PCR-based routine diagnostics uncover hidden burden of Legionnaires' disease

CRP under 130 mg/L rules out the diagnosis of Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 (URINELLA Study)

INTRODUCTION

In case of pneumonia, some biological findings are suggestive for Legionnaire's disease (LD) including C-reactive protein (CRP). A low level of CRP is predictive for negative Legionella Urinary-Antigen-Test (L-UAT).

METHOD

Observational retrospective study in Nord-Franche-Comté Hospital with external validation in Besançon University Hospital, France which included all adults with L-UAT performed during January 2018 to December 2022. The objective was to determine CRP optimal threshold to predict a L-UAT negative result.

RESULTS

URINELLA included 5051 patients (83 with positive L-UAT). CRP optimal threshold was 131.9 mg/L, with a negative predictive value (NPV) at 100%, sensitivity at 100% and specificity at 58.0%. The AUC of the ROC-Curve was at 88.7% (95% CI, 86.3-91.1). External validation in Besançon Hospital patients showed an AUC at 89.8% (95% CI, 85.5-94.1) and NPV, sensitivity and specificity was respectively 99.9%, 97.6% and 59.1% for a CRP threshold at 131.9 mg/L; after exclusion of immunosuppressed patients, index sensitivity and NPV reached also 100%.

CONCLUSION

In case of pneumonia suspicion with a CRP level under 130 mg/L (independently of the severity) L-UAT is useless in immunocompetent patients with a NPV at 100%. We must remain cautious in patients with symptoms onset less than 48 h before CRP dosage.

Performance of Legiolert Test vs. ISO 11731 to Confirm Legionella pneumophila Contamination in Potable Water Samples

Detection and enumeration of Legionella in water samples is of great importance for risk assessment analysis. The plate culture method is the gold standard, but has received several well-known criticisms, which have induced researchers to develop alternative methods. The purpose of this study was to compare Legionella counts obtained by the analysis of potable water samples through the plate culture method and through the IDEXX liquid culture Legiolert method. Legionella plate culture, according to ISO 11731:1998, was performed using 1 L of water. Legiolert was performed using both the 10 mL and 100 mL Legiolert protocols. Overall, 123 potable water samples were analyzed. Thirty-seven (30%) of them, positive for L. pneumophila, serogroups 1 or 2–14 by plate culture, were used for comparison with the Legiolert results. The Legiolert 10 mL test detected 34 positive samples (27.6%) and the Legiolert 100 mL test detected 37 positive samples, 27.6% and 30% respectively, out of the total samples analyzed. No significant difference was found between either the Legiolert 10 mL and Legiolert 100 mL vs. the plate culture (p = 0.9 and p = 0.3, respectively) or between the Legiolert 10 mL and Legiolert 100 mL tests (p = 0.83). This study confirms the reliability of the IDEXX Legiolert test for Legionella pneumophila detection and enumeration, as already shown in similar studies. Like the plate culture method, the Legiolert assay is also suitable for obtaining isolates for typing purposes, relevant for epidemiological investigations.

Valuing antibiotics: The role of the hospital clinician

The global public health threat of antibiotic-resistant infections as well as the lack of new treatments in clinical development is a critical issue. Reasons for this include diminished commercial incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop new antibiotics, which part-reflects a shift in antibiotic marketing paradigm from broad deployment to targeted therapy in relatively small patient populations. Such changes are encouraged by antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). Other factors include a lack of recognition in the traditional assessment of new antibiotics by regulators, health technology assessors and payers of the broad range of benefits of new agents, particularly their value to health care, economies and society. Recognising the seriousness of the situation, there have been recent changes and proposals by regulators for modification of the assessment process to accommodate a broader range of acceptable data supporting new drug applications. There is also increasing recognition by some payers of the societal benefit of new antibiotics and the need for financial incentives for those developing high-priority antibiotics. However, progress is slow, with recent publications focusing on industry and strategic perspectives rather than clinical implications. In this opinion piece, we therefore focus on clinicians and the practical steps they can take to drive and contribute to increasing awareness and understanding of the value of antibiotics. This includes identifying and gathering appropriate alternative data sources, educating on AMS and prescribing habits, and contributing to international antibiotic susceptibility surveillance models.