Cargando…

Comparison of different microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid

BACKGROUND: The current diagnostic gold standard for Pneumocystis jirovecii is represented by microscopic visualization of the fungus from clinical respiratory samples, as bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid, defining “proven” P. jirovecii pneumonia, whereas qPCR allows defining “probable” diagnosis, as it...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Franconi, Iacopo, Leonildi, Alessandro, Erra, Gianluca, Fais, Roberta, Falcone, Marco, Ghelardi, Emilia, Lupetti, Antonella
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9123786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35597925
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02559-1
_version_ 1784711624865611776
author Franconi, Iacopo
Leonildi, Alessandro
Erra, Gianluca
Fais, Roberta
Falcone, Marco
Ghelardi, Emilia
Lupetti, Antonella
author_facet Franconi, Iacopo
Leonildi, Alessandro
Erra, Gianluca
Fais, Roberta
Falcone, Marco
Ghelardi, Emilia
Lupetti, Antonella
author_sort Franconi, Iacopo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The current diagnostic gold standard for Pneumocystis jirovecii is represented by microscopic visualization of the fungus from clinical respiratory samples, as bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid, defining “proven” P. jirovecii pneumonia, whereas qPCR allows defining “probable” diagnosis, as it is unable to discriminate infection from colonization. However, molecular methods, such as end-point PCR and qPCR, are faster, easier to perform and interpret, thus allowing the laboratory to give back the clinician useful microbiological data in a shorter time. The present study aims at comparing microscopy with molecular assays and beta-D-glucan diagnostic performance on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluids from patients with suspected Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. Bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid from eighteen high-risk and four negative control subjects underwent Grocott-Gomori’s methenamine silver-staining, end-point PCR, RT-PCR, and beta-D-glucan assay. RESULTS: All the microscopically positive bronchoalveolar-lavage samples (50%) also resulted positive by end-point and real time PCR and all, but two, resulted positive also by beta-D-glucan quantification. End-point PCR and RT-PCR detected 10 (55%) and 11 (61%) out of the 18 samples, respectively, thus showing an enhanced sensitivity in comparison to microscopy. All RT-PCR with a Ct < 27 were confirmed microscopically, whereas samples with a Ct ≥ 27 were not. CONCLUSIONS: Our work highlights the need of reshaping and redefining the role of molecular diagnostics in a peculiar clinical setting, like P. jirovecii infection, which is a rare but also severe and rapidly progressive clinical condition affecting immunocompromised hosts that would largely benefit from a faster diagnosis. Strictly selected patients, according to the inclusion criteria, resulting negative by molecular methods could be ruled out for P. jirovecii pneumonia.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9123786
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91237862022-05-22 Comparison of different microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid Franconi, Iacopo Leonildi, Alessandro Erra, Gianluca Fais, Roberta Falcone, Marco Ghelardi, Emilia Lupetti, Antonella BMC Microbiol Research BACKGROUND: The current diagnostic gold standard for Pneumocystis jirovecii is represented by microscopic visualization of the fungus from clinical respiratory samples, as bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid, defining “proven” P. jirovecii pneumonia, whereas qPCR allows defining “probable” diagnosis, as it is unable to discriminate infection from colonization. However, molecular methods, such as end-point PCR and qPCR, are faster, easier to perform and interpret, thus allowing the laboratory to give back the clinician useful microbiological data in a shorter time. The present study aims at comparing microscopy with molecular assays and beta-D-glucan diagnostic performance on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluids from patients with suspected Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. Bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid from eighteen high-risk and four negative control subjects underwent Grocott-Gomori’s methenamine silver-staining, end-point PCR, RT-PCR, and beta-D-glucan assay. RESULTS: All the microscopically positive bronchoalveolar-lavage samples (50%) also resulted positive by end-point and real time PCR and all, but two, resulted positive also by beta-D-glucan quantification. End-point PCR and RT-PCR detected 10 (55%) and 11 (61%) out of the 18 samples, respectively, thus showing an enhanced sensitivity in comparison to microscopy. All RT-PCR with a Ct < 27 were confirmed microscopically, whereas samples with a Ct ≥ 27 were not. CONCLUSIONS: Our work highlights the need of reshaping and redefining the role of molecular diagnostics in a peculiar clinical setting, like P. jirovecii infection, which is a rare but also severe and rapidly progressive clinical condition affecting immunocompromised hosts that would largely benefit from a faster diagnosis. Strictly selected patients, according to the inclusion criteria, resulting negative by molecular methods could be ruled out for P. jirovecii pneumonia. BioMed Central 2022-05-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9123786/ /pubmed/35597925 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02559-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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
Franconi, Iacopo
Leonildi, Alessandro
Erra, Gianluca
Fais, Roberta
Falcone, Marco
Ghelardi, Emilia
Lupetti, Antonella
Comparison of different microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid
title Comparison of different microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid
title_full Comparison of different microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid
title_fullStr Comparison of different microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of different microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid
title_short Comparison of different microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid
title_sort comparison of different microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9123786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35597925
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02559-1
work_keys_str_mv AT franconiiacopo comparisonofdifferentmicrobiologicalproceduresforthediagnosisofpneumocystisjiroveciipneumoniaonbronchoalveolarlavagefluid
AT leonildialessandro comparisonofdifferentmicrobiologicalproceduresforthediagnosisofpneumocystisjiroveciipneumoniaonbronchoalveolarlavagefluid
AT erragianluca comparisonofdifferentmicrobiologicalproceduresforthediagnosisofpneumocystisjiroveciipneumoniaonbronchoalveolarlavagefluid
AT faisroberta comparisonofdifferentmicrobiologicalproceduresforthediagnosisofpneumocystisjiroveciipneumoniaonbronchoalveolarlavagefluid
AT falconemarco comparisonofdifferentmicrobiologicalproceduresforthediagnosisofpneumocystisjiroveciipneumoniaonbronchoalveolarlavagefluid
AT ghelardiemilia comparisonofdifferentmicrobiologicalproceduresforthediagnosisofpneumocystisjiroveciipneumoniaonbronchoalveolarlavagefluid
AT lupettiantonella comparisonofdifferentmicrobiologicalproceduresforthediagnosisofpneumocystisjiroveciipneumoniaonbronchoalveolarlavagefluid