Comparing BioFire FilmArray BCID2 and BCID Panels for Direct Detection of Bacterial Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes from Positive Blood Cultures.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cortazzo V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8092734 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparing BioFire FilmArray BCID2 and BCID Panels for Direct Detection of Bacterial Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes from Positive Blood Cultures.
Cortazzo Venere V D'Inzeo Tiziana T Giordano Liliana L Menchinelli Giulia G Liotti Flora Marzia FM Fiori Barbara B De Maio Flavio F Luzzaro Francesco F Sanguinetti Maurizio M Posteraro Brunella B Spanu Teresa T
Journal of clinical microbiology 20210319 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:Despite the current reliance on blood cultures (BCs), the diagnosis of bloodstream infections (BSIs) can be sped up using new technologies performed directly on positive BC bottles. Two methods (the MALDI BioTyper system and FilmArray blood culture identification [BCID] panel) are potentially applicable. In this study, we performed a large-scale clinical evaluation (1,585 microorganisms from 1,394 BSI episodes) on the combined use of the MALDI BioTyper and FilmArray BCID panel compared to a reference (culture-based) method. As a result, the causative organisms of 97.7% (1,362/1,394) of the BSIs were correctly identified by our MALDI BioTyper and FilmArray BCID-based algorithm. Specifically, 65 (5.3%) out of 1,223 monomicrobial BCs that provided incorrect or invalid identifications with the MALDI BioTyper were accurately detected by the FilmArray BCID panel; additionally, 153 (89.5%) out of 171 polymicrobial BCs achieved complete identification with the FilmArray BCID panel. Conversely, full use of the MALDI BioTyper would have resulted in the identification of only 1 causative organism in 97/171 (56.7%) of the polymicrobial cultures. By applying our diagnostic algorithm, the median time to identification was shortened (19.5 h versus 41.7 h with the reference method; P < 0.001), and the minimized use of the FilmArray BCID panel led to a significant cost savings. Twenty-six out of 31 microorganisms that could not be identified were species/genera not designed to be detected with the FilmArray BCID panel, indicating that subculture was not dispensable for a few of our BSI episodes. In summary, the fast and effective testing of BC bottles is realistically adoptable in the clinical microbiology laboratory workflow, although the usefulness of this testing for the management of BSIs remains to be established.
| S-EPMC4767970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We analyzed the accuracy and time efficiency of the FilmArray blood culture identification (FA-BCID) panel in identifying the pathogens in positive blood cultures. Two-hundred and seventy-two individuals were randomly assigned as the control (n = 212) and FA-BCID (n = 60) groups participating in this study. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) was used to assess the control group. Meanwhile, the FA-BCID group was evaluated using both FA-BCID and MALDI-TOF, and the results were compared. The identification results from 73% (44/60) of the blood samples demonstrated agreement between FA-BCID and MALDI-TOF. The FA-BCID panel detected mecA genes in seven Staphylococcus species; six cases were confirmed using antimicrobial susceptibility testing. In addition, KPC genes were detected in one Escherichia coli and one Klebsiella pneumoniae, although only the latter corresponded with the result from antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The turnaround time (TAT) for identification through FA-BCID was shorter, with a median of 3.6 [2.4-4.6] hours (p < 0.05). No significant differences in the clinical and microbial outcomes following the ASP were observed between FA-BCID and MALDI-TOF. These results suggest that the FA-BCID panel provides an identification result that is as reliable as that provided by the routine identification procedure but with shorter TAT; thus, the FA-BCID method is considered an effective and beneficial method for therapeutic decision making and the improvement of the ASP for patients with bloodstream infection.
| S-EPMC10648013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConventional turnaround time (TAT) for positive blood culture (PBC) identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is 2-3 days. We evaluated the TAT and ID/AST performance using clinical and seeded samples directly from PBC bottles with different commercial approaches: (1) Accelerate Pheno® system (Pheno) for ID/AST; (2) BioFire® FilmArray® Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel and/ or BCID2 for ID; (3) direct AST by VITEK® 2 (direct AST); and (4) overnight culture using VITEK® 2 colony AST.ResultsA total of 141 PBC samples were included in this evaluation. Using MALDI-TOF (Bruker MALDI Biotyper) as the reference method for ID, the overall monomicrobial ID sensitivity/specificity are as follows: Pheno 97.9/99.9%; BCID 100/100%; and BCID2 100/100%, respectively. For AST performance, broth microdilution (BMD) was used as the reference method. For gram-negatives, overall categorical and essential agreements (CA/EA) for each method were: Pheno 90.3/93.2%; direct AST 92.6/88.5%; colony AST 94.4/89.5%, respectively. For gram-positives, the overall CA/EAs were as follows: Pheno 97.2/98.89%; direct AST 97.2/100%; colony AST 97.2/100%, respectively. The BCID/BCID2 and direct AST TATs were around 9-20 h (1/9-19 h for ID with resistance markers/AST), with 15 min/sample hands-on time. In comparison, Pheno TATs were around 8-10 h (1.5/7 h for ID/AST) with 2 min/sample hands-on time, maintains a clinically relevant fast report of antibiotic minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and allows for less TAT and hands-on time.ConclusionIn conclusion, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study conducted as such in Asia; all studied approaches achieved satisfactory performance, factors such as TAT, panel of antibiotics choices and hands-on time should be considered for the selection of appropriate rapid ID and AST of PBC methods in different laboratory settings.
| S-EPMC8684256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExisting panels for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are slow and lack quantification of important pathogens and antimicrobial resistance, which are not solely responsible for their complex etiology and antibiotic resistance. BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia (PN) panels may provide rapid information on their etiology.MethodsThe bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of 187 patients with LRTIs was simultaneously analyzed using a PN panel and cultivation, and the impact of the PN panel on clinical practice was assessed. The primary endpoint was to compare the consistency between the PN panel and conventional microbiology in terms of etiology and drug resistance, as well as to explore the clinical significance of the PN panel. The secondary endpoint was pathogen detection using the PN panel in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) or hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP).ResultsFifty-seven patients with HAP and 130 with CAP were included. The most common pathogens of HAP were Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae, with the most prevalent antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes being CTX-M and KPC. For CAP, the most common pathogens were Haemophilus influenzae and Staphylococcus aureus, with the most frequent AMR genes being CTX-M and VIM. Compared with routine bacterial culture, the PN panel demonstrated an 85% combined positive percent agreement (PPA) and 92% negative percent agreement (NPA) for the qualitative identification of 13 bacterial targets. PN detection of bacteria with higher levels of semi-quantitative bacteria was associated with more positive bacterial cultures. Positive concordance between phenotypic resistance and the presence of corresponding AMR determinants was 85%, with 90% positive agreement between CTX-M-type extended-spectrum beta-lactamase gene type and phenotype and 100% agreement for mecA/C and MREJ. The clinical benefit of the PN panel increased by 25.97% compared with traditional cultural tests.ConclusionThe bacterial pathogens and AMR identified by the PN panel were in good agreement with conventional cultivation, and the clinical benefit of the PN panel increased by 25.97% compared with traditional detection. Therefore, the PN panel is recommended for patients with CAP or HAP who require prompt pathogen diagnosis and resistance identification.
| S-EPMC10955009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Three rapid diagnostic test panels (Verigene BC-GN, BioFire BCID, and BCID 2 [RUO]) were compared using the Desirability of Outcome Ranking Management of Antimicrobial Therapy (DOOR-MAT) to evaluate potential downstream antimicrobial prescribing decisions resulting from the panels' different organism and resistance detection. BioFire BCID 2 (RUO) had the best mean DOOR-MAT scores.
| S-EPMC8442774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multiplex nucleic acid amplification assays that simultaneously detect multiple respiratory pathogens in a single nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimen are widely used for rapid clinical diagnostics. We evaluated Allplex Respiratory Panel (RP) 1, 2, 3, and the BioFire FilmArray RP assay for detecting respiratory pathogens from NPS specimens. In all, 181 NPS specimens obtained from patients suspected of having respiratory infections during the non-influenza season (August-December 2019) were included. The Allplex RP 1, 2, and 3 detected 154 samples positive for respiratory viruses, whereas the BioFire FilmArray detected viruses in 98 samples. Co-infection with two or more viruses was detected in 41 and 17 NPS specimens by Allplex RP and the BioFire FilmArray RP, respectively. For adenoviruses, Allplex RP 1 detected 31 specimens, compared to 34 by the BioFire FilmArray. In all, 64 NPS specimens were positive for human enterovirus (HEV) and human rhinovirus (HRV) on the Allplex RP, in contrast to 39 HEV/HRV on the BioFire FilmArray. The parainfluenza virus (PIV-1-4) detection rate differed between the two systems. Most discrepant results were observed for NPS specimens with high cycle threshold values obtained by Allplex RP. This study showed concordant performance of the Allplex RP 1, 2, 3, and the BioFire FilmArray RP for the simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory viruses.
| S-EPMC8775103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Point-of-care syndromic panels allow for simultaneous and rapid detection of respiratory pathogens from nasopharyngeal swabs. The clinical performance of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 panel RP2.0 (QIAstat-Dx RP2.0) and the BioFire FilmArray Respiratory panel RP2.1 (BioFire RP2.1) was evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other common respiratory pathogens. A total of 137 patient samples were retrospectively selected based on emergency department admission, along with 33 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples tested using a WHO laboratory developed test. The limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 was initially evaluated for both platforms. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 500 copies/mL and had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 85%. The BioFire RP2.1 detected SARS-CoV-2 at 50 copies/mL and had a PPA of 97%. Both platforms showed a negative percent agreement of 100% for SARS-CoV-2. Evaluation of analytical specificity from a range of common respiratory targets showed a similar performance between each platform. The QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 had an overall PPA of 82% (67-100%) in clinical samples, with differences in sensitivity depending on the respiratory target. Both platforms can be used to detect acute cases of SARS-CoV-2. While the QIAstat-Dx RP2.0 is suitable for detecting respiratory viruses within a clinical range, it has less analytical and clinical sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 compared to the BioFire RP2.1.
| S-EPMC8989387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rapid pathogen characterization from positive blood cultures (BC) can improve management of patients with bloodstream infections (BSI). The FilmArray blood culture identification (BCID) assay is a molecular test approved for direct identification of BSI causing pathogens from positive BC. A recently updated version of the panel (BCID2) comprises improved species identification characteristics and allows for the detection of one expanded-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)- and several carbapenemase-encoding genes. Here, the clinical performance of the BCID2 assay for species identification in 180 positive BCs was evaluated. BCID2 results were concordant with the standard of care (SOC) in 159/180 (88.3%) BCs; 68/74 (91.9%) and 71/74 (96.0%) of all samples growing monobacterial, Gram-positive or Gram-negative pathogens, respectively, were identified, in agreement with SOC results. Nonconcordance was related to the detection of additional pathogens by the BCID2 assay (n = 4), discrepant species identification (n = 4), or failure of BCID2 to detect on-panel pathogens (n = 1). A number (12/31; 38.7%) of discordant results became evident in polymicrobial BC specimens. BCID2 identified the presence of blaCTX-M-carrying species in 12 BC specimens but failed to predict third-generation cephalosporin resistance in four isolates exhibiting independent cephalosporin resistance mechanisms. Carbapenem resistance related to the presence of blaVIM-2 or blaOxa-48-like was correctly predicted in two isolates. In conclusion, the BCID2 assay is a reliable tool for rapid BC processing and species identification. Despite inclusion of common ESBL- or carbapenemase-encoding markers, the multifactorial nature of β-lactam resistance in Gram-negative organisms warrants combination of BCID2 with (rapid) phenotypic susceptibility assays.
| S-EPMC8373244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For the timely treatment of patients with infections in bloodstream and cerebrospinal fluid, a rapid antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) is urgently needed. Here, we describe a direct and rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (dRAST) system, which can determine the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria from a positive blood culture bottle (PBCB) in six hours. The positive blood culture sample is directly mixed with agarose and inoculated into a micropatterned plastic microchip with lyophilized antibiotic agents. Using microscopic detection of bacterial colony formation in agarose, the total time to result from a PBCB for dRAST was only six hours for a wide range of bacterial concentrations in PBCBs. The results from the dRAST system were consistent with the results from a standard AST, broth microdilution test. In tests of clinical isolates (n = 206) composed of 16 Gram-negative species and seven Gram-positive species, the dRAST system was accurate compared to the standard broth microdilution test, with rates of 91.11% (2613/2868) categorical agreement, 6.69% (192/2868) minor error, 2.72% (50/1837) major error and 1.45% (13/896) very major error. Thus, the dRAST system can be used to rapidly identify appropriate antimicrobial agents for the treatment of blood stream infection (BSI) and antibiotic-resistant strain infections.
| S-EPMC5430693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nanopore sequencing workflows have attracted increasing attention owing to their fast, real-time, and convenient portability. Positive blood culture samples were collected from patients with bacterial bloodstream infection and tested by nanopore sequencing. This study compared the sequencing results for pathogen taxonomic profiling and antimicrobial resistance genes to those of species identification and phenotypic drug susceptibility using traditional microbiology testing. A total of 37 bacterial positive blood culture results of strain genotyping by nanopore sequencing were consistent with those of mass spectrometry. Among them, one mixed infection of bacteria and fungi was identified using nanopore sequencing and confirmatory quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The amount of sequencing data was 21.89 ± 8.46 MB for species identification, and 1.0 MB microbial strain data enabled accurate determination. Data volumes greater than or equal to 94.6 MB nearly covered all the antimicrobial resistance genes of the bacteria in our study. In addition, the results of the antimicrobial resistance genes were compared with those of phenotypic drug susceptibility testing for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus. Therefore, the nanopore sequencing platform for rapid identification of causing pathogens and relevant antimicrobial resistance genes complementary to conventional blood culture outcomes may optimize antimicrobial stewardship management for patients with bacterial bloodstream infection.
| S-EPMC10773726 | biostudies-literature