No abstract

The critical role of the microbiology laboratory in infectious disease diagnosis calls for a close, positive working relationship between the physician and the microbiologists who provide enormous value to the health care team. This document, developed by both laboratory and clinical experts, provides information on which tests are valuable and in which contexts, and on tests that add little or no value for diagnostic decisions. Sections are divided into anatomic systems, including Bloodstream Infections and Infections of the Cardiovascular System, Central Nervous System Infections, Ocular Infections, Soft Tissue Infections of the Head and Neck, Upper Respiratory Infections, Lower Respiratory Tract infections, Infections of the Gastrointestinal Tract, Intraabdominal Infections, Bone and Joint Infections, Urinary Tract Infections, Genital Infections, and Skin and Soft Tissue Infections; or into etiologic agent groups, including Tickborne Infections, Viral Syndromes, and Blood and Tissue Parasite Infections. Each section contains introductory concepts, a summary of key points, and detailed tables that list suspected agents; the most reliable tests to order; the samples (and volumes) to collect in order of preference; specimen transport devices, procedures, times, and temperatures; and detailed notes on specific issues regarding the test methods, such as when tests are likely to require a specialized laboratory or have prolonged turnaround times. There is redundancy among the tables and sections, as many agents and assay choices overlap. The document is intended to serve as a reference to guide physicians in choosing tests that will aid them to diagnose infectious diseases in their patients.

The critical nature of the microbiology laboratory in infectious disease diagnosis calls for a close, positive working relationship between the physician/advanced practice provider and the microbiologists who provide enormous value to the healthcare team. This document, developed by experts in laboratory and adult and pediatric clinical medicine, provides information on which tests are valuable and in which contexts, and on tests that add little or no value for diagnostic decisions. This document presents a system-based approach rather than specimen-based approach, and includes bloodstream and cardiovascular system infections, central nervous system infections, ocular infections, soft tissue infections of the head and neck, upper and lower respiratory infections, infections of the gastrointestinal tract, intra-abdominal infections, bone and joint infections, urinary tract infections, genital infections, and other skin and soft tissue infections; or into etiologic agent groups, including arthropod-borne infections, viral syndromes, and blood and tissue parasite infections. Each section contains introductory concepts, a summary of key points, and detailed tables that list suspected agents; the most reliable tests to order; the samples (and volumes) to collect in order of preference; specimen transport devices, procedures, times, and temperatures; and detailed notes on specific issues regarding the test methods, such as when tests are likely to require a specialized laboratory or have prolonged turnaround times. In addition, the pediatric needs of specimen management are also emphasized. There is intentional redundancy among the tables and sections, as many agents and assay choices overlap. The document is intended to serve as a guidance for physicians in choosing tests that will aid them to quickly and accurately diagnose infectious diseases in their patients.

Summary Background Lyme borreliosis is the most common tick-borne disease in the northern hemisphere. It is a multisystem disease caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato genospecies and characterised by tissue localisation and low spirochaetaemia. In this study we aimed to describe a novel Borrelia species causing Lyme borreliosis in the USA. Methods At the Mayo clinic, from 2003 to 2014, we tested routine clinical diagnostic specimens from patients in the USA with PCR targeting the oppA1 gene of B burgdorferi sensu lato. We identified positive specimens with an atypical PCR result (melting temperature outside of the expected range) by sequencing, microscopy, or culture. We collected Ixodes scapularis ticks from regions of suspected patient tick exposure and tested them by oppA1 PCR. Findings 100 545 specimens were submitted by physicians for routine PCR from Jan 1, 2003 to Sept 30, 2014. From these samples, six clinical specimens (five blood, one synovial fluid) yielded an atypical oppA1 PCR product, but no atypical results were detected before 2012. Five of the six patients with atypical PCR results had presented with fever, four had diffuse or focal rash, three had symptoms suggestive of neurological inclusion, and two were admitted to hospital. The sixth patient presented with knee pain and swelling. Motile spirochaetes were seen in blood samples from one patient and cultured from blood samples from two patients. Among the five blood specimens, the median oppA1 copy number was 180 times higher than that in 13 specimens that tested positive for B burgdorferi sensu stricto during the same time period. Multigene sequencing identified the spirochaete as a novel B burgdorferi sensu lato genospecies. This same genospecies was detected in ticks collected at a probable patient exposure site. Interpretation We describe a new pathogenic Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato genospecies (candidatus Borrelia mayonii) in the upper midwestern USA, which causes Lyme borreliosis with unusually high spirochaetaemia. Clinicians should be aware of this new B burgdorferi sensu lato genospecies, its distinct clinical features, and the usefulness of oppA1 PCR for diagnosis.

The detection of pathogens associated with gastrointestinal disease may be important in certain patient populations, such as immunocompromised hosts, the critically ill, or individuals with prolonged disease that is refractory to treatment. In this study, we evaluated two commercially available multiplex panels (the FilmArray gastrointestinal [GI] panel [BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT] and the Luminex xTag gastrointestinal pathogen panel [GPP] [Luminex Corporation, Toronto, Canada]) using Cary-Blair stool samples (n ‫؍‬ 500) submitted to our laboratory for routine GI testing (e.g., culture, antigen testing, microscopy, and individual real-time PCR). At the time of this study, the prototype (non-FDA-cleared) FilmArray GI panel targeted 23 pathogens (14 bacterial, 5 viral, and 4 parasitic), and testing of 200 l of Cary-Blair stool was recommended. In contrast, the Luminex GPP assay was FDA cleared for the detection of 11 pathogens (7 bacterial, 2 viral, and 2 parasitic), but had the capacity to identify 4 additional pathogens using a research-use-only protocol. Importantly, the Luminex assay was FDA cleared for 100 l raw stool; however, 100 l Cary-Blair stool was tested by the Luminex assay in this study. Among 230 prospectively collected samples, routine testing was positive for one or more GI pathogens in 19 (8.3%) samples, compared to 76 (33.0%) by the FilmArray and 69 (30.3%) by the Luminex assay. Clostridium difficile (12.6 to 13.9% prevalence) and norovirus genogroup I (GI)/GII (5.7 to 13.9% prevalence) were two of the pathogens most commonly detected by both assays among prospective samples. Sapovirus was also commonly detected (5.