Clinical implementation of molecular methods in detection of microorganisms from blood with a special focus on PCR electrospray ionization mass spectrometry

Comparison of three rapid diagnostic tests for bloodstream infections using Benefit-risk Evaluation Framework (BED-FRAME)

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for bloodstream infections have the potential to reduce time to appropriate antimicrobial therapy and improve patient outcomes. Previously, an in-house, lipid-based, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) method, Fast Lipid Analysis Technique (FLAT MS), has shown promise as a rapid pathogen identification method. In this study, FLAT MS for direct from blood culture identification was evaluated and compared to FDA-cleared identification methods using the Benefit-risk Evaluation Framework (BED-FRAME) analysis. FLAT MS was evaluated and compared to Bruker Sepsityper and bioMérieux BioFire FilmArray BCID2 using results from a previous study. For this study, 301 positive blood cultures were collected from the University of Maryland Medical Center. The RDTs were compared by their sensitivities, time-to-results, hands-on time, and BED-FRAME analysis. The overall sensitivity of all platforms compared to culture results from monomicrobial-positive blood cultures was 88.3%. However, the three RDTs differed in their accuracy for identifying Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria, and yeast. Time-to-results for FLAT MS, Sepsityper, and BioFire BCID2 were all approximately one hour. Hands-on times for FLAT MS, Sepsityper, and BioFire BCID2 were 10 (±1.3), 40 (±2.8), and 5 (±0.25) minutes, respectively. BED-FRAME demonstrated that each RDT had utility at different pathogen prevalence and relative importance. BED-FRAME is a useful tool that can used to determine which RDT is best for a healthcare center.

Comparison of 3 diagnostic platforms for identification of bacteria and yeast from positive blood culture bottles

Managing bloodstream infections requires fast and accurate diagnostics. Culture-based diagnostic methods for identification from positive blood culture require 24-hour subculture, potentially delaying time to appropriate therapy. Positive blood cultures were collected (n = 301) from September 2021 to August 2022 at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Platforms compared were BioFire® BCID2, Sepsityper®, and short-term culture. For monomicrobial cultures, FilmArray® BCID2 identified 88.3% (241/273) of pathogens. Rapid Sepsityper® identified 76.9% (210/273) of pathogens. Sepsityper® extraction identified 82.4% (225/273) of pathogens. Short-term culture identified 83.5% (228/273) of pathogens. For polymicrobial cultures, Sepsityper®, short-term culture, and BioFire® BCID2 had complete identifications at 10.7% (3/28), 0%, and 92.9% (26/28), respectively. Time-to-results for Rapid Sepsityper®, Sepsityper® extraction, BioFire® BCID2, and Short-term culture were 35, 52, 65, and 306 minutes, respectively. Performance of these platforms can reduce time-to-results and may help effectively treat bloodstream infections faster. Accuracy, time-to-result, and hands-on time are important factors when evaluation diagnostic platforms.

Fast Track Diagnostic Tools for Clinical Management of Sepsis: Paradigm Shift from Conventional to Advanced Methods

Sepsis is one of the deadliest disorders in the new century due to specific limitations in early and differential diagnosis. Moreover, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is becoming the dominant threat to human health globally. The only way to encounter the spread and emergence of AMR is through the active detection and identification of the pathogen along with the quantification of resistance. For better management of such disease, there is an essential requirement to approach many suitable diagnostic techniques for the proper administration of antibiotics and elimination of these infectious diseases. The current method employed for the diagnosis of sepsis relies on the conventional culture of blood suspected infection. However, this method is more time consuming and generates results that are false negative in the case of antibiotic pretreated samples as well as slow-growing microbes. In comparison to the conventional method, modern methods are capable of analyzing blood samples, obtaining accurate results from the suspicious patient of sepsis, and giving all the necessary information to identify the pathogens as well as AMR in a short period. The present review is intended to highlight the culture shift from conventional to modern and advanced technologies including their limitations for the proper and prompt diagnosing of bloodstream infections and AMR detection.

Performance of PCR/Electrospray Ionization-Mass Spectrometry on Whole Blood for Detection of Bloodstream Microorganisms in Patients with Suspected Sepsis

Blood culture (BC) often fails to detect bloodstream microorganisms in sepsis. However, molecular diagnostics hold great potential. The molecular method PCR/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (PCR/ESI-MS) can detect DNA from hundreds of different microorganisms in whole blood. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of this method in a multicenter study including 16 teaching hospitals in the United States (n = 13) and Europe (n = 3). First, on testing of 2,754 contrived whole blood samples, with or without spiked microorganisms, PCR/ESI-MS produced 99.1% true-positive and 97.2% true-negative results. Second, among 1,460 patients with suspected sepsis (sepsis-2 definition), BC and PCR/ESI-MS on whole blood were positive in 14.6% and 25.6% of cases, respectively, with the following result combinations: BC positive and PCR/ESI-MS negative, 4.3%; BC positive and PCR/ESI-MS positive, 10.3%; BC negative and PCR/ESI-MS positive, 15.3%; and BC negative and PCR/ESI-MS negative, 70.1%. Compared with BC, PCR/ESI-MS showed the following sensitivities (coagulase-negative staphylococci not included): Gram-positive bacteria, 58%; Gram-negative bacteria, 78%; and Candida species, 83%. The specificities were >94% for all individual species. Patients who had received prior antimicrobial medications (n = 603) had significantly higher PCR/ESI-MS positivity rates than patients without prior antimicrobial treatment-31% versus 22% (P < 0.0001)-with pronounced differences for Gram-negative bacteria and Candida species. In conclusion, PCR/ESI-MS showed excellent performance on contrived samples. On clinical samples, it showed high specificities, moderately high sensitivities for Gram-negative bacteria and Candida species, and elevated positivity rates during antimicrobial treatment. These promising results encourage further development of molecular diagnostics to be used with whole blood for detection of bloodstream microorganisms in sepsis.

Comparison of rapid BACpro® II, Sepsityper® kit and in-house preparation methods for direct identification of bacteria from blood cultures by MALDI-TOF MS with and without Sepsityper® module analysis

There are several approaches available for purifying microorganisms prior to matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) analysis. In the present study, rapid BACpro® II (Nittobo Medical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), a new application, has been compared with Sepsityper® kit (Bruker Daltonics, Billerica, USA) and an in-house method. Samples were also tested with two modules, standard and Sepsityper®, identified in the Bruker MALDI-TOF MS. The bottles having monomicrobial growth were included in the study according to Gram staining results. In total, two hundred blood culture bottles were included but there was no growth in one of the subcultures so 199 blood culture bottles were studied prospectively. With the standard MALDI-TOF MS analysis, rapid BACpro® II could successfully identify microorganisms in 174/199 (87.4%) of the bottles where Sepsityper® kit and in-house method were successful in 136/199 (68.3%) and 114/199 (57.3%), respectively. When the MALDI-TOF MS data were analysed by Sepsityper® module, the identification rates were increased to 94.4%, 82.1% and 69.8% (p < 0.001), respectively. In the Sepsityper® module, 72/73 (98.6%) of Gram-negative and 97/106 (91.5%) of Gram-positive microorganisms were detected by rapid BACpro® II method. The present study shows that rapid BACpro® II is a reliable preparation procedure and has higher rates of identification compared with Sepsityper® kit and in-house method. The use of the Sepsityper® module in blood cultures increases the chance of identification for all three methods studied.