Cargando…

Revised version (INFD-D-20-00242): impact of 16S rDNA sequencing on clinical treatment decisions: a single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND: PCRs targeting 16S ribosomal DNA (16S PCR) followed by Sanger’s sequencing can identify bacteria from normally sterile sites and complement standard analyzes, but they are expensive. We conducted a retrospective study in the Strasbourg University Hospital to assess the clinical impact of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ursenbach, Axel, Schramm, Frédéric, Séverac, François, Hansmann, Yves, Lefebvre, Nicolas, Ruch, Yvon, Argemi, Xavier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7890971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33602178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-05892-4
_version_ 1783652606520852480
author Ursenbach, Axel
Schramm, Frédéric
Séverac, François
Hansmann, Yves
Lefebvre, Nicolas
Ruch, Yvon
Argemi, Xavier
author_facet Ursenbach, Axel
Schramm, Frédéric
Séverac, François
Hansmann, Yves
Lefebvre, Nicolas
Ruch, Yvon
Argemi, Xavier
author_sort Ursenbach, Axel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: PCRs targeting 16S ribosomal DNA (16S PCR) followed by Sanger’s sequencing can identify bacteria from normally sterile sites and complement standard analyzes, but they are expensive. We conducted a retrospective study in the Strasbourg University Hospital to assess the clinical impact of 16S PCR sequencing on patients’ treatments according to different sample types. METHODS: From 2014 to 2018, 806 16S PCR samples were processed, and 191 of those were positive. RESULTS: Overall, the test impacted the treatment of 62 of the 191 patients (32%). The antibiotic treatment was rationalized in 31 patients (50%) and extended in 24 patients (39%), and an invasive procedure was chosen for 7 patients (11%) due to the 16S PCR sequencing results. Positive 16S PCR sequencing results on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) had a greater impact on patients’ management than positive ones on cardiac valves (p = 0.044). The clinical impact of positive 16S PCR sequencing results were significantly higher when blood cultures were negative (p < 0.001), and this difference appeared larger when both blood and sample cultures were negative (p < 0.001). The diagnostic contribution of 16S PCR was higher in patients with previous antibiotic treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In all, 16S PCR analysis has a significant clinical impact on patient management, particularly for suspected CSF infections, for patients with culture-negative samples and for those with previous antibiotic treatments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-021-05892-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7890971
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78909712021-02-22 Revised version (INFD-D-20-00242): impact of 16S rDNA sequencing on clinical treatment decisions: a single center retrospective study Ursenbach, Axel Schramm, Frédéric Séverac, François Hansmann, Yves Lefebvre, Nicolas Ruch, Yvon Argemi, Xavier BMC Infect Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: PCRs targeting 16S ribosomal DNA (16S PCR) followed by Sanger’s sequencing can identify bacteria from normally sterile sites and complement standard analyzes, but they are expensive. We conducted a retrospective study in the Strasbourg University Hospital to assess the clinical impact of 16S PCR sequencing on patients’ treatments according to different sample types. METHODS: From 2014 to 2018, 806 16S PCR samples were processed, and 191 of those were positive. RESULTS: Overall, the test impacted the treatment of 62 of the 191 patients (32%). The antibiotic treatment was rationalized in 31 patients (50%) and extended in 24 patients (39%), and an invasive procedure was chosen for 7 patients (11%) due to the 16S PCR sequencing results. Positive 16S PCR sequencing results on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) had a greater impact on patients’ management than positive ones on cardiac valves (p = 0.044). The clinical impact of positive 16S PCR sequencing results were significantly higher when blood cultures were negative (p < 0.001), and this difference appeared larger when both blood and sample cultures were negative (p < 0.001). The diagnostic contribution of 16S PCR was higher in patients with previous antibiotic treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In all, 16S PCR analysis has a significant clinical impact on patient management, particularly for suspected CSF infections, for patients with culture-negative samples and for those with previous antibiotic treatments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-021-05892-4. BioMed Central 2021-02-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7890971/ /pubmed/33602178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-05892-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits 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/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ursenbach, Axel
Schramm, Frédéric
Séverac, François
Hansmann, Yves
Lefebvre, Nicolas
Ruch, Yvon
Argemi, Xavier
Revised version (INFD-D-20-00242): impact of 16S rDNA sequencing on clinical treatment decisions: a single center retrospective study
title Revised version (INFD-D-20-00242): impact of 16S rDNA sequencing on clinical treatment decisions: a single center retrospective study
title_full Revised version (INFD-D-20-00242): impact of 16S rDNA sequencing on clinical treatment decisions: a single center retrospective study
title_fullStr Revised version (INFD-D-20-00242): impact of 16S rDNA sequencing on clinical treatment decisions: a single center retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed Revised version (INFD-D-20-00242): impact of 16S rDNA sequencing on clinical treatment decisions: a single center retrospective study
title_short Revised version (INFD-D-20-00242): impact of 16S rDNA sequencing on clinical treatment decisions: a single center retrospective study
title_sort revised version (infd-d-20-00242): impact of 16s rdna sequencing on clinical treatment decisions: a single center retrospective study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7890971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33602178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-05892-4
work_keys_str_mv AT ursenbachaxel revisedversioninfdd2000242impactof16srdnasequencingonclinicaltreatmentdecisionsasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT schrammfrederic revisedversioninfdd2000242impactof16srdnasequencingonclinicaltreatmentdecisionsasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT severacfrancois revisedversioninfdd2000242impactof16srdnasequencingonclinicaltreatmentdecisionsasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT hansmannyves revisedversioninfdd2000242impactof16srdnasequencingonclinicaltreatmentdecisionsasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT lefebvrenicolas revisedversioninfdd2000242impactof16srdnasequencingonclinicaltreatmentdecisionsasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT ruchyvon revisedversioninfdd2000242impactof16srdnasequencingonclinicaltreatmentdecisionsasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT argemixavier revisedversioninfdd2000242impactof16srdnasequencingonclinicaltreatmentdecisionsasinglecenterretrospectivestudy