tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Infection
. 2023 Dec 21.
doi: 10.1007/s15010-023-02157-x. Online ahead of print. Clinical evaluation of a multiplex droplet digital PCR for pathogen detection in critically ill COVID-19 patients with bloodstream infections
Yanbing Li[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Kangkang Huang[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Jun Yin[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Zheren Tan[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Manli Zhou[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jiaoyang Dai[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Bin Yi[SUP] 6 7 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Background: Nosocomial bloodstream infections (nBSI) have emerged as a clinical concern for physicians treating COVID-19 patients. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multiplex ddPCR in detecting bacterial pathogens in the blood of COVID-19 critically ill patients.
Methods: This prospective diagnostic study included RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital from December 2022 to February 2023. A multiplex ddPCR assay was used to detect common bacterial pathogens and AMR genes in blood samples of the patients, along with antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). The diagnostic performance of the ddPCR assay was evaluated by comparing the results with those obtained through blood culture and clinical diagnosis. Additionally, the ability of ddPCR in detecting bacterial resistance was compared with the AST results.
Results: Of the 200 blood samples collected from 184 patients, 45 (22.5%) were positive using blood culture, while 113 (56.5%) were positive for bacterial targets using the ddPCR assay. The ddPCR assay outperformed blood culture in pathogen detection rate, mixed infection detection rate, and fungal detection rate. Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae were the most commonly detected pathogens in COVID-19 critically ill patients, followed by Enterococcus and Streptococcus. Compared to blood culture, ddPCR achieved a sensitivity of 75.5%, specificity of 51.0%, PPV of 30.9%, and NPV of 87.8%, respectively. However, there were significant differences in sensitivity among different bacterial species, where Gram-negative bacteria have the highest sensitivity of 90.3%. When evaluated on the ground of clinical diagnosis, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of ddPCR were 78.1%, 90.5%, 94.7%, and 65.5%, respectively. In addition, the ddPCR assay detected 23 cases of bla[SUB]KPC[/SUB], which shown a better consistent with clinical test results than other detected AMR genes. Compared to bla[SUB]KPC[/SUB], there were few other AMR genes detected, indicating that the application of other AMR gene detection in the COVID-19 critically ill patients was limited.
Conclusion: The multiplex ddPCR assay had a significantly higher pathogen detection positivity than the blood culture, which could be an effective diagnostic tool for BSIs in COVID-19 patients and to improve patient outcomes and reduce the burden of sepsis on the healthcare system, though there is room for optimization of the panels used.- Adjusting the targets to include E. faecalis and E. faecium as well as Candida albicans and Candida glabrata could improve the ddPCR' s effectiveness. However, further research is needed to explore the potential of ddPCR in predicting bacterial resistance through AMR gene detection.
Keywords: Antimicrobial resistance; Bloodstream infections; Multiplex droplet digital PCR; Pathogen detection; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.
. 2023 Dec 21.
doi: 10.1007/s15010-023-02157-x. Online ahead of print. Clinical evaluation of a multiplex droplet digital PCR for pathogen detection in critically ill COVID-19 patients with bloodstream infections
Yanbing Li[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Kangkang Huang[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Jun Yin[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Zheren Tan[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Manli Zhou[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jiaoyang Dai[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Bin Yi[SUP] 6 7 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 38127118
- DOI: 10.1007/s15010-023-02157-x
Background: Nosocomial bloodstream infections (nBSI) have emerged as a clinical concern for physicians treating COVID-19 patients. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multiplex ddPCR in detecting bacterial pathogens in the blood of COVID-19 critically ill patients.
Methods: This prospective diagnostic study included RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital from December 2022 to February 2023. A multiplex ddPCR assay was used to detect common bacterial pathogens and AMR genes in blood samples of the patients, along with antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). The diagnostic performance of the ddPCR assay was evaluated by comparing the results with those obtained through blood culture and clinical diagnosis. Additionally, the ability of ddPCR in detecting bacterial resistance was compared with the AST results.
Results: Of the 200 blood samples collected from 184 patients, 45 (22.5%) were positive using blood culture, while 113 (56.5%) were positive for bacterial targets using the ddPCR assay. The ddPCR assay outperformed blood culture in pathogen detection rate, mixed infection detection rate, and fungal detection rate. Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae were the most commonly detected pathogens in COVID-19 critically ill patients, followed by Enterococcus and Streptococcus. Compared to blood culture, ddPCR achieved a sensitivity of 75.5%, specificity of 51.0%, PPV of 30.9%, and NPV of 87.8%, respectively. However, there were significant differences in sensitivity among different bacterial species, where Gram-negative bacteria have the highest sensitivity of 90.3%. When evaluated on the ground of clinical diagnosis, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of ddPCR were 78.1%, 90.5%, 94.7%, and 65.5%, respectively. In addition, the ddPCR assay detected 23 cases of bla[SUB]KPC[/SUB], which shown a better consistent with clinical test results than other detected AMR genes. Compared to bla[SUB]KPC[/SUB], there were few other AMR genes detected, indicating that the application of other AMR gene detection in the COVID-19 critically ill patients was limited.
Conclusion: The multiplex ddPCR assay had a significantly higher pathogen detection positivity than the blood culture, which could be an effective diagnostic tool for BSIs in COVID-19 patients and to improve patient outcomes and reduce the burden of sepsis on the healthcare system, though there is room for optimization of the panels used.- Adjusting the targets to include E. faecalis and E. faecium as well as Candida albicans and Candida glabrata could improve the ddPCR' s effectiveness. However, further research is needed to explore the potential of ddPCR in predicting bacterial resistance through AMR gene detection.
Keywords: Antimicrobial resistance; Bloodstream infections; Multiplex droplet digital PCR; Pathogen detection; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.