A retrospective observational study of mNGS test utilization to examine the role of diagnostic stewardship at two academic medical centers.

Abstract

Given the cost and unclear clinical impact of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), laboratory stewardship may improve utilization. This retrospective observational study examines mNGS results from two academic medical centers employing different stewardship approaches. Eighty mNGS orders [54 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and 26 plasma] were identified from 2019 to 2021 at the University of Washington (UW), which requires director-level approval for mNGS orders, and the University of Utah (Utah), which does not restrict ordering. The impact of mNGS results and the relationship to traditional microbiology orders were evaluated. Nineteen percent (10/54) of CSF and 65% (17/26) of plasma studies detected at least one organism. Compared to CSF results, plasma results more frequently identified clinically significant organisms (31% vs 7%) and pathogens not detected by traditional methods (12% vs 0%). Antibiotic management was more frequently impacted by plasma versus CSF results (31% vs 4%). These outcome measures were not statistically different between study sites. The number and cumulative cost of traditional microbiology tests at UW were greater than Utah for CSF mNGS testing (UW: 46 tests, $6,237; Utah: 26 tests, $2,812; P < 0.05) but similar for plasma mNGS (UW: 31 tests, $3,975; Utah: 21 tests, $2,715; P = 0.14). mNGS testing accounted for 30%-50% of the total microbiology costs. Improving the diagnostic performance of mNGS by stewardship remains challenging due to low positivity rates and difficulties assessing clinical impact. From a fiscal perspective, stewardship efforts should focus on reducing testing in low-yield populations given the high costs of mNGS relative to overall microbiology testing expenditures.

Importance: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) stewardship practices remain poorly standardized. This study aims to provide actionable insights for institutions that seek to reduce the unnecessary usage of mNGS. Importantly, we highlight that clinical impact remains challenging to measure without standardized guidelines, and we provide an actual cost estimate of microbiology expenditures on individuals undergoing mNGS.