| Literature DB >> 35453262 |
Kristel C Tjandra1, Nikhil Ram-Mohan1, Ryuichiro Abe1, Marjan M Hashemi1, Jyong-Huei Lee2, Siew Mei Chin2, Manuel A Roshardt2, Joseph C Liao3,4, Pak Kin Wong2,5,6, Samuel Yang1.
Abstract
Bloodstream infections (BSI) are a leading cause of death worldwide. The lack of timely and reliable diagnostic practices is an ongoing issue for managing BSI. The current gold standard blood culture practice for pathogen identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing is time-consuming. Delayed diagnosis warrants the use of empirical antibiotics, which could lead to poor patient outcomes, and risks the development of antibiotic resistance. Hence, novel techniques that could offer accurate and timely diagnosis and susceptibility testing are urgently needed. This review focuses on BSI and highlights both the progress and shortcomings of its current diagnosis. We surveyed clinical workflows that employ recently approved technologies and showed that, while offering improved sensitivity and selectivity, these techniques are still unable to deliver a timely result. We then discuss a number of emerging technologies that have the potential to shorten the overall turnaround time of BSI diagnosis through direct testing from whole blood-while maintaining, if not improving-the current assay's sensitivity and pathogen coverage. We concluded by providing our assessment of potential future directions for accelerating BSI pathogen identification and the antibiotic susceptibility test. While engineering solutions have enabled faster assay turnaround, further progress is still needed to supplant blood culture practice and guide appropriate antibiotic administration for BSI patients.Entities:
Keywords: antibiotic susceptibility; emerging technologies; infectious diseases; multidrug-resistant pathogens; pathogen diagnosis; sample preparation; sepsis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35453262 PMCID: PMC9029869 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11040511
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Figure 1Workflow of current BSI diagnosis. (1) Blood collected from patients is subject to culturing followed by either an all-in-one post-culture ID/AST (a) or post-culture ID with a separate AST (b + c). (2) Culture-free ID workflow is also currently available with a separate AST from positive culture. Antibiotics administration at the point of examination. Antibiotic choices may be adjusted accordingly.
List of commercial and developing technologies for BSI diagnosis.
| No. | Company | System | Approach | Status * | Sample | Detection/ | AST | TAT ^ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Abacus Diagnostica | Genomera CDX | Rapid/ Real-Time PCR | Dev. | BC (+) | ✓ | 50 min | |
| 2 | Affinity Biosensors | LifeScale AST | Microorganism mass measurement | CE-IVD | BC (+) | ✓ | 4 h | |
| 3 | Amplex Diagnostics, GmbH, Germany | Eazyplex MRSA | LAMP ultra-rapid MRSA detection | CE-IVD | BC (+) | ✓ | 30 min | |
| 4 | Arc Bio | Galileo pathogen solution | Shotgun Sequencing | Dev. | WB | ✓ | 48 h | |
| 5 | BD | GeneOhm MRSA | Real-Time PCR | FDA, CE-IVD | BC (+) | ✓ | 2 h | |
| 6 | Becton Dickinson | BD Max StaphSR | Real-Time PCR | FDA | BC (+) | ✓ | ~1.5 h | |
| 7 | BioFire/bioMerieux Diagnostics | FilmArray DIRECT (new) | Nested PCR | FDA, CE-IVD | WB | ✓ | 1 h | |
| 8 | BioRad | Droplet dPCR | dPCR; absolute quantification using | CE-IVD | BC (+) | ✓ | No report | |
| 9 | BioSense Solutions (Denmark) | oCelloScope | 3D optical scanning microscopy imaging | Dev. | BC (+) | ✓ | 1 to 4 h | |
| 10 | Bruker Daltonics | MALDI Biotyper + | Mass spectrometry | FDA, CE-IVD | BC (+) | ✓ | 12 to 24 h | |
| 11 | DNAe (electronic) | LiDia Bloodstream Infection Test | WGS/NGS/miniaturised sequencing | Dev. | WB | ✓ | 3 to 4 h | |
| 12 | FASTinov | Flow cytometry | Cell sorting fluorescence-based AST | Dev. | BC (+) | ✓ | <2 h | |
| 14 | Roche | Smarticles | Bacteriophage-based | Dev. | BC (+) | ✓ | No report | |
| 15 | GenMarkDx USA | ePlex BCID | Multiplex PCR | CE-IVD | BC (+) | ✓ | 1.5 h | |
| 16 | Gradientech AB | Rapid IVD; QuickMIC and CellDirector | Microfluidics Phenotypic multiplex chip | Dev. | BC (+) | ✓ | 2 h | |
| 17 | Great Basin Corporation (Bringham Young Univ.) | OptoFluidic Platform | Single molecule fluorescence hybridization | Dev. | WB | ✓ | 1 h | |
| 18 | Hologic | AccuProbe | In situ hybridization | CE-IVD | BC (+) | ✓ | 1 h | |
| 19 | iCubate | iC GPC | Multiplex amplification assay | FDA, CE-IVD | BC (+) | ✓ | 4 to 5 h | |
| 20 | IRIDICA | BAC BSI Assay | PCR/ESI-MS | withdrawn | WB | ✓ | 8 h | |
| 21 | Karius, Inc. | Karius Test | NextGen Seq cfDNA; Genomic; Bioinformatics | Dev. | WB | ✓ | 48 h | |
| 22 | Luminex | Verigene Gram+ BC | Microarray | FDA. | BC (+) | ✓ | 2.5 h | |
| 23 | Luminex | Verigene Gram− BC | Microarray | FDA | BC (+) | ✓ | 2.5 h | |
| 24 | Master Diagnostica, Spain | Sepsis Flow Chip | Microarray | CE-IVD | BC (+) | ✓ | 3 to 4 h | |
| 25 | Molzym, Germany | SeptiTest; UMD SelectNA | Real Time PCR | CE-IVD | WB | ✓ | 8 to 12 h | |
| 26 | Momentum Biosciences (Cardiff, UK) | TBD Cognitor Minus | Enzymatic template generation and amplification | awaiting clearance | BC (+) | ✓ | No report | |
| 27 | OpGen USA | PNA FISH | In situ hybridization | CE-IVD | BC (+) | ✓ | 2.5 h | |
| 28 | OpGen USA | Quick FISH | In situ hybridization | CE-IVD | BC (+) | ✓ | 30 min | |
| 29 | QLinea (Uppsala, Sweden) | AsTAR | High-speed time-lapse microscopy imaging of bacteria in broth | Dev. | BC (+) | ✓ | 6 h | |
| 30 | Resistell (Switzerland) | Rapid AST antibiogram | AFM, Cantilever, Nanomotion detection-based AST | unknown | BC (+) | ✓ | No report | |
| 31 | Roche Molecular System, Switzerland | LightCycler SeptiFast | Real-Time PCR | CE-IVD | WB | ✓ | 6 h | |
| 32 | SeeGene, Korea | Magicplex Sepsis RT test | Real-Time PCR | CE-IVD | WB | ✓ | 3 to 6 h | |
| 33 | Specific Diagnostics Inc | Reveal phenotypic AST | Detection of volatile organic compounds | Dev. | BC (+) | ✓ | ~5 h (with MIC) | |
| 34 | T2Biosystem | T2 Candida Panel T2MR | Nuclear Magnetic Resonance | FDA, CE-IVD | WB | ✓ | 3 to 5 h | |
| 35 | QuantaMatrix | QMAC-dRAST | Optical Microscopy | Dev. | BC (+) | ✓ | 4 to 6 h |
* Platforms on this list are either U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and/or European CE Marking for In Vitro Diagnostic (CE-IVD) certified or under research development (Dev.); ‡ BC (+): blood culture-positive; WB: whole blood; ^ TAT: turnaround time.
Comparison of microfluidic techniques for isolating bloodborne pathogens. Values are estimated for a single channel with a single pass.
| Isolation Method | Recovery Rate # | Throughput ## | Pathogens | Sample Type | Conc. (cell/mL) | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affinity capture (magnetic; antibody) | 78% | 0.025 mL/h |
| Red blood cells | 5 × 106 | [ |
| Affinity capture (magnetic; antibody) | 80% | 20 mL/h |
| Whole blood | 1 × 106 | [ |
| Affinity capture (magnetic; lectin) | 60–90% | 10 mL/h |
| Whole blood | 1 × 104 | [ |
| Filtration | 68–76% | 1.2 mL/h |
| Whole blood | 101–102 | [ |
| 56–77% | 3 mL/h | Filtered blood | ||||
| Affinity capture (magnetic; Zn-DPA) | >88% | 60 mL/h |
| Whole blood | 5 × 106 | [ |
| Erythrocyte depletion (detergent + water) | ~100% | 2.88 mL/h |
| Whole blood | 1 × 107 | [ |
| Erythrocyte depletion (lysis) | >90% | 20 mL/h |
| Whole blood | 1 × 103 | [ |
| Erythrocyte depletion (dextran sedimentation) | 50–60% | 20 mL/h |
| Whole blood | 101–102 | [ |
| Acoustophoresis | 95.65% | 0.03 mL/h |
| PBMC | 3 × 106 | [ |
| Acoustophoresis | 91% | 3 mL/h |
| Diluted blood | 5 × 105 | [ |
| Acoustophoresis (GAF) | 79.77% | 0.72 mL/h |
| Blood lysates | 1 × 105 | [ |
| Electrokinetics (DEP) | 30% | 0.035 mL/h |
| Red blood cells | 1 × 106 | [ |
| Electrokinetics (DEP) | 97% | 0.0009 mL/h |
| Diluted blood | 1 × 104 | [ |
| Electrokinetics | 30–80% | 0.006–0.06 mL/h |
| Buffy coat | 1 × 105 | [ |
| Inertial focusing | >60% | 12 mL/h |
| Whole blood | 1 × 108 | [ |
| Inertial focusing | >65% | 0.6 mL/h |
| Diluted blood | 1 × 101 | [ |
| Elasto-inertial | 76% | 0.03 mL/h |
| Whole blood | 1 × 106 | [ |
| Elasto-inertial | >80% | 0.3–1.5 mL/h |
| Diluted blood | 1 × 103 | [ |
| Elasto-inertial | 60–80% | 0.3 mL/h |
| Diluted blood | 1 × 102 | [ |
| Margination | 80–90% | 1 mL/h |
| Whole blood | 1 × 106 | [ |
# Removal rates are reported for blood cleansing devices. ## Throughputs for diluted blood samples are adjusted for compassion with whole blood.
Figure 2Sample preparation techniques for BSI diagnostics. Pathogen isolation and concentration can be achieved actively via acoustophoresis, electrokinetics, and magnetic forces, or passively via inertial focusing, margination, filtering, and erythrocyte lysis.
Figure 3Recent advancements to improve BSI diagnosis. (A) qPCR-HRM workflow from a whole blood sample. (B) HelixBind PNA-FISH technology with a sequence-specific fluorescence dye, (C) Microfluidic-assisted whole blood compartmentalization before DNA amplification and analysis, a trademark of IC3D technology (D) NGS detection workflow directly from whole blood by Karius. Figures were modified and used with permission from (Andini et al., 2018; Blauwkamp et al., 2019; D. K. Kang et al., 2014; Nölling et al., 2016).
Figure 4Performance characteristics of current and emerging technologies. Sensitivity, specificity, and turnaround time compared against the current gold standard. 1. qPCR-HRM, 2. SERS, 3. IC3D, 4. PNA-FISH 5. PCR+T2MR, 6. Multiplex PCR from whole blood, 7. PCR + sequencing, 8. Multiplex PCR from blood culture, 9. DNA Microarray, 10. MALDI-TOF, 11. AcceleratePheno, and 12. Blood culture gold standard.
Comparison of Existing and Emerging BSI Diagnosis Technologies.
| Technologies | Sample | Company | ID | AST | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sens. | Spec. | Breadth | TAT | Output | TAT | |||
|
| ||||||||
|
| WB * | Non-commercial | 1 | 100% | 37 bacteria (expandable) | 8 h (with AST) | MIC | 8 h (with ID) |
|
| WB | Spectral Platforms | 1 | 94% | >30 pathogens | 20 min | S/R (enzyme-based) | unspecified |
|
| WB | Velox Bio | 10 | 100% | unspecified | 1–4 h (with AMR) | resistance marker | 1–4 h (with ID) |
|
| BC (+) | FASTinov | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | MIC | <26 h |
|
| WB | HelixBind | <10 | 95% | 21 pathogens | 2.5 h (with AMR) | resistance marker | 2.5 h (with ID) |
|
| ||||||||
|
| WB | T2 Biosystems | 1–10 | 91% | 5 candida species, ESKAPE organisms | 27–29 h (with AMR) | resistance marker | 27–29 h (with ID) |
|
| WB | MagicPlex (SeeGene) | 30 | 66–92% | >90 pathogens with 27 pathogens at species level | 27–30 h (with AMR) | resistance marker | 27–30 h (with ID) |
|
| WB | SepsiTest (Molzym) | 10–40 | 86–100% | >1350 pathogens | 30–31 h | N/A | N/A |
|
| BC (+) | BioFire (FilmArray) | 106 to 108 | 82–92% | 8 Gram+/11 Gram−/5 fungi | 25 h (with AMR) | resistance marker | 25 h (with ID) |
|
| BC (+) | Luminex (Verigene) | 10–100 | 84–99% | 8 Gram+/5 Gram− | 26.5 h (with AMR) | resistance marker | 26.5 h (with ID) |
|
| BC (+) | Biomerieux (VITEK 2) | 106 | 61–98 | 1316 pathogens | 30–36 h (with AST) | MIC | 30–36 h (with ID) |
|
| BC (+) | Accelerate Diagnostics | 0.8 to 1.7 | 86–100 | 7 Gram+/8 Gram−/2 fungi | 32 h (with AST) | MIC | 32 h (with ID) |
|
| WB | BD (BACTEC) | 1 | 100% | Broad | 30 h | MIC | 54 h (with ID) |
* WB: direct from whole blood, BC (+): from positive blood culture; Sens.: sensitivity; Spec.: specificity; TAT: Turnaround time.