Routine Metagenomics Service for ICU Patients with Respiratory Infection

Rationale: Respiratory metagenomics (RMg) needs evaluation in a pilot service setting to determine utility and inform implementation into routine clinical practice. Objectives: Feasibility, performance, and clinical impacts on antimicrobial prescribing and infection control were recorded during a pilot RMg service. Methods: RMg was performed on 128 samples from 87 patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) on two general and one specialist respiratory ICUs at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London. Measurements and Main Results: During the first 15 weeks, RMg provided same-day results for 110 samples (86%), with a median turnaround time of 6.7 hours (interquartile range = 6.1-7.5 h). RMg was 93% sensitive and 81% specific for clinically relevant pathogens compared with routine testing. Forty-eight percent of RMg results informed antimicrobial prescribing changes (22% escalation; 26% deescalation) with escalation based on speciation in 20 out of 24 cases and detection of acquired-resistance genes in 4 out of 24 cases. Fastidious or unexpected organisms were reported in 21 samples, including anaerobes (n = 12), Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Tropheryma whipplei, cytomegalovirus, and Legionella pneumophila ST1326, which was subsequently isolated from the bedside water outlet. Application to consecutive severe community-acquired LRTI cases identified Staphylococcus aureus (two with SCCmec and three with luk F/S virulence determinants), Streptococcus pyogenes (emm1-M1uk clone), S. dysgalactiae subspecies equisimilis (STG62647A), and Aspergillus fumigatus with multiple treatments and public health impacts. Conclusions: This pilot study illustrates the potential of RMg testing to provide benefits for antimicrobial treatment, infection control, and public health when provided in a real-world critical care setting. Multicenter studies are now required to inform future translation into routine service.

Evaluating the potential for respiratory metagenomics to improve treatment of secondary infection and detection of nosocomial transmission on expanded COVID-19 intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Clinical metagenomics (CMg) has the potential to be translated from a research tool into routine service to improve antimicrobial treatment and infection control decisions. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic provides added impetus to realise these benefits, given the increased risk of secondary infection and nosocomial transmission of multi-drug-resistant (MDR) pathogens linked with the expansion of critical care capacity.

METHODS

CMg using nanopore sequencing was evaluated in a proof-of-concept study on 43 respiratory samples from 34 intubated patients across seven intensive care units (ICUs) over a 9-week period during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave.

RESULTS

An 8-h CMg workflow was 92% sensitive (95% CI, 75-99%) and 82% specific (95% CI, 57-96%) for bacterial identification based on culture-positive and culture-negative samples, respectively. CMg sequencing reported the presence or absence of β-lactam-resistant genes carried by Enterobacterales that would modify the initial guideline-recommended antibiotics in every case. CMg was also 100% concordant with quantitative PCR for detecting Aspergillus fumigatus from 4 positive and 39 negative samples. Molecular typing using 24-h sequencing data identified an MDR-K. pneumoniae ST307 outbreak involving 4 patients and an MDR-C. striatum outbreak involving 14 patients across three ICUs.

CONCLUSION

CMg testing provides accurate pathogen detection and antibiotic resistance prediction in a same-day laboratory workflow, with assembled genomes available the next day for genomic surveillance. The provision of this technology in a service setting could fundamentally change the multi-disciplinary team approach to managing ICU infections. The potential to improve the initial targeted treatment and rapidly detect unsuspected outbreaks of MDR-pathogens justifies further expedited clinical assessment of CMg.

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication.

METHODS

We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points.

RESULTS

Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of -1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927 .).

Transcriptional regulation in the Streptococcus pneumoniae rlrA pathogenicity islet by RlrA

The proper temporal expression of virulence genes during infection is crucial to the infectious life cycle of microbial pathogens, particularly in pathogens that encounter a multitude of environments in eukaryotic hosts. Streptococcus pneumoniae normally colonizes the nasopharynges of healthy adults but can cause a range of diseases at a variety of host sites. Transcriptional regulators that are essential for full virulence of S. pneumoniae in different animal models have been identified. One such regulator, rlrA, is required for colonization of the nasopharynx and lung infection but is dispensable for systemic infection. Previous work has shown that rlrA lies in a 12-kb pathogenicity islet, divergently opposed to three putative sortase-anchored surface proteins and three sortase enzymes. In addition to rlrA, one of the putative surface proteins and one of the sortases have also been shown to be essential for lung infection. In this work, we demonstrate that RlrA is a positive regulator of all seven genes in the rlrA pathogenicity islet, with transcriptional activation occurring at four different promoters in the islet with AT-rich sequences. These promoters direct the expression of rlrA itself, the three sortases, rrgA, and rrgBC. These data are consistent with the model whereby the rlrA pathogenicity islet acts in an autonomous manner to alter the bacterial surface components that interact with the pulmonary and nasopharyngeal environments.