The ability to provide timely identification of the causative agents of lower respiratory tract infections can promote better patient outcomes and support antimicrobial stewardship efforts. Current diagnostic testing options include culture, molecular testing, and antigen detection. These methods may require collection of various specimens, involve extensive sample treatment, and can suffer from low sensitivity and long turnaround times. This study assessed the performance of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (PN panel) and Pneumonia Plus Panel (PNplus panel), an FDA-cleared sample-to-answer assay that enables the detection of viruses, atypical bacteria, bacteria, and antimicrobial resistance marker genes from lower respiratory tract specimens (sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL] fluid). Semiquantitative results are also provided for the bacterial targets. This paper describes selected analytical and clinical studies that were conducted to evaluate performance of the panel for regulatory clearance. Prospectively collected respiratory specimens (846 BAL and 836 sputum specimens) evaluated with the PN panel were also tested by quantitative reference culture and molecular methods for comparison. The PN panel showed a sensitivity of 100% for 15/22 etiologic targets using BAL specimens and for 10/24 using sputum specimens. All other targets had sensitivities of ≥75% or were unable to be calculated due to low prevalence in the study population. Specificity for all targets was ≥87.2%, with many false-positive results compared to culture that were confirmed by alternative molecular methods. Appropriate adoption of this test could provide actionable diagnostic information that is anticipated to impact patient care and antimicrobial stewardship decisions.
Lower respiratory tract infections, including hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia, are common in hospitalized patient populations. Standard methods frequently fail to identify the infectious etiology due to the polymicrobial nature of respiratory specimens and the necessity of ordering specific tests to identify viral agents. The potential severity of these infections combined with a failure to clearly identify the causative pathogen results in administration of empirical antibiotic agents based on clinical presentation and other risk factors. We examined the impact of the multiplexed, semiquantitative BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia panel (PN panel) test on laboratory reporting for 259 adult inpatients submitting bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens for laboratory analysis. The PN panel demonstrated a combined 96.2% positive percent agreement (PPA) and 98.1% negative percent agreement (NPA) for the qualitative identification of 15 bacterial targets compared to routine bacterial culture. Semiquantitative values reported by the PN panel were frequently higher than values reported by culture, resulting in semiquantitative agreement (within the same log10 value) of 43.6% between the PN panel and culture; however, all bacterial targets reported as >105 CFU/ml in culture were reported as ≥105 genomic copies/ml by the PN panel. Viral targets were identified by the PN panel in 17.7% of specimens tested, of which 39.1% were detected in conjunction with a bacterial target. A review of patient medical records, including clinically prescribed antibiotics, revealed the potential for antibiotic adjustment in 70.7% of patients based on the PN panel result, including discontinuation or de-escalation in 48.2% of patients, resulting in an average savings of 6.2 antibiotic days/patient.
A novel rapid peptide nucleic acid fluorescence
in situ
hybridization (FISH) method,
Staphylococcus Quick
FISH, for the direct detection of
Staphylococcus
species from positive blood culture bottles was evaluated in a multicenter clinical study. The method utilizes a microscope slide with predeposited positive- and negative-control organisms and a self-reporting 15-min hybridization step, which eliminates the need for a wash step. Five clinical laboratories tested 722 positive blood culture bottles containing Gram-positive cocci in clusters. The sensitivities for detection of
Staphylococcus aureus
and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) were 99.5% (217/218) and 98.8% (487/493), respectively, and the combined specificity of the assay was 89.5% (17/19). The combined positive and negative predictive values of the assay were 99.7% (696/698) and 70.8% (17/24), respectively. Studies were also performed on spiked cultures to establish the specificity and performance sensitivity of the method.
Staphylococcus Quick
FISH has a turnaround time (TAT) of <30 min and a hands-on time (HOT) of <5 min. The ease and speed of the method have the potential to improve the accuracy of therapeutic intervention by providing
S. aureus
/CoNS identification simultaneously with Gram stain results.
The incidence of neonatal Group B streptococcal (GBS) disease has significantly declined since the widespread implementation of prenatal screening of expectant mothers for urogenital and gastrointestinal tract GBS colonization. Screening methods have evolved from exclusively culture-based approaches to more rapid and highly sensitive molecular methods. We chose to evaluate the performance of 4 commercially available GBS molecular tests for detection of GBS colonization using 299 antepartum rectal-vaginal specimens submitted to our laboratory for routine GBS screening. In 97% of instances, there was agreement between all 3 systems. When testing 1, 6, and 12 samples simultaneously, all methods performed comparably, but the ARIES® GBS assay required the least total hands-on time and the illumigene Group B Streptococcus assay required the most hands-on time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.