Comparison of the BioFire Joint Infection Panel to 16S Ribosomal RNA Gene-Based Targeted Metagenomic Sequencing for Testing Synovial Fluid from Patients with Knee Arthroplasty Failure

Evaluation of a BioFire multiplex PCR panel for detection of joint infections using retrospective and prospectively collected specimens

The BioFire Joint Infection Panel (JI panel) is a newly FDA-approved multiplex PCR assay for detection of common bone and joint pathogens with 39 targets which include select Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, yeast, and antimicrobial resistance genes. We evaluated the performance of the JI panel in detecting joint infections in our patient population. Sixty-three frozen, residual joint fluid specimens were retrospectively tested using the JI panel. An additional 104 residual joint fluid specimens were de-identified and prospectively tested within 1 week of collection. Results from routine bacterial cultures were used as the reference standard, which included inoculation to agar plates and blood culture bottles. For the frozen specimens, the JI panel showed a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 92.8% and a negative percent agreement (NPA) of 97.1%. PPA was 71.4% and NPA was 94.8% for fresh specimens. A total of 12 discrepancies were observed among the 167 specimens tested. The JI panel demonstrated good overall agreement with routine culture for the detection of joint infections and may improve timely diagnosis when used in conjunction with bacterial culture. However, potential false-positive and false-negative results were observed in both retrospective and prospective testing of specimens.IMPORTANCEThe BioFire JI panel is a new commercially available multiplex PCR assay for detecting common pathogens causing bone and joint infections. The test is performed directly on joint fluids with a fast turnaround time of 1 hour. Our study shows that while the JI panel overall shows good agreement with routine culture, discrepancies were observed in 7% of cases and results should be interpreted with appropriate clinical context.

The role of BioFire Joint Infection Panel in diagnosing periprosthetic hip and knee joint infections in patients with unclear conventional microbiological results

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the BioFire Joint Infection (JI) Panel in cases of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) where conventional microbiology is unclear, and to assess its role as a complementary intraoperative diagnostic tool.

Methods

Five groups representing common microbiological scenarios in hip and knee revision arthroplasty were selected from our arthroplasty registry, prospectively maintained PJI databases, and biobank: 1) unexpected-negative cultures (UNCs), 2) unexpected-positive cultures (UPCs), 3) single-positive intraoperative cultures (SPCs), and 4) clearly septic and 5) aseptic cases. In total, 268 archived synovial fluid samples from 195 patients who underwent acute/chronic revision total hip or knee arthroplasty were included. Cases were classified according to the International Consensus Meeting 2018 criteria. JI panel evaluation of synovial fluid was performed, and the results were compared with cultures.

Results

The JI panel detected microorganisms in 7/48 (14.5%) and 15/67 (22.4%) cases related to UNCs and SPCs, respectively, but not in cases of UPCs. The correlation between JI panel detection and infection classification criteria for early/late acute and chronic PJI was 46.6%, 73%, and 40%, respectively. Overall, the JI panel identified 12.6% additional microorganisms and three new species. The JI panel pathogen identification showed a sensitivity and specificity of 41.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 33.7 to 49.5) and 91.1% (95% CI 84.7 to 94.9), respectively. In total, 19/195 (9.7%) could have been managed differently and more accurately upon JI panel evaluation.

Conclusion

Despite its microbial limitation, JI panel demonstrated clinical usefulness by complementing the traditional methods based on multiple cultures, particularly in PJI with unclear microbiological results.

Performance characteristics of genus or species-specific Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for the microbial diagnosis of joint infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Joint infections cause significant morbidity and mortality. Rapid diagnosis enables prompt initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy and surgical treatment. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of genus- or species-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in diagnosing joint infections. The literature databases were searched for articles from January 2010 to December 2022. The meta-analysis using the split component synthesis (SCS) method, included 20 studies with 2,457 adult participants. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and AUC of PCR were 49 % (95 % CI [37.9-60.2]), 95.7 % (95 % CI [91.6-97.8]), 21.32, and 0.82 respectively. Sensitivity was highest for sonicate fluid and lowest for periprosthetic tissue. The mean turnaround time to results was 4.7 hours (SD 1.1). PCR is a favourable option for diagnosing joint infections due to its rapid results, but it has low sensitivity. To enhance diagnostic yield, the test should be used in conjunction with other methods.

A prospective multicentre evaluation of BioFire® Joint Infection Panel for the rapid microbiological documentation of acute arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the performance of the rapid syndromic BioFire® Joint Infection Panel (BF-JIP) to detect bacterial and fungal pathogens, as well as antibiotic resistance genes, directly in synovial fluid specimens collected from patients with acute arthritis.

METHODS

The study was conducted in six French bacteriological laboratories. To assess the performances of BF-JIP, results were compared with those of synovial fluid 14-day culture and, in case of discrepancy, with those of complementary molecular methods and intraoperative samples. A total of 308 synovial fluid specimens were tested after collection from 308 adults and children presenting with clinical and biological suspicion of acute arthritis; patients presenting with acute periprosthetic joint infection were included according to the European Bone and Joint Infection Society 2021 criteria.

RESULTS

Only one specimen failed (no result). On the basis of the consolidated data, the BF-JIP was concordant with the 14-day culture in 280 (91.2%) of the 307 specimens finally included in the study. The positive percentage agreement was 84.9% (95% CI, 78.8-89.8%) and the negative percentage agreement was 100% (95% CI, 97.2-100%). The positive predictive value was extremely high (100%; 95% CI, 97.6-100%), whereas the negative predictive value was lower (82.6%; 95% CI, 75.7-88.2%), partially explained by the missing target species in the panel.

DISCUSSION

The BF-JIP showed high performances to detect pathogens involved in acute arthritis.

Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Microbiologic diagnosis of implant-associated infections

SUMMARYImplant-associated infections (IAIs) pose serious threats to patients and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. These infections may be difficult to diagnose due, in part, to biofilm formation on device surfaces, and because even when microbes are found, their clinical significance may be unclear. Despite recent advances in laboratory testing, IAIs remain a diagnostic challenge. From a therapeutic standpoint, many IAIs currently require device removal and prolonged courses of antimicrobial therapy to effect a cure. Therefore, making an accurate diagnosis, defining both the presence of infection and the involved microorganisms, is paramount. The sensitivity of standard microbial culture for IAI diagnosis varies depending on the type of IAI, the specimen analyzed, and the culture technique(s) used. Although IAI-specific culture-based diagnostics have been described, the challenge of culture-negative IAIs remains. Given this, molecular assays, including both nucleic acid amplification tests and next-generation sequencing-based assays, have been used. In this review, an overview of these challenging infections is presented, as well as an approach to their diagnosis from a microbiologic perspective.

Microbiological diagnosis of pleural infections: a comparative evaluation of a novel syndromic real-time PCR panel

Current microbial diagnostics for pleural infections are insufficient. Studies using 16S targeted next-generation sequencing report that only 10%-16% of bacteria present are cultured and that 50%-78% of pleural fluids containing relevant microbial DNA remain culture negative. As a rapid diagnostic alternative suitable for clinical laboratories, we wanted to explore a PCR-based approach. Based on the identification of key pathogens, we developed a syndromic PCR panel for community-acquired pleural infections (CAPIs). This was a pragmatic PCR panel, meaning that it was not designed for detecting all possibly involved bacterial species but for confirming the diagnosis of CAPI, and for detecting bacteria that might influence choice of antimicrobial treatment. We evaluated the PCR panel on 109 confirmed CAPIs previously characterized using culture and 16S targeted next-generation sequencing. The PCR secured the diagnosis of CAPI in 107/109 (98.2%) and detected all present pathogens in 69/109 (63.3%). Culture secured the diagnosis in 54/109 (49.5%) and detected all pathogens in 31/109 (28.4%). Corresponding results for 16S targeted next-generation sequencing were 109/109 (100%) and 98/109 (89.9%). For bacterial species included in the PCR panel, PCR had a sensitivity of 99.5% (184/185), culture of 21.6% (40/185), and 16S targeted next-generation sequencing of 92.4% (171/185). None of the bacterial species present not covered by the PCR panel were judged to impact antimicrobial therapy. A syndromic PCR panel represents a rapid and sensitive alternative to current diagnostic approaches for the microbiological diagnosis of CAPI.IMPORTANCEPleural empyema is a severe infection with high mortality and increasing incidence. Long hospital admissions and long courses of antimicrobial treatment drive healthcare and ecological costs. Current methods for microbiological diagnostics of pleural infections are inadequate. Recent studies using 16S targeted next-generation sequencing as a reference standard find culture to recover only 10%-16% of bacteria present and that 50%-78% of samples containing relevant bacterial DNA remain culture negative. To confirm the diagnosis of pleural infection and define optimal antimicrobial therapy while limiting unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, there is a need for rapid and sensitive diagnostic approaches. PCR is a rapid method well suited for clinical laboratories. In this paper we show that a novel syndromic PCR panel can secure the diagnosis of pleural infection and detect all bacteria relevant for choice of antimicrobial treatment with a high sensitivity.

Higher diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing versus culture in periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The next-generation sequencing (NGS) has developed rapidly in the past decade and is becoming a promising diagnostic tool for periprosthetic infection (PJI). However, its diagnostic value for PJI is still uncertain. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic value of NGS compared to culture.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies from inception to 12 November 2023. Diagnostic parameters, such as sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio and area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC), were calculated for the included studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies with 2461 patients were included in our study. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio of NGS were 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83-90), 94% (95% CI: 91-96) and 111 (95% CI: 70-177), respectively. On the other hand, the pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio of culture were 63% (95% CI: 58-67), 98% (95% CI: 96-99) and 93 (95% CI: 40-212), respectively. The SROC curve for NGS and culture showed that the AUCs are 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.79-0.86), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found NGS had higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy but slightly lower specificity than culture. Based on the pooled results, we suggested NGS may have the potential to be a new tool for the diagnosis of PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Update on the role of pathology and laboratory medicine in diagnosing periprosthetic infection

Technological and implant design advances have helped reduce the frequency of aseptic total joint arthroplasty failure, but periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) remain a clinical important problem with high patient morbidity. Misinterpreting PJI as aseptic mechanical loosening commonly leads to unsatisfactory revision arthroplasty, persistent infection, and poor long-term results. While there is no single "gold standard" diagnostic test for PJI, recent collaborative efforts by Orthopaedic and Infectious Disease Societies have developed algorithms for diagnosing PJI. However, the efficacy of individual tests as well as diagnostic thresholds are controversial. We review the recommended thresholds for commonly used screening tests as well as tissue histopathology and confirmatory tests to diagnose periprosthetic infection. We also update lesser-known laboratory tests, and we briefly summarize rapidly evolving molecular tests to diagnose periprosthetic infection. Pathologists hold a critical role in assisting with PJI diagnosis, maintaining laboratory test quality and interpreting test results. Collaboration between clinicians and pathologists is essential to provide optimal patient care and reduce the burden of PJI.

Potential value of a rapid syndromic multiplex PCR for the diagnosis of native and prosthetic joint infections: a real-world evidence study

Introduction: The BIOFIRE Joint Infection (JI) Panel is a diagnostic tool that uses multiplex-PCR testing to detect microorganisms in synovial fluid specimens from patients suspected of having septic arthritis (SA) on native joints or prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Methods: A study was conducted across 34 clinical sites in 19 European and Middle Eastern countries from March 2021 to June 2022 to assess the effectiveness of the BIOFIRE JI Panel. Results: A total of 1527 samples were collected from patients suspected of SA or PJI, with an overall agreement of 88.4 % and 85 % respectively between the JI Panel and synovial fluid cultures (SFCs). The JI Panel detected more positive samples and microorganisms than SFC, with a notable difference on Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus species, Enterococcus faecalis, Kingella kingae, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and anaerobic bacteria. The study found that the BIOFIRE JI Panel has a high utility in the real-world clinical setting for suspected SA and PJI, providing diagnostic results in approximately 1 h. The user experience was positive, implying a potential benefit of rapidity of results' turnover in optimising patient management strategies. Conclusion: The study suggests that the BIOFIRE JI Panel could potentially optimise patient management and antimicrobial therapy, thus highlighting its importance in the clinical setting.

Accuracy of the GeneXpert® MRSA/SA SSTI test to diagnose methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. infection in bone fixation and fusion and management of infected non-unions

INTRODUCTION

The GeneXpert® MRSA/SA SSTI (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus/S. aureus skin and soft tissue infection) PCR test allows early detection of methicillin resistance in staphylococci. This test was developed for skin infections and has been evaluated for prosthetic joint infections but, to our knowledge, has not been evaluated for hardware infections outside of arthroplasties. Furthermore, we conducted a retrospective study in patients with non-prosthetic osteosynthesis hardware aiming: (1) to identify the diagnostic values of the PCR test compared to conventional cultures and the resulting rate of appropriate antibiotic therapy; (2) to identify the rate of false negative (FN) results; (3) to identify and compare the rates of failure of infectious treatment (FN versus others); (4) to search for risk factors for FN of the PCR test.

HYPOTHESIS

The PCR test allowed early and appropriate targeting of antibiotic therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The results of PCR tests and conventional cultures for osteoarticular infections of non-prosthetic hardware over four years (2012-2016) were compared to identify the diagnostic values of using the results of conventional culture as a reference and the rate of appropriate antibiotic therapies. Infectious management failures between the results of the FN group and the others were compared, and variables associated with a FN of the PCR test were identified.

RESULTS

The analysis of 419 PCR tests allowed us to establish a sensitivity of 42.86%, a specificity of 96.82%, a positive predictive value of 60% and a negative predictive value of 93.83%. Using the results of the PCR test for the targeting of postoperative antibiotic therapy, it was suitable for staphylococcal coverage in 90.94% (381/419). The rates of patients for whom infectious treatment failed were not significantly different between the FN group and the other patients (20.8% versus 17.7%, respectively; Hazard Ratio=1.12 (95%CI 0.47-2.69, p=0.79)). A skin opening during the initial trauma (p=0.005) and a polymicrobial infection were significantly associated with a risk of FN from the PCR test (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The PCR test makes it possible to reduce the duration of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy during the treatment of an infection of osteosynthesis hardware but causes a lack of antibiotic coverage in 9.06% of cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; diagnostic case control study.

Multicenter evaluation of the BIOFIRE Joint Infection Panel for the detection of bacteria, yeast, and AMR genes in synovial fluid samples

The bioMérieux BIOFIRE Joint Infection (JI) Panel is a multiplex in vitro diagnostic test for the simultaneous and rapid (~1 h) detection of 39 potential pathogens and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes directly from synovial fluid (SF) samples. Thirty-one species or groups of microorganisms are included in the kit, as well as several AMR genes. This study, performed to evaluate the BIOFIRE JI Panel for regulatory clearance, provides data from a multicenter evaluation of 1,544 prospectively collected residual SF samples with performance compared to standard-of-care (SOC) culture for organisms or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing for AMR genes. The BIOFIRE JI Panel demonstrated a sensitivity of 90.9% or greater for all but six organisms and a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 100% for all AMR genes. The BIOFIRE JI Panel demonstrated a specificity of 98.5% or greater for detection of all organisms and a negative percent agreement (NPA) of 95.7% or greater for all AMR genes. The BIOFIRE JI Panel provides an improvement over SOC culture, with a substantially shorter time to result for both organisms and AMR genes with excellent sensitivity/PPA and specificity/NPA, and is anticipated to provide timely and actionable diagnostic information for joint infections in a variety of clinical scenarios.

Traditional Cultures versus Next Generation Sequencing for Suspected Orthopedic Infection: Experience Gained from a Reference Centre

(Background) The diagnosis and the antimicrobial treatment of orthopedic infection are challenging, especially in cases with culture-negative results. New molecular methods, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), promise to overcome some limitations of the standard culture, such as the detection of difficult-to-grow bacteria. However, data are scarce regarding the impact of molecular techniques in real-life scenarios. (Methods) We included cases of suspected orthopedic infection treated with surgery from May 2021 to September 2023. We combined traditional cultures with NGS. For NGS, we performed a metagenomic analysis of ribosomal 16s, and we queried dedicated taxonomic libraries to identify the species. To avoid false positive results, we set a cut-off of 1000 counts of the percentage of frequency of reads. (Results) We included 49 patients in our study. Our results show the presence of bacteria in 36/49 (73%) and 29/49 (59%) cases studied with NGS and traditional cultures, respectively. The concordance rate was 61%. Among the 19/49 discordant cases, in 11/19 cases, cultures were negative and NGS positive; in 4/19, cultures were positive and NGS negative; and in the remaining 4/19, different species were detected by traditional cultures and NGS. (Conclusions) Difficult-to-grow microorganisms, such as slow-growing anaerobic bacteria, were better detected by NGS compared to traditional culture in our study. However, more data to distinguish between true pathogens and contaminants are needed. NGS can be an additional tool to be used for the diagnosis of orthopedic infections and the choice of appropriate antimicrobial therapy.

Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of 16S and 18S rRNA gene targeted next-generation sequencing based on five years of clinical experience

BACKGROUND

The use of 16S/18S rRNA targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) has improved microbial diagnostics, however, the use of tNGS in a routine clinical setting requires further elucidation. We retrospectively evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of 16S/18S tNGS, routinely used in the North Denmark Region between 2017 and 2021.

METHODS

We retrieved 544 tNGS results from 491 patients hospitalised with suspected infection (e.g. meningitis, pneumonia, intraabdominal abscess, osteomyelitis and joint infection). The tNGS assays was performed using the Illumina MiSeq desktop sequencer, and BION software for annotation. The patients' diagnosis and clinical management was evaluated by medical chart review. We calculated sensitivity and specificity, and determined the diagnostic accuracy of tNGS by defining results as true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative.

RESULTS

Overall, tNGS had a sensitivity of 56% and a specificity of 97%. tNGS was more frequently true positive compared to culture (32% vs 18%), and tNGS detected a greater variety of bacteria and fungi, and was more frequently polymicrobial. However, the total diagnostic turnaround time was 16 days, and although 73% of tNGS results were true positive or true negative, only 4.4% of results led to changes in clinical management.

CONCLUSIONS

As a supplement to culture, tNGS improves identification of pathogenic microorganisms in a broad range of clinical specimens. However, the long turnaround time of tNGS in our setting may have contributed to a limited clinical utility. An improved turnaround time can be the key to improved clinical utility in a future setting.

Performance and Hypothetical Impact on Joint Infection Management of the BioFire Joint Infection Panel: a Retrospective Analysis

Pathogen identification is key in septic arthritis. Culture-based techniques are challenging, especially when patients have been pretreated with antibiotics or when difficult-to-culture bacteria are encountered. The BioFire joint infection assay (BJA) is a multiplex PCR panel which detects 31 of the most prevalent bacterial and fungal pathogens causing septic arthritis. Here, 123 cryoconserved contemporary synovial fluid samples from 120 patients underwent BJA analysis. Results were compared to those of culture-based diagnostics (standard of care [SOC]). Clinical data were collected, and the possible impact of the molecular diagnostic application on patient management was evaluated. Fifteen of 123 synovial fluid cultures grew bacterial pathogens. All on-panel pathogens (9/15) were correctly identified by the BJA. The BJA identified four additional bacterial pathogens in four SOC-negative cases. BJA sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69.2% to 100%) and 100% (95% CI, 96.8% to 100%), respectively. Compared to the SOC, the BJA would have resulted in faster provision of species identification and molecular susceptibility data by 49 h and 99 h, respectively. Clinical data analysis indicates that in BJA-positive cases, faster species ID could have led to timelier optimization of antibiotic therapy. This retrospective study demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity of the BJA to detect on-panel organisms in bacterial arthritis. The usefulness of the BJA in prosthetic-joint infections is limited, as important pathogens (i.e., coagulase negative staphylococci and Cutibacterium acnes) are not covered. Evidence from patient data analysis suggests that the assay might prove valuable for optimizing patient management in acute arthritis related to fastidious organisms or for patients who received antibiotics prior to specimen collection.

Advances in the Microbiological Diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infections

A significant number of prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are culture-negative and/or misinterpreted as aseptic failures in spite of the correct implementation of diagnostic culture techniques, such as tissue sample processing in a bead mill, prolonged incubation time, or sonication of removed implants. Misinterpretation may lead to unnecessary surgery and needless antimicrobial treatment. The diagnostic value of non-culture techniques has been investigated in synovial fluid, periprosthetic tissues, and sonication fluid. Different feasible improvements, such as real-time technology, automated systems and commercial kits are now available to support microbiologists. In this review, we describe non-culture techniques based on nucleic acid amplification and sequencing methods. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a frequently used technique in most microbiology laboratories which allows the detection of a nucleic acid fragment by sequence amplification. Different PCR types can be used to diagnose PJI, each one requiring the selection of appropriate primers. Henceforward, thanks to the reduced cost of sequencing and the availability of next-generation sequencing (NGS), it will be possible to identify the whole pathogen genome sequence and, additionally, to detect all the pathogen sequences present in the joint. Although these new techniques have proved helpful, strict conditions need to be observed in order to detect fastidious microorganisms and rule out contaminants. Specialized microbiologists should assist clinicians in interpreting the result of the analyses at interdisciplinary meetings. New technologies will gradually be made available to improve the etiologic diagnoses of PJI, which will remain an important cornerstone of treatment. Strong collaboration among all specialists involved is essential for the correct diagnosis of PJI.

Profiling the Immune Response to Periprosthetic Joint Infection and Non-Infectious Arthroplasty Failure

Arthroplasty failure is a major complication of joint replacement surgery. It can be caused by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or non-infectious etiologies, and often requires surgical intervention and (in select scenarios) resection and reimplantation of implanted devices. Fast and accurate diagnosis of PJI and non-infectious arthroplasty failure (NIAF) is critical to direct medical and surgical treatment; differentiation of PJI from NIAF may, however, be unclear in some cases. Traditional culture, nucleic acid amplification tests, metagenomic, and metatranscriptomic techniques for microbial detection have had success in differentiating the two entities, although microbiologically negative apparent PJI remains a challenge. Single host biomarkers or, alternatively, more advanced immune response profiling-based approaches may be applied to differentiate PJI from NIAF, overcoming limitations of microbial-based detection methods and possibly, especially with newer approaches, augmenting them. In this review, current approaches to arthroplasty failure diagnosis are briefly overviewed, followed by a review of host-based approaches for differentiation of PJI from NIAF, including exciting futuristic combinational multi-omics methodologies that may both detect pathogens and assess biological responses, illuminating causes of arthroplasty failure.