Anna Maria Peri1, Weiping Ling2, Luis Furuya-Kanamori2, Patrick N A Harris2,3, David L Paterson2,4. 1. University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia. a.peri@uq.edu.au. 2. University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia. 3. Central Microbiology, Pathology Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia. 4. Infectious Diseases Unit, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early identification of bloodstream pathogens and their associated antimicrobial resistance may shorten time to optimal therapy in patients with sepsis. The BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel (BCID2) is a novel multiplex PCR detecting 43 targets directly from positive blood cultures, reducing turnaround times. METHODS: We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies to assess the BCID2 performance for pathogen identification and resistance markers detection compared to gold standard culture-based methods (including phenotypic and/or genotypic characterization). RESULTS: Nine studies were identified reporting data to build 2 × 2 tables for each BCID2 target, including 2005 blood cultures. The pooled specificity of the assay was excellent (> 97%) across most subgroups of targets investigated, with a slightly broader confidence interval for S. epidermidis (98.1%, 95% CI 93.1 to 99.5). Pooled sensitivity was also high for the major determinants of bloodstream infection, including Enterobacterales (98.2%, 95% CI 96.3 to 99.1), S. aureus (96.0%, 95% CI 90.4 to 98.4), Streptococcus spp. (96.7%, 95% CI 92.8 to 98.5), P. aeruginosa (92.7%, 95% CI 83.1 to 97.0), E. faecalis (92.3%, 95% CI 83.5 to 96.6), as well as blaCTX-M (94.9, 95% CI 85.7 to 98.3), carbapenemases (94.9%, 95% CI 83.4 to 98.6) and mecA/C & MREJ (93.9%, 95% CI 83.0 to 98.0). Sensitivity for less common targets was slightly lower, possibly due to their under-representation in the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: BCID2 showed good performance for detecting major determinants of bloodstream infection and could support early antimicrobial treatment, especially for ESBL or carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacilli and methicillin-resistant S. aureus.
BACKGROUND: Early identification of bloodstream pathogens and their associated antimicrobial resistance may shorten time to optimal therapy in patients with sepsis. The BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel (BCID2) is a novel multiplex PCR detecting 43 targets directly from positive blood cultures, reducing turnaround times. METHODS: We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies to assess the BCID2 performance for pathogen identification and resistance markers detection compared to gold standard culture-based methods (including phenotypic and/or genotypic characterization). RESULTS: Nine studies were identified reporting data to build 2 × 2 tables for each BCID2 target, including 2005 blood cultures. The pooled specificity of the assay was excellent (> 97%) across most subgroups of targets investigated, with a slightly broader confidence interval for S. epidermidis (98.1%, 95% CI 93.1 to 99.5). Pooled sensitivity was also high for the major determinants of bloodstream infection, including Enterobacterales (98.2%, 95% CI 96.3 to 99.1), S. aureus (96.0%, 95% CI 90.4 to 98.4), Streptococcus spp. (96.7%, 95% CI 92.8 to 98.5), P. aeruginosa (92.7%, 95% CI 83.1 to 97.0), E. faecalis (92.3%, 95% CI 83.5 to 96.6), as well as blaCTX-M (94.9, 95% CI 85.7 to 98.3), carbapenemases (94.9%, 95% CI 83.4 to 98.6) and mecA/C & MREJ (93.9%, 95% CI 83.0 to 98.0). Sensitivity for less common targets was slightly lower, possibly due to their under-representation in the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: BCID2 showed good performance for detecting major determinants of bloodstream infection and could support early antimicrobial treatment, especially for ESBL or carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacilli and methicillin-resistant S. aureus.
Authors: Suhail A R Doi; Jan J Barendregt; Shahjahan Khan; Lukman Thalib; Gail M Williams Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Matthew D F McInnes; David Moher; Brett D Thombs; Trevor A McGrath; Patrick M Bossuyt; Tammy Clifford; Jérémie F Cohen; Jonathan J Deeks; Constantine Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Harriet A Hunt; Christopher J Hyde; Daniël A Korevaar; Mariska M G Leeflang; Petra Macaskill; Johannes B Reitsma; Rachel Rodin; Anne W S Rutjes; Jean-Paul Salameh; Adrienne Stevens; Yemisi Takwoingi; Marcello Tonelli; Laura Weeks; Penny Whiting; Brian H Willis Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tristan T Timbrook; Jacob B Morton; Kevin W McConeghy; Aisling R Caffrey; Eleftherios Mylonakis; Kerry L LaPlante Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Benjamin Berinson; Anna Both; Laura Berneking; Martin Christner; Marc Lütgehetmann; Martin Aepfelbacher; Holger Rohde Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 5.948