| Literature DB >> 33790511 |
Harish M Maheshwarappa1, Prasadini Guru2, Reddy Sailaja Mundre3, Nima Lawrence3, Snehali Majumder4, Alben Sigamani4, C N Anupama3, Sudeshna Adak3.
Abstract
Background: Recent advances in nucleic acid amplification technique (NAAT)-based identification of pathogens in blood stream infections (BSI) have revolutionized molecular diagnostics in comparison to traditional clinical microbiology practice of blood culture. Rapid pathogen detection with point-of-care diagnostic-applicable platform is prerequisite for efficient patient management. The aim of the study is to evaluate an in-house developed, lyophilized OmiX-AMP pathogen test for the detection of top six BSI-causing bacteria along with two major antimicrobial resistance (AMR) markers of carbapenem and compare it to the traditional blood culture-based detection. Materials and methods: One hundred forty-three patients admitted to the Medical Intensive Care Unit, Narayana Hrudayalaya, Bangalore, with either suspected or proven sepsis, of either gender, of age ≥18 years were enrolled for the study. Pathogen DNA extracted from blood culture sample using OmiX pReP method was amplified at isothermal conditions and analyzed in real time using OmiX Analysis software.Entities:
Keywords: Blood stream infection; Diagnosis; Isothermal amplification; Pathogen detection; Sepsis
Year: 2021 PMID: 33790511 PMCID: PMC7991769 DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23761
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Crit Care Med ISSN: 0972-5229
Flowchart 1Flowchart of blood culture samples considered for the study
List of off-panel organisms detected in blood culture and considered negative in OmiX-AMP pathogen test
| 1 | |
| 7 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| Total | 24 |
The number of samples detected for in-panel and off-panel organisms by the NH blood culture identification vs. OmiX-AMP pathogen detection
| NH blood culture pathogen ID | No growth | 54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 54 |
| 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | ||
| 2 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | ||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | ||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
| CoNS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 15 | |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 24 | |
| Total | 58 | 17 | 14 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 39 | 0 | 143 | |
Fig. 1Number of in-panel and off-panel organisms detected and the correlation between NH blood culture and OmiX-AMP pathogen test
Prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of OmiX panel organisms in the study
| 0.13 (0.08, 0.21) | 1.00 (0.79, 1.00) | 0.99 (0.95, 1.00) | 0.94 (0.71, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.97, 1.00) | |
| 0.13 (0.08, 0.21) | 0.88 (0.62, 0.98) | 1.00 (0.97, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.77, 1.00) | 0.98 (0.93, 1.00) | |
| 0.10 (0.05, 0.17) | 0.83 (0.52, 0.98) | 1.00 (0.97, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.69, 1.00) | 0.98 (0.94, 1.00) | |
| 0.02 (0.00, 0.06) | 1.00 (0.16, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.97, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.16, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.97, 1.00) | |
| 0.02 (0.01, 0.07) | 0.67 (0.09, 0.99) | 1.00 (0.97, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.16, 1.00) | 0.99 (0.95, 1.00) | |
| 0.01 (0.00, 0.05) | 1.00 (0.02, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.97, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.02, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.97, 1.00) | |
Fig. 2Correlation between resistance and sensitivity for carbapenem markers detected in NH blood culture and OmiX-AMP pathogen test