Cargando…
Real-Life Experience and Diagnostic Utility of the BioFire Joint Infection PCR Panel in Bone and Joint Infections: Analysis of a Prospective Validation Study
INTRODUCTION: Microbiological diagnosis is central for adequate treatment of bone and joint infections. Culture-based methods have a limited diagnostic sensitivity and a long turnaround time (TAT). The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of BioFire Joint Infection Panel...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10229488/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37129850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40121-023-00809-x |
_version_ | 1785051267640328192 |
---|---|
author | Hoffman, Tomer Kriger, Or Cohen, Shoshana Gefen-Halevi, Shiraz Yahav, Dafna Amit, Sharon |
author_facet | Hoffman, Tomer Kriger, Or Cohen, Shoshana Gefen-Halevi, Shiraz Yahav, Dafna Amit, Sharon |
author_sort | Hoffman, Tomer |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Microbiological diagnosis is central for adequate treatment of bone and joint infections. Culture-based methods have a limited diagnostic sensitivity and a long turnaround time (TAT). The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of BioFire Joint Infection Panel Investigational Use Only version (hereafter BioFire)—a sample-to-result multiplex PCR panel—with culture-based methods and 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) PCR and sequencing, when available. METHODS: This study presents a retrospective analysis of a prospective validation study of the BioFire panel. Specimens were obtained from consecutive patients evaluated for suspected bone and joint infections and processed using culture, BioFire, and 16S rRNA PCR and sequencing. Final clinical diagnosis was used as the reference for definition of infection. RESULTS: Samples, including synovial fluid, bone and periarticular tissue, were obtained from 57 patients, 39 of whom were finally diagnosed with a bone or joint infection. Cultures were positive in 27/39 infected patients and in 3/18 uninfected patients (sensitivity 69%, specificity 83%). BioFire was positive in 22/39 infected patients and in none of the uninfected patients (sensitivity 56%, specificity 100%). Sensitivity for PCR panel organisms was 92% (22/24) and sensitivity for organisms identified by any microbiological modality was 69% (22/32). Gram stain results were positive in 13/39 infected patients and in none of the uninfected patients (sensitivity 33%, specificity 100%). 16S rRNA was positive in 20/28 infected patients and in 0/12 uninfected patients (sensitivity 71%, specificity 100%). Net machine time for BioFire—1 h—was shorter than the mean TAT for Gram stain results, which was 4 h. CONCLUSION: BioFire offered equivalent diagnostic performance with superior TAT for bone and joint infections, compared with conventional methods. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-023-00809-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10229488 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Healthcare |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102294882023-06-01 Real-Life Experience and Diagnostic Utility of the BioFire Joint Infection PCR Panel in Bone and Joint Infections: Analysis of a Prospective Validation Study Hoffman, Tomer Kriger, Or Cohen, Shoshana Gefen-Halevi, Shiraz Yahav, Dafna Amit, Sharon Infect Dis Ther Brief Report INTRODUCTION: Microbiological diagnosis is central for adequate treatment of bone and joint infections. Culture-based methods have a limited diagnostic sensitivity and a long turnaround time (TAT). The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of BioFire Joint Infection Panel Investigational Use Only version (hereafter BioFire)—a sample-to-result multiplex PCR panel—with culture-based methods and 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) PCR and sequencing, when available. METHODS: This study presents a retrospective analysis of a prospective validation study of the BioFire panel. Specimens were obtained from consecutive patients evaluated for suspected bone and joint infections and processed using culture, BioFire, and 16S rRNA PCR and sequencing. Final clinical diagnosis was used as the reference for definition of infection. RESULTS: Samples, including synovial fluid, bone and periarticular tissue, were obtained from 57 patients, 39 of whom were finally diagnosed with a bone or joint infection. Cultures were positive in 27/39 infected patients and in 3/18 uninfected patients (sensitivity 69%, specificity 83%). BioFire was positive in 22/39 infected patients and in none of the uninfected patients (sensitivity 56%, specificity 100%). Sensitivity for PCR panel organisms was 92% (22/24) and sensitivity for organisms identified by any microbiological modality was 69% (22/32). Gram stain results were positive in 13/39 infected patients and in none of the uninfected patients (sensitivity 33%, specificity 100%). 16S rRNA was positive in 20/28 infected patients and in 0/12 uninfected patients (sensitivity 71%, specificity 100%). Net machine time for BioFire—1 h—was shorter than the mean TAT for Gram stain results, which was 4 h. CONCLUSION: BioFire offered equivalent diagnostic performance with superior TAT for bone and joint infections, compared with conventional methods. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-023-00809-x. Springer Healthcare 2023-05-02 2023-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10229488/ /pubmed/37129850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40121-023-00809-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Brief Report Hoffman, Tomer Kriger, Or Cohen, Shoshana Gefen-Halevi, Shiraz Yahav, Dafna Amit, Sharon Real-Life Experience and Diagnostic Utility of the BioFire Joint Infection PCR Panel in Bone and Joint Infections: Analysis of a Prospective Validation Study |
title | Real-Life Experience and Diagnostic Utility of the BioFire Joint Infection PCR Panel in Bone and Joint Infections: Analysis of a Prospective Validation Study |
title_full | Real-Life Experience and Diagnostic Utility of the BioFire Joint Infection PCR Panel in Bone and Joint Infections: Analysis of a Prospective Validation Study |
title_fullStr | Real-Life Experience and Diagnostic Utility of the BioFire Joint Infection PCR Panel in Bone and Joint Infections: Analysis of a Prospective Validation Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Real-Life Experience and Diagnostic Utility of the BioFire Joint Infection PCR Panel in Bone and Joint Infections: Analysis of a Prospective Validation Study |
title_short | Real-Life Experience and Diagnostic Utility of the BioFire Joint Infection PCR Panel in Bone and Joint Infections: Analysis of a Prospective Validation Study |
title_sort | real-life experience and diagnostic utility of the biofire joint infection pcr panel in bone and joint infections: analysis of a prospective validation study |
topic | Brief Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10229488/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37129850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40121-023-00809-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hoffmantomer reallifeexperienceanddiagnosticutilityofthebiofirejointinfectionpcrpanelinboneandjointinfectionsanalysisofaprospectivevalidationstudy AT krigeror reallifeexperienceanddiagnosticutilityofthebiofirejointinfectionpcrpanelinboneandjointinfectionsanalysisofaprospectivevalidationstudy AT cohenshoshana reallifeexperienceanddiagnosticutilityofthebiofirejointinfectionpcrpanelinboneandjointinfectionsanalysisofaprospectivevalidationstudy AT gefenhalevishiraz reallifeexperienceanddiagnosticutilityofthebiofirejointinfectionpcrpanelinboneandjointinfectionsanalysisofaprospectivevalidationstudy AT yahavdafna reallifeexperienceanddiagnosticutilityofthebiofirejointinfectionpcrpanelinboneandjointinfectionsanalysisofaprospectivevalidationstudy AT amitsharon reallifeexperienceanddiagnosticutilityofthebiofirejointinfectionpcrpanelinboneandjointinfectionsanalysisofaprospectivevalidationstudy |