Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
Challenges in identifying Candida auris in hospital clinical laboratories: a need for hospital and public health laboratory collaboration in rapid identification of an emerging pathogen
Amanda J. Durante PhD1,2, Meghan H. Maloney MPH1, Vivian H. Leung MD1,3, Jafar H. Razeq PhD1,4 and
David B. Banach MD2 1Connecticut Department of Public Health, Healthcare-Associated Infections/Antimicrobial Resistance Program, Hartford, CT, 2University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, 3Epidemic Intelligence Service, Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA and 4Katherine A. Kelley State Public Health Laboratory, Rocky Hill, CT
To the Editors—Candida auris is an emerging fungus that poses a considerable threat to US healthcare facilities and their patients. Patients exposed to C. auris can develop invasive infection, which can be fatal,1 or can become colonized, which poses long-term transmission risks. Once introduced into a healthcare facility, C. auris can spread through contact with affected patients and contaminated surfaces.2 The organism can persist in the envir- onment,3 and quaternary ammonium disinfectants demonstrate poor activity against it.4 Candida auris is often multidrug-resis- tant,1,4 and its detection is challenging because it can be mis- identified by some biochemically based identification methods. For example, the API 20 C (bioMerieux, Marcy-l’Etoile, France) can misidentify C. auris as C. sake or Rhodotorula glutinis, and the Vitek 2 (bioMerieux) can misidentify C. auris as C. haemu- lonii or C. duobushaemulonii.5 Rapid and accurate C. auris detection would help hospitals to guide infection control activities intended to prevent the spread of the fungus within and between facilities and to properly plan antifungal treatment. We surveyed laboratories that serve Connecticut’s acute-care hospitals to assess their capability to identify C. auris. The information was collected to guide statewide hospital prevention efforts. During August 2017, we conducted an online survey of C. auris identification and susceptibility testing methods and protocols of hospital-based laboratories. The survey was adapted from an instrument designed by the New Jersey Department of Public Health and was distributed through the Connecticut Laboratory Response Network. Frequency distributions and cross tabulations of survey data were calculated, and results were reviewed by public health and healthcare stakeholders to identify C. auris detection gaps. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed this study for human subjects protection and deemed it to be a nonresearch study. Of 23 hospital laboratories, 21 responded to the survey. Of the responding laboratories, 4 contract commercial laboratories for fungal identification, while 17 perform onsite identification. The 17 hospital laboratories that perform onsite fungal identification reported their testing methods. These 17 laboratories serve 80% of Connecticut’s acute-care hospitals. Of these 17 hospital labora- tories, 16 (94%) perform species-level identification for all sterile site isolates. Species-level identification is performed for all
Author for correspondence: Amanda J. Durante, PhD, Immunization Program,
Connecticut Department of Public Health, 410 Capitol Avenue, MS # 11MUN, Hartford, CT, 06134-0308. E-mail:
amanda.durante@ct.gov
Cite this article: Durante AJ, et al. (2018). Challenges in identifying Candida auris in
hospital clinical laboratories: a need for hospital and public health laboratory collaboration in rapid identification of an emerging pathogen. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2018, 39, 1015–1016. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.133
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.
respiratory Candida isolates at 9 of these laboratories and for all urine Candida isolates at 11 of these laboratories. Only 5 laboratories routinely use matrix-assisted laser desorption/ioni- zation-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectroscopy for species- level Candida identification with a database that can accurately identify C. auris, although none use automated C. auris alert flags. Furthermore, 11 laboratories routinely use systems for species-level Candida identification that can misidentify or fail to identify C. auris, including the Vitek 2 (6 laboratories), the API 20 C (3 laboratories), the Remel RapID YEAST PLUS (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Lenexa, KS) (1 laboratory), and culture on cornmeal agar (1 laboratory). Of these laboratories, 5 have a protocol for the investigation of suspect isolates; however, only 2 have automated alert flags for suspect C. auris misidentifications. Only 2 laboratories perform onsite antifungal susceptibility testing on Candida isolates. Our survey findings demonstrate considerable diversity in
Candida identification methods used by Connecticut hospital laboratories and highlight challenges in rapid C. auris detection. Only a minority of laboratories have the capacity to accurately detect C. auris, although most use systems for which fungal misidentifications have been characterized (Vitek 2 and API 20 C). This characterization provides an opportunity to implement automated alert flags and protocols for the investigation of potentially misidentified C. auris that are not routinely used. All laboratories that perform species-level identification do so for
all sterile-site isolates. However, species-level identification is not performed on all non–sterile-site isolates at some laboratories, which could further limit C. auris detection. Approximately 50% of US clinical C. auris isolates are identified from nonsterile sites,6 although guidance on the optimal strategy for their identification is limited.7 These results represent laboratories that serve most of Con-
necticut’s acute-care hospitals. Although our conclusions are strengthened by a high response rate, we recognize the limitation of not having data from commercial laboratories that serve some acute-care hospitals as well as long-term acute-care facilities, where transmission may also occur.2 Candida species-level identification methods used in Connecticut hospital laboratories could limit the sensitivity and timeliness of C. auris detection, which could delay the implementation of control measures. The Connecticut Department of Public Health has advised
hospitals without appropriate methodology for C. auris species characterization or with isolates that are unidentified or suspect for C. auris to contact the health department for guidance.8 Additionally, as of November 1, 2017, the Connecticut Public Health Laboratory began offering C. auris testing, using poly- merase chain reaction and MALDI-TOF, to Connecticut
1015
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
