDR Bacteria • In total 598 isolates sequenced – MRSA (n=325) – E. coli (n=120) – VRE (n=56) – P. aeruginosa (n=49) – K. pneumoniae (n=25) – E. cloacae complex (n=11) – A. baumannii, E. aerogenes, P. mirabilis (each n=2) – C. freundii, E. faecalis, H. alvei, K. oxytoca, M. morganii, S. marcescens (each n=1) n=550
  17. 17. Transmission Rates of MRSA and 3MDR- GN E. coli During the Two Study Intervals Study interval Pathogen (no. of isolates / no. of total patient cases / no. of cases at risk wards) No. of genotypic clusters (maximal distance for cluster recognition) Epidemiological assessment of genotypic clusters Total no. of cases involved in probable transmissions (%) No. of cases at risk wards with changed infection control procedures for 3MDR- GN (%) during interval II Interval I MRSA (412 / 397 / 68) 32 (≤ 6 alleles) 8 clusters with probable transmissions 16 clusters with unlikely transmissions 8 times same patient but different colony morphology / phenotype 23 (5.8%) 15 (22.1%) E. coli (102 / 86 / 51) 13 (≤ 10 alleles) 1 cluster with probable transmission 1 cluster with unlikely transmissions 11 times same patient but different cases / colony morphology / phenotype 2 (2.3%) 2 (3.9%) Interval II MRSA (325 / 325 / 57) 15 (≤ 6 alleles) 6 clusters with probable transmissions 9 clusters with unlikely transmissions 14 (4.3%) 6 (10.5%) E. coli (120 / 120 / 45) 8 (≤ 10 alleles) 1 cluster with probable transmissions 7 clusters with unlikely transmissions 6 (5.0%) 0 (0%) Mellmann et al., submitted
  18. 18. Cost-efficiency in Our Hospital Setting? - Assumptions - • Beds in multi-bed rooms are blocked if a patient is positive for MDR – these indirect costs are even higher than direct costs, i.e. contact precautions – Herr et al. (ICHE 24: 673, 2003; PubMed) calculated 371.95 € for both for a German non-ICU surgical ward in year 2000 • Mean % occupied beds – 85.0 % (2013) – 85.3 % (2014)
  19. 19. WGS-based Surveillance is Cost-effective • Interval I – Overall sequencing costs: 130,608.84 € – Costs for isolation calculated for blocked beds only for 52 cases with 3MDR-GN at risk wards (mean residence time in isolation: 19.7 days): 323,871.74 € • Interval II – Overall sequencing costs: 111,371.88 € – Avoided costs due to avoided isolation of 56 cases with 3MDR-GN at risk wards (mean residency time after MDR detection: 17.9 days): 317,180.37 € – Overall savings: 205.808,49 € Mellmann et al., submitted
  20. 20. Laboratory Workflow Improvements • Manual DNA extraction (Köser et al. 2013. JAC 69: 1275, PubMed) and library preparation starting from a pure culture • 50% dilution of library reagents (≈ Baym et al. 2015. PLoS One 10: e0131262, PubMed) • After finishing of pipelines, the technician does QC of runs and samples (failed samples are then repeated immediately)
  21. 21. Bioinformatic Workflow Improvements • SeqSphere+ pipelines automatically de novo assembles the data and triggers cluster early warnings – 3 pipelines on independent hardware systems (≥ 32 GB RAM, 4-10 cores, all Windows 7/2008 server) simultaneously monitor the MiSeq for new data and feed into the same database (Windows 2008 Server) to accelerate data analysis • A physician checks results and correlates typing data with epi-data → triggering of infection control measures in case of likely transmission events
  22. 22. Summary • Transmissions are quite rare; exclusions of transmissions are most common situations • Rule-out majority of isolates easy with NGS; rule- in requires extra epidemiologic information • WGS-based surveillance is cost effective • Patients´ benefits after translation of our findings to routine management of bacterial infections – No general preemptive isolation of patients with 3MDR- GN (only in suspected cluster situations) – Avoiding the negative effects of isolation increase quality of patient care (Saint et al. 2003. AJIC 31: 354, PubMed; Tarzi et al. 2001. JHI 49: 250, PubMed) – Increased control of standard hygiene measures
  23. 23. Acknowledgements • Inst. Hygiene, Univ. Hosp. Münster, Germany – U. Keckevoet, I. Höfig, T. Boeking, S. Bletz , A. Mellmann • Dept. Periodontology, Univ. Hosp. Münster, Germany – A. Schultes, K. Prior • Ridom GmbH, Münster – J. Rothgänger European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research
  24. 24. Real-Time Genome Sequencing of Resistant Bacteria Provides Precision Infection Control in an Institutional Setting Dag Harmsen University Hospital Münster, Germany
  25. 25. Interval I: Reasons for Sequencing Failures Organism (total no.) Reasons for sequencing failure (no. of samples) S. aureus (412) low coverage* (22) sequencing run failure (12) primary base calling failure (4) E. coli (102) low coverage* (10) sequencing run failure (1) E. faecium (79) low coverage* (14) mixed culture (5) sequencing run failure (1) P. aeruginosa (52) low coverage* (10) sequencing run failure (5) Total low coverage* (56) sequencing run failure (19) mixed culture (5) primary base calling failure (4) * The low coverage led to a failure to achieve ≥ 95 % successfully extracted cgMLST targets. Mellmann et al., submitted

×