Detection of bacteria via multiplex PCR in respiratory samples of critically ill COVID-19 patients with suspected HAP/VAP in the ICU

Performance of BIOFIRE FILMARRAY pneumonia panel in suspected pneumonia: insights from a real-world study

Pneumonia may be caused by a diverse group of microorganisms; however, a microbiologic diagnosis is not universally made. Molecular tests such as the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel (BF-PP) offer the possibility of rapid identification of potential pneumonia pathogens. This retrospective analysis was conducted as a sub-study of a recently published randomized controlled trial. Specimens from patients with suspected pneumonia were tested by the BF-PP, with results compared to cultures. The overall BF-PP positivity rate was 44.8% (252/563), and was higher [64.6% (164/254)] in specimens from patients ultimately diagnosed with pneumonia. Discrepancies between the BF-PP and cultures were most common for Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Streptococcus agalactiae. Positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) between the BF-PP and culture were 91.4% (CI 86.3%-94.9%) and 83.6% (CI 79.5%-87.2%), respectively. For most bacteria, a correlation between high genomic abundance (genomic copies/mL) reported from the BF-PP and culture growth abundance was found. In specimens from patients ultimately diagnosed with pneumonia, clinical consistency-assessed based on whether BF-PP results aligned with associated culture results-was 79.9% and was highest for bronchoalveolar lavage fluid specimens. The BF-PP has reliable analytical performance and offers the potential advantage over conventional cultures of providing higher detection rates and more rapid results. Interestingly, despite the use of this advanced molecular diagnostic tool, one-third of pneumonia cases remained without a microbiologic etiology.IMPORTANCEThis study evaluates the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel by comparing its performance to conventional cultures in a real-world patient population (including patients ultimately diagnosed as not having pneumonia) using different types of specimens. Findings show a higher detection rate of microorganisms with the panel compared to cultures, suggesting that this test could aid in tailoring treatments for pneumonia. However, challenges remain and require further study, including distinguishing true pathogens from colonizing microorganisms and determinig why one-third of patients diagnosed with pneumonia still lacked a microbiologic etiology.

Towards a holistic approach to pulmonary infections. Insights from the Sixth Annual Meeting of Spanish Experts 2024

Pneumonia is the leading cause of death from infection in the developed world. In recent years, researchers and healthcare professionals have worked extensively to reduce this burden. Prevention is better than cure, and significant advances have been made in areas such as vaccination and the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care units. Comprehensive surveillance programmes and new diagnostic methods have been developed to assess trends in this disease and to identify the infectious agents involved. Clinical presentation can be challenging in elderly patients or those with certain comorbidities, prompting new studies in these populations to address these issues. Correct and early management of severe community-acquired pneumonia represents a major opportunity to reduce its associated mortality. Although fungal pathogens are an uncommon cause of lung infection, they are associated with high morbidity and mortality, highlighting the need for new approaches. Finally, new drugs are available for the treatment of pneumonia, and a thorough understanding of them is key to ensuring their correct use, particularly to combat multi-resistance. To provide an update on these points, a multidisciplinary team of Spanish experts convened at the Sixth Annual Meeting of Pneumonia Day, under the scientific sponsorship of GEIPC-SEIMC. This paper reflects the information shared at this meeting, offering the latest insights on these topics and supporting a holistic approach to pneumonia management.

The role of rapid multiplex molecular syndromic panels in the clinical management of infections in critically ill patients: an experts-opinion document

Rapid multiplex molecular syndromic panels (RMMSP) (3 or more pathogens and time-to-results < 6 h) allow simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens and genotypic resistance markers. Their implementation has revolutionized the clinical landscape by significantly enhancing diagnostic accuracy and reducing time-to-results in different critical conditions. The current revision is a comprehensive but not systematic review of the literature. We conducted electronic searches of the PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar databases to identify studies assessing the clinical performance of RMMSP in critically ill patients until July 30, 2024. A multidisciplinary group of 11 Spanish specialists developed clinical questions pertaining to the indications and limitations of these diagnostic tools in daily practice in different clinical scenarios. The topics covered included pneumonia, sepsis/septic shock, candidemia, meningitis/encephalitis, and off-label uses of these RMMSP. These tools reduced the time-to-diagnosis (and therefore the time-to-appropriate treatment), reduced inappropriate empiric treatment and the length of antibiotic therapy (which has a positive impact on antimicrobial stewardship and might be associated with lower in-hospital mortality), may reduce the length of hospital stay, which could potentially lead to cost savings. Despite their advantages, these RMMSP have limitations that should be known, including limited availability, missed diagnoses if the causative agent or resistance determinants are not included in the panel, false positives, and codetections. Overall, the implementation of RMMSP represents a significant advancement in infectious disease diagnostics, enabling more precise and timely interventions. This document addresses relevant issues related to the use of RMMSP on different critically ill patient profiles, to standardize procedures, assist in making management decisions and help specialists to obtain optimal outcomes.

Role and significance of virus-bacteria interactions in disease progression

Understanding disease pathogenesis caused by bacteria/virus, from the perspective of individual pathogen has provided meaningful insights. However, as viral and bacterial counterparts might inhabit the same infection site, it becomes crucial to consider their interactions and contributions in disease onset and progression. The objective of the review is to highlight the importance of considering both viral and bacterial agents during the course of coinfection. The review provides a unique perspective on the general theme of virus-bacteria interactions, which either lead to colocalized infections that are restricted to one anatomical niche, or systemic infections that have a systemic effect on the human host. The sequence, nature, and underlying mechanisms of certain virus-bacteria interactions have been elaborated with relevant examples from literature. It also attempts to address the various applied aspects, including diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for individual infections as well as virus-bacteria coinfections. The review aims to aid researchers in comprehending the intricate interplay between virus and bacteria in disease progression, thereby enhancing understanding of current methodologies and empowering the development of novel health care strategies to tackle coinfections.

Practice Versus Potential: The Impact of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel on Antibiotic Use in Children

BACKGROUND

The BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (BFPP), a multiplex PCR panel for the diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infections, has been proposed as a tool for antimicrobial stewardship. Few studies evaluate real-world implementation of the BFPP and no studies focus exclusively on children. Our institution implemented BFPP testing without restrictions.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in children hospitalized at St. Louis Children's Hospital to (1) characterize the use of the BFPP in pediatric patients and (2) assess how results impacted antibiotic use. We included all BFPP tests obtained during the first year after the introduction of the test, September 2021 through August 2022. The primary outcome was change in antibiotic therapy within 24 hours of results, which was compared to the potential change in antibiotic therapy determined by two infectious diseases clinicians.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-nine tests from 126 patients were included. Nine patients were immunocompromised and 19 had chronic tracheostomy. The majority of tests were sent from tracheal aspirate specimens (92%) and from patients in an intensive care unit (94%). Only 51% of tests were obtained due to respiratory failure or suspected pneumonia. For 80% of test results, there was potential to change antibiotics, but change occurred in only 46% of tests in practice. Antibiotic escalation was more common (26%) than de-escalation (15%) or discontinuation (4.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of pediatric patients tested with the BFPP, the majority of tests were sent from tracheal aspirates and less than half of tests were associated with a change in antibiotics.

Real-life Assessment of BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel in Adults Hospitalized With Respiratory Illness

BACKGROUND

Inability to identify the microbial etiology of lower respiratory tract infection leads to unnecessary antibiotic use. We evaluated the utility of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (BioFire PN) to inform microbiologic diagnosis.

METHODS

Hospitalized adults with respiratory illness were recruited; sputa and clinical/laboratory data were collected. Sputa were cultured for bacteria and tested with BioFire PN. Microbial etiology was adjudicated by 4 physicians. Bacterial polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was compared with culture and clinical adjudication.

RESULTS

Of 298 sputa tested, BioFire PN detected significantly more pathogens (350 bacteria, 16 atypicals, and 164 viruses) than sputum culture plus any standard-of-care testing (91% vs 60%, P < .0001). When compared with culture, the sensitivity of BioFire PN for individual bacteria was 46% to 100%; specificity, 61% to 100%; and negative predictive value, 92% to 100%. Cases were adjudicated as viral (n = 58) and bacterial (n = 100). PCR detected bacteria in 55% of viral cases and 95% of bacterial (P < .0001). High serum procalcitonin and bacterial adjudication were more often associated with sputa with 106 or 107 copies detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiplex PCR testing of sputa for bacteria is useful to rule out bacterial infection with added value to detect viruses and atypical bacteria.

Assessing the Utility of Multiplexed Polymerase Chain Reaction in Detecting Microorganisms Causing Infections in Critically ill Patients

Early sepsis diagnosis is crucial for implementing adequate antibiotic therapy and for patient survival. This study investigated whether using multiplexed PCR for detecting microorganisms in critical septic patients affects initial antibiotic treatment and compared it to microbiological culture. It also explored scenarios where PCR is more effective in clinical practice. One hundred nineteen specimens (83 blood and 36 respiratory specimens) belonging to 93 patients were analyzed. Multiplexed PCR determinations were performed using the FA-BCID Panel (bioMérieux) for blood samples and the FA-Pneumo for respiratory samples. The mean turnaround times were 1.7 h for the FA-BCID and 1.5h for the FA-Pneumo. Conversely, they were 96.1 h for blood cultures and 72.3 h for respiratory cultures. FA-BCID showed a mean sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 100%. FA-Pneumo showed a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 90%. However, the positive predictive value was only 39%. Discrepancies were common in polymicrobial samples. Based on the PCR results, initial empirical treatment should have been changed in 71% of patients with bloodstream infections and 61% with respiratory infections. We conclude that multiplexed PCR improves the response time in identifying germs with a high degree of coincidence for blood cultures and moderate for respiratory cultures. These results highlight the importance of PCR in choosing an appropriate antibiotic therapy.

The Assessment of Multiplex PCR in Identifying Bacterial Infections in Patients Hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review

Bacterial infection can occur in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 in various conditions, resulting in poorer outcomes, such as a higher death rate. This current systematic review was conducted in order to assess the efficiency of multiplex PCR in detecting bacterial infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, as well as to analyze the most common bacterial pathogens and other factors that interfere with this diagnosis. The research was conducted using four electronic databases (PubMed, Taylor&Francis, Web of Science, and Wiley Online Library). Out of 290 studies, nine were included in the systematic review. The results supported the use of multiplex PCR in detecting bacteria, considering its high sensitivity and specificity rates. The most common bacterial pathogens found were Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae. The median age at admission was 61.5 years, and the majority of patients were men (70.3%), out of a total of 1553 patients. The proportion of ICU admission was very high, with a pooled proportion of 52.6% over the analyzed studies, and an average duration of hospitalization of 13 days. The mortality rate was proportionally high, as was the rate of ICU admission, with a pooled mortality of 24.9%. It was discovered that 65.2% of all patients used antibiotics before admission, with or without medical prescription. Antibiotic treatment should be considered consciously, considering the high risks of developing antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics Use in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Literature Review

The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention among scientists. Antibiotics were widely prescribed during the early phase of the pandemic. We performed a literature review to assess the reasons, evidence and practices on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. Published articles providing data on antibiotics use in COVID-19 patients were identified through computerized literature searches on the MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases. Searching the MEDLINE database, the following search terms were adopted: ((antibiotic) AND (COVID-19)). Searching the SCOPUS database, the following search terms were used: ((antibiotic treatment) AND (COVID-19)). The risk of bias in the included studies was not assessed. Both quantitative and qualitative information were summarized by means of textual descriptions. Five-hundred-ninety-three studies were identified, published from January 2020 to 30 October 2022. Thirty-six studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 36 included studies, 32 studies were on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 inpatients and 4 on antibiotic use in COVID-19 outpatients. Apart from the studies identified and included in the review, the main recommendations on antibiotic treatment from 5 guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19 were also summarized in a separate paragraph. Antibiotics should not be prescribed during COVID-19 unless there is a strong clinical suspicion of bacterial coinfection or superinfection.

Causative Agents of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia and Resistance to Antibiotics in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have an increased risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This systematic review updates information on the causative agents of VAP and resistance to antibiotics in COVID-19 patients. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed/MEDLINE, and LILACS databases from December 2019 to December 2021. Studies that described the frequency of causative pathogens associated with VAP and their antibiotic resistance patterns in critically ill COVID-19 adult patients were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used for critical appraisal. The data are presented according to the number or proportions reported in the studies. A total of 25 articles were included, involving 2766 VAP cases in COVID-19 patients (range 5–550 VAP cases). Most of the studies included were carried out in France (32%), Italy (20%), Spain (12%) and the United States (8%). Gram-negative bacteria were the most frequent causative pathogens of VAP (range of incidences in studies: P. aeruginosa 7.5–72.5%, K. pneumoniae 6.9–43.7%, E. cloacae 1.6–20% and A. baumannii 1.2–20%). S. aureus was the most frequent Gram-positive pathogen, with a range of incidence of 3.3–57.9%. The median incidence of Aspergillus spp. was 6.4%. Few studies have recorded susceptibility patterns among Gram-negative causative pathogens and have mainly reported extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL), AmpC, and carbapenem resistance. The median frequency of methicillin resistance among S. aureus isolates was 44.4%. Our study provides the first comprehensive description of the causative agents and antibiotic resistance in COVID-19 patients with VAP. Gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens causing VAP. Data on antibiotic resistance patterns in the published medical literature are limited, as well as information about VAP from low- and middle-income countries.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection, a narrative review

COVID pneumonitis can cause patients to become critically ill. They may require intensive care and mechanical ventilation. Ventilator-associated pneumonia is a concern. This review aims to discuss the topic of ventilator-associated pneumonia in this group. Several reasons have been proposed to explain the elevated rates of VAP in critically ill COVID patients compared to non-COVID patients. Extrinsic factors include understaffing, lack of PPE and use of immunomodulating agents. Intrinsic factors include severe parenchymal damage, immune dysregulation, along with pulmonary vascular endothelial inflammation and thrombosis. The rate of VAP has been reported at 45.4%, with an ICU mortality rate of 42.7%. Multiple challenges to diagnosis exist. Other conditions such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary oedema and atelectasis can present with similar features. Frequent growth of gram-negative bacteria has been shown in multiple studies, with particularly high rates of pseudomonas aeruginosa. The rate of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis has been reported at 4–30%. We would recommend the use of invasive techniques when possible. This will enable de-escalation of antibiotics as soon as possible, decreasing overuse. It is also important to keep other possible causes of ventilator-associated pneumonia in mind, such as COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis, cytomegalovirus, etc. Diagnostic tests such as galactomannan and B-D-glucan should be considered. These patients may face a long treatment course, with risk of re-infection, along with prolonged weaning, which carries its own long-term consequences.

Bacterial Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in COVID-19 Patients: Data from the Second and Third Waves of the Pandemic

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were admitted to intensive care units (ICU) for COVID-19-related severe respiratory failure. As a matter of fact, ICU admission and invasive ventilation increased the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), which is associated with high mortality rate and a considerable burden on length of ICU stay and healthcare costs. The objective of this review was to evaluate data about VAP in COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU that developed VAP, including their etiology (limiting to bacteria), clinical characteristics, and outcomes. The analysis was limited to the most recent waves of the epidemic. The main conclusions of this review are the following: (i) P. aeruginosa, Enterobacterales, and S. aureus are more frequently involved as etiology of VAP; (ii) obesity is an important risk factor for the development of VAP; and (iii) data are still scarce and increasing efforts should be put in place to optimize the clinical management and preventative strategies for this complex and life-threatening disease.