RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Multicentre evaluation of two multiplex PCR platforms for the rapid microbiological investigation of nosocomial pneumonia in UK ICUs: the INHALE WP1 study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.11.04.20216648
DO 10.1101/2020.11.04.20216648
A1 Virve I Enne
A1 Alp Aydin
A1 Rossella Baldan
A1 Dewi R Owen
A1 Hollian Richardson
A1 Federico Ricciardi
A1 Charlotte Russell
A1 Brenda O. Nomamiukor-Ikeji
A1 Ann Marie Swart
A1 Juliet High
A1 Antony Colles
A1 Julie A Barber
A1 Vanya Gant
A1 David M Livermore
A1 Justin O’Grady
A1 and the INHALE WP1 Study Group
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/05/2020.11.04.20216648.abstract
AB Background ICU patients with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP or VAP) have high mortality, so broad-spectrum antibiotics are initiated at clinical diagnosis, then refined after 2-3 days, once microbiology results become available. Unfortunately, culture-based microbiological investigation is also insensitive, with aetiological agents remaining unidentified in many cases. This leads to extended over-treatment of patients with susceptible pathogens, whilst those with highly-resistant pathogens are treated inadequately for prolonged periods. Using PCR to seek pathogens and their resistance genes directly from clinical samples may improve therapy and stewardship. The INHALE study compared two PCR platforms for HAP/VAP diagnosis against routine microbiology (RM), identifying one to progress into a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT).Methods Surplus routine sputa, endotracheal tube exudates and bronchoalveolar lavages were collected from ICU patients about to receive new or changed antibiotics for hospital-onset lower respiratory tract infections at 15 UK hospitals. Samples were tested (or frozen for testing) within 72h of collection. Testing was performed using the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (bioMérieux) and Unyvero Pneumonia Panel (Curetis). Agreement between machine- and RM-results was categorised as ‘full positive/negative concordance’, ‘partial concordance’ or ‘major/minor discordance’. Bayesian latent class (BLC) analysis was used to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of each test, incorporating information from both PCR panels, 16S rDNA analysis and RM.Findings In 652 eligible samples; PCR identified pathogens in considerably more samples compared with RM: 60.4% and 74.2% for Unyvero and FilmArray respectively vs. 44.2%. Both tests also recorded more organisms per sample than routine culture, with the two PCR tests frequently in agreement with each other. For common HAP/VAP pathogens, FilmArray had sensitivity of 91.7-100.0% and specificity of 87.5-99.5%; Unyvero had sensitivity of 83.3-100.0%% except for Klebsiella aerogenes (50.0%) and Serratia marcescens (77.8%), and specificity of 89.4-99.0%. BLC analysis indicated that, compared with PCR, RM had low sensitivity, ranging from 27.0% to 69.4% for common respiratory pathogens. PCR detected more high-consequence antimicrobial resistance genes than would have been predicted by RM and susceptibility testing; around half the host strains could be detected when culture was repeated and they were sought assiduously.Interpretation Conventional and BLC analysis demonstrated that both platforms performed similarly and were considerably more sensitive than RM, detecting potential pathogens in patient samples reported as culture negative. FilmArray had slightly higher sensitivity than Unyvero for common pathogens and was chosen for INHALE’s RCT, based on the balance of these results, a swifter turnaround time (75 min vs. 6h), and a smaller footprint. The increased sensitivity of detection realised by PCR offers potential for improved antimicrobial prescribing.Competing Interest StatementDML: Advisory Boards or ad-hoc consultancy Accelerate, Allecra, Antabio, Centauri, Entasis, GSK, Meiji, Melinta, Menarini, Mutabilis, Nordic, ParaPharm, Pfizer, QPEX, Roche, Shionogi, T.A.Z., Tetraphase, VenatoRx, Wockhardt, Zambon, Paid lectures: Astellas, bioMerieux, Beckman Coulter, Cardiome, Cepheid, Merck/MSD, Menarini, Nordic, Pfizer and Shionogi. Relevant shareholdings or options: Dechra, GSK, Merck, Perkin Elmer, Pfizer, T.A.Z, amounting to <10% of portfolio value. VG: Advisory boards or ad-hoc consultancy Gilead, Shionogi, bioMerieux, MSD, Vidya Diagnostics VE: Speaking honoraria, consultancy fees and in-kind contributions from several diagnostic companies including Curetis GmbH, bioMerieux and Oxford Nanopore. JOG: JOG: has received speaking honoraria, consultancy fees, in-kind contributions or research funding from Oxford Nanopore, Simcere, Becton-Dickinson and Heraeus Medical. All other authors: None to declare. Funding StatementThis paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Reference Number: RP-PG-0514-20018). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This work had study specific approval from the UK Health Research Authority (Reference: 16/HRA/3882, IRAS ID: 201977,) and the UCL DNA Infection Bank Committee whose operation is governed by the London Fulham Research Ethics committee (REC Reference: 17/LO/1530).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData available upon request