Changing Diagnostic Testing Practices for Foodborne Pathogens, Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, 2012–2019

Author:

Ray Logan C1ORCID,Griffin Patricia M1,Wymore Katie2,Wilson Elisha3,Hurd Sharon4,LaClair Bethany5,Wozny Sophia6,Eikmeier Dana7,Nicholson Cyndy8,Burzlaff Kari9,Hatch Julie10,Fankhauser Melissa11,Kubota Kristy12,Huang Jennifer Y1,Geissler Aimee1,Payne Daniel C1,Tack Danielle M1

Affiliation:

1. Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, Georgia , USA

2. California Department of Public Health, Sacramento, California , USA

3. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment , Denver, Colorado , USA

4. Connecticut Emerging Infections Program , New Haven, Connecticut , USA

5. Georgia Department of Public Health , Atlanta, Georgia , USA

6. Maryland Department of Health , Baltimore, Maryland , USA

7. Minnesota Department of Health , St. Paul, Minnesota , USA

8. New Mexico Emerging Infections Program , Albuquerque, New Mexico , USA

9. New York State Department of Health , Buffalo, New York , USA

10. Oregon Health Authority , Salem, Oregon , USA

11. Tennessee Department of Health , Nashville, Tennessee , USA

12. Association of Public Health Laboratories , Silver Spring, Maryland , USA

Abstract

Abstract Background Pathogen detection has changed with increased use of culture-independent diagnostic tests (CIDTs). CIDTs do not yield isolates, which are necessary to detect outbreaks using whole-genome sequencing. The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) monitors clinical laboratory testing practices to improve interpretation of surveillance data and assess availability of isolates. We describe changes in practices over 8 years. Methods During 2012–2019, 10 FoodNet sites collected standardized data about practices in clinical laboratories (range, 664–723 laboratories) for select enteric pathogens. We assessed changes in practices. Results During 2012–2019, the percentage of laboratories that used only culture methods decreased, with the largest declines for Vibrio (99%–57%) and Yersinia (99%–60%). During 2019, the percentage of laboratories using only CIDTs was highest for Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli (43%), Campylobacter (34%), and Vibrio (34%). From 2015 to 2019, the percentage of laboratories that performed reflex culture after a positive CIDT decreased, with the largest declines for Shigella (75%–42%) and Salmonella (70%–38%). The percentage of laboratories that routinely submitted isolates to a public health laboratory decreased for all bacterial pathogens examined from 2015 to 2019. Conclusions By increasing use of CIDTs and decreasing reflex culture, clinical laboratories have transferred the burden of isolate recovery to public health laboratories. Until technologies allow for molecular subtyping directly from a patient specimen, state public health laboratories should consider updating enteric disease reporting requirements to include submission of isolates or specimens. Public health laboratories need resources for isolate recovery.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Infectious Diseases,Oncology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3