Evaluations of Clinical Utilization of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Adults With Fever of Unknown Origin

Introduction

The diagnosis of infection-caused fever of unknown origin (FUO) is still challenging, making it difficult for physicians to provide an early effective therapy. Therefore, a novel pathogen detection platform is needed. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) provides an unbiased, comprehensive technique for the sequence-based identification of pathogenic microbes, but the study of the diagnostic values of mNGS in FUO is still limited.

Methods

In a single-center retrospective cohort study, 175 FUO patients were enrolled, and clinical data were recorded and analyzed to compare mNGS with culture or traditional methods including as smears, serological tests, and nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) (traditional PCR, Xpert MTB/RIF, and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra).

Results

The blood mNGS could increase the overall rate of new organisms detected in infection-caused FUO by roughly 22.9% and 19.79% in comparison to culture (22/96 vs. 0/96; OR, ∞; p = 0.000) and conventional methods (19/96 vs. 3/96; OR, 6.333; p = 0.001), respectively. Bloodstream infection was among the largest group of those identified, and the blood mNGS could have a 38% improvement in the diagnosis rate compared to culture (19/50 vs. 0/50; OR, ∞; p = 0.000) and 32.0% compared to conventional methods (16/50 vs. 3/50; OR, 5.333; p = 0.004). Among the non-blood samples in infection-caused FUO, we observed that the overall diagnostic performance of mNGS in infectious disease was better than that of conventional methods by 20% (9/45 vs. 2/45; OR, 4.5; p = 0.065), and expectedly, the use of non-blood mNGS in non-bloodstream infection increased the diagnostic rate by 26.2% (8/32 vs. 0/32; OR, ∞; p = 0.008). According to 175 patients’ clinical decision-making, we found that the use of blood mNGS as the first-line investigation could effectively increase 10.9% of diagnosis rate of FUO compared to culture, and the strategy that the mNGS of suspected parts as the second-line test could further benefit infectious patients, improving the diagnosis rate of concurrent infection by 66.7% and 12.5% in non-bloodstream infection, respectively.

Conclusion

The application of mNGS in the FUO had significantly higher diagnostic efficacy than culture or other conventional methods. In infection-caused FUO patients, application of blood mNGS as the first-line investigation and identification of samples from suspected infection sites as the second-line test could enhance the overall FUO diagnosis rate and serve as a promising optimized diagnostic protocol in the future.