Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-54cdcc668b-gpwtm Total loading time: 0.508 Render date: 2021-03-08T16:56:40.092Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Challenges in Identification of Candida auris in Hospital Laboratories: Comparison Between HIC and LMIC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2020

Sharmila Sengupta
Affiliation:
National Center for Infectious Diseases, Singapore
Kalisvar Marimuthu
Affiliation:
Tan Tock Seng Hospital
Andrew Stewardson
Affiliation:
Monash University
Stephan Harbarth
Affiliation:
Geneva University Hospitals
Amanda Durante
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Sanjeev Singh
Affiliation:
Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Candida auris is an emerging nosocomial fungal pathogen causing invasive illness and outbreaks worldwide. A major issue regarding C. auris is that it can be misidentified unless appropriate technology is used. We conducted a survey of available methods for identification of C. auris in 21 hospital laboratories in India regarding their protocols for prevention of C. auris infection. Methods: The survey was an adaptation of a similar survey conducted for the Connecticut Laboratory Response Network in 2017. We mailed the survey to 30 microbiologists and ID physicians, and 21 of them from 12 states responded. All respondents were from private acute-care and teaching hospitals. The responses were analyzed and compared to the Connecticut study. Results: Of 21 hospitals, 19 (90.5%) can identify C. auris in house. Also, 18 (85.7%) have identified C. auris in the past 18 months. Species level identification was done only for blood cultures in all hospitals. Only 5 (26%) laboratories speciated Candida spp isolated from other sites such as respiratory and urinary specimens. Automated systems were used like Vitek 2 in 16 (84.2%), Phoenix BD in 2(10.5%) and Microscan in 1(5.26%) laboratory. MALDI-TOF MS and PCR for identification were used in 2 laboratories. Antifungal susceptibility testing is done in-house in 19 (90.5%) laboratories. Only 10 (52.6%) responding hospitals from India had infection prevention protocols for C. auris, and 9 (47.4%) of them isolated patients. The major challenges for infection prevention with C. auris are absence of screening in high-risk patients (66.7%), misidentification by automated systems (84.2%), and inability to speciate from nonsterile sites underestimates the prevalence (100%). Conclusions: There is an urgent need to enhance the capacity of hospital laboratories to detect C. auris early, and to implement infection prevention measures. In both studies early detection is the key and as suggested by the US authors, challenges can be overcome through collaboration between hospitals and referral laboratories when resources are limited. This optimizes laboratory capacity and prevents global spread through colonized patients. The limitation of this study is that data from public hospitals are unknown and larger studies are needed.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 71 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 02nd November 2020 - 8th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Challenges in Identification of Candida auris in Hospital Laboratories: Comparison Between HIC and LMIC
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Challenges in Identification of Candida auris in Hospital Laboratories: Comparison Between HIC and LMIC
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Challenges in Identification of Candida auris in Hospital Laboratories: Comparison Between HIC and LMIC
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *