Cargando…

Performance of a Semiquantitative Multiplex Bacterial and Viral PCR Panel Compared With Standard Microbiological Laboratory Results: 396 Patients Studied With the BioFire Pneumonia Panel

BACKGROUND: Microbiologic results are critical to optimal management of patients with lower respiratory tract infection, but standard methods may take several days. The multiplex polymerase chain reaction BioFire Pneumonia (PN) panel detects 15 common bacterial species semiquantitatively as copy num...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rand, Kenneth H, Beal, Stacy G, Cherabuddi, Kartikeya, Couturier, Brianne, Lingenfelter, Beth, Rindlisbacher, Cory, Jones, Jay, Houck, Herbert J, Lessard, Kylie J, Tremblay, Elizabeth E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33447631
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa560
_version_ 1783633996268175360
author Rand, Kenneth H
Beal, Stacy G
Cherabuddi, Kartikeya
Couturier, Brianne
Lingenfelter, Beth
Rindlisbacher, Cory
Jones, Jay
Houck, Herbert J
Lessard, Kylie J
Tremblay, Elizabeth E
author_facet Rand, Kenneth H
Beal, Stacy G
Cherabuddi, Kartikeya
Couturier, Brianne
Lingenfelter, Beth
Rindlisbacher, Cory
Jones, Jay
Houck, Herbert J
Lessard, Kylie J
Tremblay, Elizabeth E
author_sort Rand, Kenneth H
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Microbiologic results are critical to optimal management of patients with lower respiratory tract infection, but standard methods may take several days. The multiplex polymerase chain reaction BioFire Pneumonia (PN) panel detects 15 common bacterial species semiquantitatively as copy number/mL, 8 viral species, and 7 resistance genes in about an hour within the clinical laboratory. METHODS: We tested 396 unique endotracheal or bronchoalveolar lavage specimens with the BioFire Pneumonia panel and compared the bacterial detections to conventional gram stain and culture results. RESULTS: Of the 396 patients, 138 grew at least 1 bacterium that had a target on the PN panel, and 136/138 (98.6%) were detected by the panel. A total of 177 isolates were recovered in culture and the PN panel detected 174/177 (98.3%). A further 20% of patients had additional targets detected that were not found on standard culture (specificity 69%, positive predictive value 63%, and negative predictive value 98.9%). Copy number was strongly related to standard semiquantitative growth on plates reported by the laboratory (eg, 1+, 2+, 3+ growths) and was significantly higher in those specimens that grew a potential pathogen. Both higher copy number and bacterial detections found by the PN panel, but not found in culture, were strongly positively related to the level of white blood cells reported in the initial gram stain. CONCLUSIONS: Higher copy number and bacterial detections by the PN panel are related to the host respiratory tract inflammatory response. If laboratories can achieve a rapid turnaround time, the PN panel should have a significant impact both on patient management and on antibiotic stewardship.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7793460
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77934602021-01-13 Performance of a Semiquantitative Multiplex Bacterial and Viral PCR Panel Compared With Standard Microbiological Laboratory Results: 396 Patients Studied With the BioFire Pneumonia Panel Rand, Kenneth H Beal, Stacy G Cherabuddi, Kartikeya Couturier, Brianne Lingenfelter, Beth Rindlisbacher, Cory Jones, Jay Houck, Herbert J Lessard, Kylie J Tremblay, Elizabeth E Open Forum Infect Dis Major Articles BACKGROUND: Microbiologic results are critical to optimal management of patients with lower respiratory tract infection, but standard methods may take several days. The multiplex polymerase chain reaction BioFire Pneumonia (PN) panel detects 15 common bacterial species semiquantitatively as copy number/mL, 8 viral species, and 7 resistance genes in about an hour within the clinical laboratory. METHODS: We tested 396 unique endotracheal or bronchoalveolar lavage specimens with the BioFire Pneumonia panel and compared the bacterial detections to conventional gram stain and culture results. RESULTS: Of the 396 patients, 138 grew at least 1 bacterium that had a target on the PN panel, and 136/138 (98.6%) were detected by the panel. A total of 177 isolates were recovered in culture and the PN panel detected 174/177 (98.3%). A further 20% of patients had additional targets detected that were not found on standard culture (specificity 69%, positive predictive value 63%, and negative predictive value 98.9%). Copy number was strongly related to standard semiquantitative growth on plates reported by the laboratory (eg, 1+, 2+, 3+ growths) and was significantly higher in those specimens that grew a potential pathogen. Both higher copy number and bacterial detections found by the PN panel, but not found in culture, were strongly positively related to the level of white blood cells reported in the initial gram stain. CONCLUSIONS: Higher copy number and bacterial detections by the PN panel are related to the host respiratory tract inflammatory response. If laboratories can achieve a rapid turnaround time, the PN panel should have a significant impact both on patient management and on antibiotic stewardship. Oxford University Press 2020-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7793460/ /pubmed/33447631 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa560 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Major Articles
Rand, Kenneth H
Beal, Stacy G
Cherabuddi, Kartikeya
Couturier, Brianne
Lingenfelter, Beth
Rindlisbacher, Cory
Jones, Jay
Houck, Herbert J
Lessard, Kylie J
Tremblay, Elizabeth E
Performance of a Semiquantitative Multiplex Bacterial and Viral PCR Panel Compared With Standard Microbiological Laboratory Results: 396 Patients Studied With the BioFire Pneumonia Panel
title Performance of a Semiquantitative Multiplex Bacterial and Viral PCR Panel Compared With Standard Microbiological Laboratory Results: 396 Patients Studied With the BioFire Pneumonia Panel
title_full Performance of a Semiquantitative Multiplex Bacterial and Viral PCR Panel Compared With Standard Microbiological Laboratory Results: 396 Patients Studied With the BioFire Pneumonia Panel
title_fullStr Performance of a Semiquantitative Multiplex Bacterial and Viral PCR Panel Compared With Standard Microbiological Laboratory Results: 396 Patients Studied With the BioFire Pneumonia Panel
title_full_unstemmed Performance of a Semiquantitative Multiplex Bacterial and Viral PCR Panel Compared With Standard Microbiological Laboratory Results: 396 Patients Studied With the BioFire Pneumonia Panel
title_short Performance of a Semiquantitative Multiplex Bacterial and Viral PCR Panel Compared With Standard Microbiological Laboratory Results: 396 Patients Studied With the BioFire Pneumonia Panel
title_sort performance of a semiquantitative multiplex bacterial and viral pcr panel compared with standard microbiological laboratory results: 396 patients studied with the biofire pneumonia panel
topic Major Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33447631
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa560
work_keys_str_mv AT randkennethh performanceofasemiquantitativemultiplexbacterialandviralpcrpanelcomparedwithstandardmicrobiologicallaboratoryresults396patientsstudiedwiththebiofirepneumoniapanel
AT bealstacyg performanceofasemiquantitativemultiplexbacterialandviralpcrpanelcomparedwithstandardmicrobiologicallaboratoryresults396patientsstudiedwiththebiofirepneumoniapanel
AT cherabuddikartikeya performanceofasemiquantitativemultiplexbacterialandviralpcrpanelcomparedwithstandardmicrobiologicallaboratoryresults396patientsstudiedwiththebiofirepneumoniapanel
AT couturierbrianne performanceofasemiquantitativemultiplexbacterialandviralpcrpanelcomparedwithstandardmicrobiologicallaboratoryresults396patientsstudiedwiththebiofirepneumoniapanel
AT lingenfelterbeth performanceofasemiquantitativemultiplexbacterialandviralpcrpanelcomparedwithstandardmicrobiologicallaboratoryresults396patientsstudiedwiththebiofirepneumoniapanel
AT rindlisbachercory performanceofasemiquantitativemultiplexbacterialandviralpcrpanelcomparedwithstandardmicrobiologicallaboratoryresults396patientsstudiedwiththebiofirepneumoniapanel
AT jonesjay performanceofasemiquantitativemultiplexbacterialandviralpcrpanelcomparedwithstandardmicrobiologicallaboratoryresults396patientsstudiedwiththebiofirepneumoniapanel
AT houckherbertj performanceofasemiquantitativemultiplexbacterialandviralpcrpanelcomparedwithstandardmicrobiologicallaboratoryresults396patientsstudiedwiththebiofirepneumoniapanel
AT lessardkyliej performanceofasemiquantitativemultiplexbacterialandviralpcrpanelcomparedwithstandardmicrobiologicallaboratoryresults396patientsstudiedwiththebiofirepneumoniapanel
AT tremblayelizabethe performanceofasemiquantitativemultiplexbacterialandviralpcrpanelcomparedwithstandardmicrobiologicallaboratoryresults396patientsstudiedwiththebiofirepneumoniapanel