A Multicenter Clinical Study To Demonstrate the Diagnostic Accuracy of the GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative Panel

Rapid Detection of Pathogens and Resistance Genes Grown in Blood Cultures with Two Multiplex Tandem Real-Time PCR Kits

Objective

In this study, two multiplex tandem real-time PCR kits were used to rapidly diagnose common Gram-positive cocci and Gram-negative bacilli, detect their commonly seen antibiotic resistance genes, and evaluate the two kits' performance.

Materials and Methods

Gram-positive 12 (GP-12) kit (AusDiagnostics, Australia) and Gram-negative 12 (GN-12) kit (AusDiagnostics, Australia) were used in the study. Seventy-eight Gram-negative bacilli and 54 Gram-positive cocci grown in blood culture vials were applied to GN-12 and GP-12 panels. At the same time, the passages of the samples were made and incubated. After that, identification and antibiograms were made in the Phoenix™ automated system (Becton, Dickinson and Company, USA) and VITEK 2 Compact automated system (bioMérieux, France).

Results

Twenty-one Staphylococcus aureus, twelve coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), two Streptococcus pneumoniae, two Enterococcus faecium, and three Enterococcus faecalis were found to match the results from the automated GP-12 Kit. Pathogens present in the panel were successfully identified using the GN-12 kit. Both panels were found to be more effective in diagnosing polymicrobial infections.

Conclusion

These evaluated kits were rapid (approximately three hours) and valuable in identifying common sepsis pathogens and resistance genes. Thus, these tests can easily be used in the diagnosis of sepsis.

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.

Laboratory detection of carbapenemases among Gram-negative organisms

SUMMARYThe carbapenems remain some of the most effective options available for treating patients with serious infections due to Gram-negative bacteria. Carbapenemases are enzymes that hydrolyze carbapenems and are the primary method driving carbapenem resistance globally. Detection of carbapenemases is required for patient management, the rapid implementation of infection prevention and control (IP&C) protocols, and for epidemiologic purposes. Therefore, clinical and public health microbiology laboratories must be able to detect and report carbapenemases among predominant Gram-negative organisms from both cultured isolates and direct from clinical specimens for treatment and surveillance purposes. There is not a "one size fits all" laboratory approach for the detection of bacteria with carbapenemases, and institutions need to determine what fits best with the goals of their antimicrobial stewardship and IP&C programs. Luckily, there are several options and approaches available for clinical laboratories to choose methods that best suits their individual needs. A laboratory approach to detect carbapenemases among bacterial isolates consists of two steps, namely a screening process (e.g., not susceptible to ertapenem, meropenem, and/or imipenem), followed by a confirmation test (i.e., phenotypic, genotypic or proteomic methods) for the presence of a carbapenemase. Direct from specimen testing for the most common carbapenemases generally involves detection via rapid, molecular approaches. The aim of this article is to provide brief overviews on Gram-negative bacteria carbapenem-resistant definitions, types of carbapenemases, global epidemiology, and then describe in detail the laboratory methods for the detection of carbapenemases among Gram-negative bacteria. We will specifically focus on the Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii complex.

Evaluation of an expanded antibiotic resistance gene panel on prediction of antimicrobial susceptibility results for Gram-negative bacteria in blood cultures

The QIAstat-Dx BCID Panels (RUO) ("QIAstat," QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) for identification of 13 Gram-negative bacteria and 18 antimicrobial resistance (AMR) gene groups was evaluated. The study was conducted in two phases; in phase 1, analytical performance was evaluated against 154 challenge isolates against whole genome sequencing data. In this phase, sensitivity and specificity of organism identification calls were 153/154 (99.3%) and 1,748/1,749 (99.8%), respectively. For AMR genes, sensitivity was 434/435 (99.8%) and specificity was 2,334/2,337 (99.9%). One false-negative blaIMP, one false-positive blaCTX-M, and two false-positive aac-6'-lb detections were noted in this challenge set of organisms. In phase 2, 101 clinical blood culture isolates of Gram-negative rods were evaluated by the multiplexed PCR versus reference broth microdilution, for the ability of identification combined with AMR genes to predict final susceptibility results. Negative predictive values were 92.8% for ampicillin resistance (100% for Escherichia coli), 93.4% for ceftriaxone, 97.4% for ceftazidime, and 98.7% for cefepime. In constrast, negative predictive values for current standard of care (identification plus detection of blaCTX-M) ranged from 56.5% to 88.8%. This study demonstrated additive value of additional beta-lactamase genes for bacteria isolated from blood cultures.

IMPORTANCE

Prediction of Gram-negative bacteria resistance through detection of resistance genes is complex. This study evaluated a novel, direct-from-blood or bacterial isolate multiplexed PCR for the detection of 17 resistance genes, and evaluated the prediction of antimicrobial susceptibility.

Getting Up to Speed: Rapid Pathogen and Antimicrobial Resistance Diagnostics in Sepsis

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Time to receive effective therapy is a primary determinant of mortality in patients with sepsis. Blood culture is the reference standard for the microbiological diagnosis of bloodstream infections, despite its low sensitivity and prolonged time to receive a pathogen detection. In recent years, rapid tests for pathogen identification, antimicrobial susceptibility, and sepsis identification have emerged, both culture-based and culture-independent methods. This rapid narrative review presents currently commercially available approved diagnostic molecular technologies in bloodstream infections, including their clinical performance and impact on patient outcome, when available. Peer-reviewed publications relevant to the topic were searched through PubMed, and manufacturer websites of commercially available assays identified were also consulted as further sources of information. We have reviewed data about the following technologies for pathogen identification: fluorescence in situ hybridization with peptide nucleic acid probes (Accelerate PhenoTM), microarray-based assay (Verigene®), multiplex polymerase chain reaction (cobas® eplex, BioFire® FilmArray®, Molecular Mouse, Unyvero BCU SystemTM), matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (Rapid MBT Sepsityper®), T2 magnetic resonance (T2Bacteria Panel), and metagenomics-based assays (Karius©, DISQVER®, Day Zero Diagnostics). Technologies for antimicrobial susceptibility testing included the following: Alfed 60 ASTTM, VITEK® REVEALTM, dRASTTM, ASTar®, Fastinov®, QuickMIC®, ResistellTM, and LifeScale. Characteristics, microbiological performance, and issues of each method are described, as well as their clinical performance, when available.

Performance of ePlex® blood culture identification panels in clinical isolates and characterization of antimicrobial stewardship opportunities

We assessed the performance of GenMark's ePlex® Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panels for overall agreement of organism identification and resistance mechanism detection with standard microbiologic methods. This study included patients with a positive blood culture from May 2020 to January 2021. The primary outcomes were to assess concordance of ePlex® organism identification with standard identification methods and concordance of ePlex® genotypic resistance mechanism detection with standard phenotypic susceptibility testing. Secondary outcomes included panel specific performance and characterization of antimicrobial stewardship opportunities. The overall identification concordance rate in 1276 positive blood cultures was 98.1%. The overall concordance for the presence of resistance markers was 98.2% and concordance for the absence of resistance markers was 100%. A majority of ePlex® results (69.5%) represented opportunities for potential antimicrobial stewardship intervention. High concordance rates between the ePlex® BCID panels and standard identification and susceptibility methods enable utilization of results to guide rapid antimicrobial optimization.

Clinical impact and cost-consequence analysis of ePlex® blood culture identification panels for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections: a single-center randomized controlled trial

To assess clinical impact and perform cost-consequence analysis of the broadest multiplex PCR panels available for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections (BSI). Single-center, randomized controlled trial conducted from June 2019 to February 2021 at a French University hospital with an institutional antimicrobial stewardship program. Primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with optimized antimicrobial treatment 12 h after transmission of positivity and Gram stain results from the first positive BC. This percentage was significantly higher in the multiplex PCR (mPCR) group (90/105 = 85.7% %, CI95% [77.5 ; 91.8] vs. 68/107 = 63.6%, CI95% [53.7 ; 72.6]; p < 10- 3) at interim analysis, resulting in the early termination of the study after the inclusion of 309 patients. For patients not optimized at baseline, the median time to obtain an optimized therapy was much shorter in the mPCR group than in the control group (6.9 h, IQR [2.9; 17.8] vs. 26.4 h, IQR [3.4; 47.5]; p = 0.001). Early optimization of antibiotic therapy resulted in a non-statistically significant decrease in mortality from 12.4 to 8.8% (p = 0.306), with a trend towards a shorter median length of stay (18 vs. 20 days; p = 0.064) and a non-significant reduction in the average cost per patient of €3,065 (p = 0.15). mPCR identified all the bacteria present in 88% of the samples. Despite its higher laboratory cost, the use of multiplex PCR for BSI diagnosis leads to early-optimised therapy, seems cost-effective and could reduce mortality and length of stay. Their impact could probably be improved if implemented 24/7.

Rapid antimicrobial resistance detection methods for bloodstream infection in solid organ transplantation: Proposed clinical guidance, unmet needs, and future directions

Recent advances in antimicrobial resistance detection have spurred the development of multiple assays that can accurately detect the presence of bacterial resistance from positive blood cultures, resulting in faster institution of effective antimicrobial therapy. Despite these advances, there are limited data regarding the use of these assays in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and there is little guidance on how to select, implement, and interpret them in clinical practice. We describe a practical approach to the implementation and interpretation of these assays in SOT recipients using the best available data and expert opinion. These findings were part of a consensus conference sponsored by the American Society of Transplantation held on December 7, 2021 and represent the collaboration between experts in transplant infectious diseases, pharmacy, antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship, and clinical microbiology. Areas of unmet need and recommendations for future investigation are also presented.

Test Performance and Potential Clinical Utility of the GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative Panel

The test performance and potential clinical utility of the ePlex blood culture identification Gram-negative (BCID-GN) panel was evaluated relative to matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry on bacterial isolates and conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The majority (106/108, 98.1%) of GN bacteria identified by MALDI were on the BCID-GN panel, and valid tests (107/108, 99.1%) yielded results on average 26.7 h earlier. For all valid tests with on-panel organisms, the positive percent agreement was 102/105 (97.2%) with 3 false negatives and the negative percent agreement was 105/105. Chart review (n = 98) showed that in conjunction with Gram stain results, negative pan-Gram-positive (GP) markers provided the opportunity to discontinue GP antibiotic coverage in 63/98 (64.3%) cases on average 26.2 h earlier. Only 8/12 (66.7%) Enterobacterales isolates with resistance to third-generation cephalosporins harbored the CTX-M gene. In contrast, 8/8 CTX-M⁺ samples yielded a resistant isolate. Detection of 1 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (18 h), 1 OXA23/48⁺ Acinetobacter baumannii (52.4 h), and 3 CTX-M⁺ Enterobacterales isolates on ineffective treatment (47.1 h) and 1 on suboptimal therapy (72.6 h) would have additionally enabled early antimicrobial optimization in 6/98 (6.1%) patients. IMPORTANCE The GenMark Dx ePlex rapid blood culture diagnostic system enables earlier time to identification of antimicrobial-resistant Gram-negative bacteria causing bloodstream infections. Its ability to rule out Gram-positive bacteria enabled early discontinuation of unnecessary antibiotics in 63/98 (64.3%) cases on average 26.2 h earlier. Detection of bacteria harboring the CTX-M gene as well as early identification of highly resistant bacteria such as Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Acinetobacter baumannii enabled optimization of ineffective therapy in 6/98 (6.1%) patients. Its implementation in clinical microbiology laboratories optimizes therapy and improves patient care.

Impact of a Rapid Molecular Test for Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase and Ceftazidime-Avibactam Use on Outcomes After Bacteremia Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales

BACKGROUND

Patients with bacteremia due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) experience delays until appropriate therapy and high mortality rates. Rapid molecular diagnostics for carbapenemases and new β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors may improve outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted an observational study of patients with CRE bacteremia from 2016 to 2018 at 8 New York and New Jersey medical centers and assessed center-specific clinical microbiology practices. We compared time to receipt of active antimicrobial therapy and mortality between patients whose positive blood cultures underwent rapid molecular testing for the Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) gene (blaKPC) and patients whose cultures did not undergo this test. CRE isolates underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing by broth microdilution and carbapenemase profiling by whole-genome sequencing. We also assessed outcomes when ceftazidime-avibactam and polymyxins were used as targeted therapies.

RESULTS

Of 137 patients with CRE bacteremia, 89 (65%) had a KPC-producing organism. Patients whose blood cultures underwent blaKPC PCR testing (n = 51) had shorter time until receipt of active therapy (median: 24 vs 50 hours; P = .009) compared with other patients (n = 86) and decreased 14-day (16% vs 37%; P = .007) and 30-day (24% vs 47%; P = .007) mortality. blaKPC PCR testing was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio: .37; 95% CI: .16-.84) in an adjusted model. The 30-day mortality rate was 10% with ceftazidime-avibactam monotherapy and 31% with polymyxin monotherapy (P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS

In a KPC-endemic area, blaKPC PCR testing of positive blood cultures was associated with decreased time until appropriate therapy and decreased mortality for CRE bacteremia, and ceftazidime-avibactam is a reasonable first-line therapy for these infections.

Evaluation of an immunological assay for the identification of multiple carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria

Carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative organisms (CPOs) frequently gain multidrug-resistant phenotypes and thereby limit the therapeutic options available. Colonisation and infection with CPOs are critical risks for mortality in clinical settings, especially in critical care medicine. Carbapenemase genes on plasmids have transferred to many Gram-negative species, and these species have spread, leading to global concern regarding antimicrobial resistance. A molecular rapid diagnostic test (mRDT) for CPOs is urgently required in critical care medicine. Here, we evaluated a rapid lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for CPOs isolated from patients at university hospitals, including intensive care units, and compared the results with those obtained using the multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. NG-test CARBA 5 detected multiple carbapenemases, KPC, OXA-48, NDM, VIM, and IMP variants expressed in clinical isolates. Quick Chaser IMP detected IMP variants. The LFIAs exhibited 100% sensitivity and specificity relative to clinical isolates on agar plates. By contrast, the multiplex PCR method exhibited a limited ability to detect IMP-7-producing isolates not belonging to the IMP1 group, which resulted in 97% sensitivity and 100% specificity for IMP-producing isolates. Our results demonstrate that the LFIA is a useful mRDT to identify CPOs and has an advantage over the PCR method for both detection time and sensitivity to the IMP groups. LFIA could complement the nucleic acid amplification test used to identify CPOs. In conclusion, we evaluated sensitive and specific LFIAs capable of detecting carbapenemase production in Gram-negative bacteria. We anticipate that LFIAs will become a point-of-care test enabling rapid detection of carbapenemases in hospital settings, particularly in intensive care units.

A Closer Look at the Laboratory Impact of Utilizing ePlex Blood Culture Identification Panels: a Workflow Analysis Using Rapid Molecular Detection for Positive Blood Cultures

Rapid identification of pathogens is critical in bloodstream infections. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the GenMark Dx ePlex blood culture identification (BCID) panels and the adoption of the ePlex system into the clinical laboratory workflow. Nonduplicate remnant specimens of positive blood cultures were prospectively tested using ePlex panels between January and March 2020. A total of 313 unique positive blood culture specimens were tested. The identified organisms consisted of 98 Gram-negative rods (GNR), 90 Gram-positive cocci (GPC) in clusters, 62 GPC in chains, 21 Gram-positive rods, and 20 yeasts; 22 organisms were off panel. The positive percent agreement was 100% across all organisms tested after discordancy resolution, while the negative percent agreement was 100% across all targets except Corynebacterium spp., where it was 99.7%. The ePlex BCID panels accurately detected 5 pan targets and 42 antimicrobial resistance gene markers, including 31 mecA, 4 vanA, 6 CTX-M, and 1 KPC gene. The median times to result were calculated as 2.5 h for Xpert MRSA/SA in GPC in clusters, 9.5 h for Accelerate Pheno (identification and susceptibility) in GNR, 6 h for peptide nucleic acid fluorescent in situ hybridization [PNA-FISH] in yeasts, 27 h for the latex agglutination test in S. aureus, 29 h for Lancefield serotyping in GPC in chains, and 29 h for Vitek-MS in GNR. In our laboratory, the ePlex panels could substantially reduce the time to result for bloodstream infection (BSI) caused by Streptococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., and Candida spp. The highly accurate ePlex panels can help streamline laboratory efficiency in the blood bench workflow, reducing the time to result for identification of BSI pathogens. IMPORTANCE Sepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Rapid identification of the causative agent is of critical importance for the prompt initiation of the appropriate antibiotic treatment. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the GenMark Dx ePlex blood culture identification (BCID) panels and their adoption into the clinical laboratory workflow. We prospectively tested 313 blood culture isolates and found that ePlex BCID panels had a positive percent agreement of 100% across all organisms tested after discordancy resolution. The negative percent agreement was 100% across all targets except Corynebacterium spp., where it was 99.7%. This new rapid technology (turnaround time of ~90 min) can help streamline laboratory efficiency in the blood bench workflow, reducing the time to result for identification of BSI pathogens. Adoption should be individualized based on the needs of the patient population and capabilities of the laboratory.