Verification, Analytical Sensitivity, Cost-effectiveness, and Comparison of 4 Candida auris Screening Methods

Adam S Komorowski; Patryk Aftanas; Vanessa Porter; Kevin Katz; Robert A Kozak; Xena X Li

doi:10.1093/ofid/ofae017

Verification, Analytical Sensitivity, Cost-effectiveness, and Comparison of 4 Candida auris Screening Methods

Open Forum Infect Dis. 2024 Jan 10;11(6):ofae017. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofae017. eCollection 2024 Jun.

Authors

Adam S Komorowski^{1

2}, Patryk Aftanas³, Vanessa Porter³, Kevin Katz^{3

4

5

6}, Robert A Kozak^{3

4

5}, Xena X Li^{3

6}

Affiliations

¹ Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
² Department of Health Research Methodology, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
³ Shared Hospital Laboratory, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
⁴ Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
⁵ Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
⁶ Infection Prevention and Control, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

In this verification study, we compare and contrast the performance characteristics of chromogenic agar culture, direct polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and broth enrichment followed by culture or PCR for the detection of Candida auris colonization. We find that culture and PCR both offer excellent performance, with broth enrichment offering little performance advantage given its cost.

Keywords: Candida auris; antifungal drug resistance; carrier state; cost-effectiveness analysis; diagnostic screening programs.