RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Development and implementation of a customised rapid syndromic diagnostic test for severe pneumonia
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.06.02.20118489
DO 10.1101/2020.06.02.20118489
A1 Navapurkar, Vilas
A1 Scott, Josefin Bartholdson
A1 Maes, Mailis
A1 Higginson, Ellen
A1 Forrest, Sally
A1 Pereira-Dias, Joana
A1 Parmar, Surendra
A1 Heasman-Hunt, Emma
A1 Polgarova, Petra
A1 Brown, Jo
A1 Titti, Lissamma
A1 Smith, William PW
A1 Routledge, Matthew
A1 Sapsford, David
A1 Török, M.Estée
A1 Enoch, David A
A1 Wong, Vanessa
A1 Curran, Martin D
A1 Brown, Nicholas M
A1 Herre, Jurgen
A1 Dougan, Gordon
A1 Morris, Andrew Conway
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/19/2020.06.02.20118489.abstract
AB Rationale The diagnosis of infectious diseases has been hampered by reliance on microbial culture. Cultures take several days to return a result and organisms frequently fail to grow. In critically ill patients this leads to the use of empiric, broad-spectrum antimicrobials and compromises effective stewardship. The objective of this study was to establish the performance and clinical utility of a syndromic diagnostic approach to severe pneumonia.Methods Single ICU observational cohort study with contemporaneous comparator group. We developed and implemented a TaqMan array card (TAC) covering 52 respiratory pathogens in ventilated patients with suspected pneumonia. The time to result was compared against conventional culture, and sensitivity compared to conventional microbiology and metagenomic sequencing. We observed the clinician decisions in response to array results, comparing antibiotic free days (AFD) between the study cohort and comparator group.Results 95 patients were enrolled with 71 forming the comparator group. TAC returned results 61 hours (IQR 42-90) faster than culture. The test had an overall sensitivity of 99% (95% CI 98-99%) compared to conventional culture and metagenomic sequencing. In 53% of patients the TAC results altered clinical management, with 64% of changes leading to de-escalation, 27% to an increase in spectrum, and investigations for alternative diagnoses in 9%. There was a significant difference in the distribution of AFDs with more AFDs in the TAC group (p=0.02).Conclusions Implementation of a customised syndromic diagnostic approach to pneumonia led to faster results, with high sensitivity and measurable impact on clinical decision making.Trial registration NCT03996330 -registered 24/6/2019Authorship (CReDIT)VN -Conceptualisation, resources, investigation, writing-review and editing, project administration, funding acquisition, supervision.JBS -resources, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, writing-original draft.MM-resources, investigation, writing-review and editing.EH-investigation, writing-review and editing.SF-investigation, writing-review and editing.JD-investigation, writing-review and editing.SP-investigation, writing-review and editing.EHH-investigation, writing-review and editing.PP-investigation, data curation writing-review and editing.JB-investigation, data curation writing-review and editing.LT-investigation, data curation writing-review and editing.WS- data curation writing-review and editingMR-data curation writing-review and editing.DS-data curation writing-review and editing.MET-conceptualisation, investigation, data curation writing-review and editing DE-investigation, writing-review and editing.VW-formal analysis, investigation, data curation writing-review and editing.MDC-Conceptualisation, resources, investigation, writing-review and editing, project administration, funding acquisition, supervision.NB-Conceptualisation, resources, investigation, writing-review and editing, project administration, supervision. JH-Conceptualisation, resources, investigation, writing-review and editing.GD-Conceptualisation, resources, investigation, writing-review and editing, project administration, funding acquisition, supervision.ACM-Conceptualisation, methodology, resources, investigation, writing-original draft, project administration, formal analysis, funding acquisition, supervision.The study was funded by Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trust and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Resource Centre (grant held by Professor Dougan). Dr Török is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship (funded by the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Health Foundation) and by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Dr Conway Morris is supported by a Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (WT 2055214/Z/16/Z). The metagenomic sequencing was funded by the Wellcome Trust.Declaration of interest MDC is the inventor on a patent held by the Secretary of State for Health (UK Government) EP27SS503, which covers some of the genetic sequences used in this study. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.Ethical permissions The study was approved by the Leeds East Research Ethics Committee (17/YH/0286) and registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03996330). The retrospective assessment of routinely collected data from the comparator group received a consent waiver and was conducted under a protocol approved by the institutional review board (A095506). Informed consent was obtained from the patient or a proxy decision maker where the patient lacked capacity, follow-up consent was sought when patient recovered capacity.Competing Interest StatementMartin D Curran is the inventor on a patent held by the Secretary of State for Health (UK government) EP2788503, which covers some of the genetic sequences used in this study. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.Clinical TrialNCT03996330Funding StatementThe study was funded by Addenbrookes Charitable Trust and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Resource Centre (grant held by Professor Dougan), Dr Conway Morris is supported by a Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (WT 2055214/Z/16/Z). The metagenomic sequencing was funded by the Wellcome Trust. 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:The study was approved by the Leeds East Research Ethics Committee (17/YH/0286).The retrospective assessment of routinely collected data from the comparator group received a consent waiver and was conducted under a protocol approved by the institutional review board (A095506).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.YesDe-identified data is available on request to the corresponding author. All samples were sequenced at the Wellcome Sanger Institute, and raw read data is available at the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) with study accession numbers ERP111277, ERP111280, ERP112277, and ERP018622.