PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to evaluate the impact of sample collection order on the diagnostic yield of metagenomic deep sequencing (MDS) for determining the causative pathogen in infectious keratitis. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic test evaluation among subjects with infectious keratitis at Aravind Eye Hospital in Madurai, India. All subjects underwent corneal scrapings of the affected eye to obtain potassium hydroxide smear, Gram stain, bacterial culture, and fungal culture, in this order. The order of MDS specimen collection relative to smear and culture samples was randomized and served as the primary predictor. Outcomes included the normalized copy number of pathogenic RNA detected by MDS, the proportion of MDS samples that were diagnostic, and the agreement of MDS results with cultures. RESULTS: MDS samples from 46 subjects with corneal ulcers were evaluated. MDS was positive in 33 subjects (76%) and had 74% overall agreement with culture results. There was no association between order of MDS sample collection and normalized copy number of genetic material detected (P = 0.62) or the likelihood of MDS positivity (P = 0.46). However, the likelihood of agreement between MDS and cultures decreased when MDS corneal swabs were collected after other diagnostic corneal scrapings (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The overall yield of MDS for detecting the cause of infectious keratitis was not affected by sample collection order. However, diagnostic agreement between MDS and cultures decreased when MDS samples were collected after other specimens. Additional investigation is warranted to determine whether this represents increased sensitivity of MDS compared with cultures or higher susceptibility to contaminants.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to evaluate the impact of sample collection order on the diagnostic yield of metagenomic deep sequencing (MDS) for determining the causative pathogen in infectious keratitis. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic test evaluation among subjects with infectious keratitis at Aravind Eye Hospital in Madurai, India. All subjects underwent corneal scrapings of the affected eye to obtain potassium hydroxide smear, Gram stain, bacterial culture, and fungal culture, in this order. The order of MDS specimen collection relative to smear and culture samples was randomized and served as the primary predictor. Outcomes included the normalized copy number of pathogenic RNA detected by MDS, the proportion of MDS samples that were diagnostic, and the agreement of MDS results with cultures. RESULTS: MDS samples from 46 subjects with corneal ulcers were evaluated. MDS was positive in 33 subjects (76%) and had 74% overall agreement with culture results. There was no association between order of MDS sample collection and normalized copy number of genetic material detected (P = 0.62) or the likelihood of MDS positivity (P = 0.46). However, the likelihood of agreement between MDS and cultures decreased when MDS corneal swabs were collected after other diagnostic corneal scrapings (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The overall yield of MDS for detecting the cause of infectious keratitis was not affected by sample collection order. However, diagnostic agreement between MDS and cultures decreased when MDS samples were collected after other specimens. Additional investigation is warranted to determine whether this represents increased sensitivity of MDS compared with cultures or higher susceptibility to contaminants.
Authors: Michael R Wilson; Hannah A Sample; Kelsey C Zorn; Shaun Arevalo; Guixia Yu; John Neuhaus; Scot Federman; Doug Stryke; Benjamin Briggs; Charles Langelier; Amy Berger; Vanja Douglas; S Andrew Josephson; Felicia C Chow; Brent D Fulton; Joseph L DeRisi; Jeffrey M Gelfand; Samia N Naccache; Jeffrey Bender; Jennifer Dien Bard; Jamie Murkey; Magrit Carlson; Paul M Vespa; Tara Vijayan; Paul R Allyn; Shelley Campeau; Romney M Humphries; Jeffrey D Klausner; Czarina D Ganzon; Fatemeh Memar; Nicolle A Ocampo; Lara L Zimmermann; Stuart H Cohen; Christopher R Polage; Roberta L DeBiasi; Barbara Haller; Ronald Dallas; Gabriela Maron; Randall Hayden; Kevin Messacar; Samuel R Dominguez; Steve Miller; Charles Y Chiu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N Venkatesh Prajna; Tiruvengada Krishnan; Revathi Rajaraman; Sushila Patel; Muthiah Srinivasan; Manoranjan Das; Kathryn J Ray; Kieran S O'Brien; Catherine E Oldenburg; Stephen D McLeod; Michael E Zegans; Travis C Porco; Nisha R Acharya; Thomas M Lietman; Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: M Srinivasan; C A Gonzales; C George; V Cevallos; J M Mascarenhas; B Asokan; J Wilkins; G Smolin; J P Whitcher Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Stephen B Kaye; Prasad G Rao; Godfrey Smith; John A Scott; Sharon Hoyles; Clare E Morton; Colin Willoughby; Mark Batterbury; Graham Harvey Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: M Jayahar Bharathi; R Ramakrishnan; R Meenakshi; S Padmavathy; C Shivakumar; M Srinivasan Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Kaivon Pakzad-Vaezi; Steve D Levasseur; Steven Schendel; Sean Mark; Richard Mathias; Diane Roscoe; Simon P Holland Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: John A Gonzales; Armin Hinterwirth; Jessica Shantha; Kaidi Wang; Lina Zhong; Susie L Cummings; Ying Qian; Michael R Wilson; Nisha R Acharya; Thuy Doan Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Darren S J Ting; Bhavesh P Gopal; Rashmi Deshmukh; Gerami D Seitzman; Dalia G Said; Harminder S Dua Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 5.033