-
Clin. Microbiol. Infect. · Aug 2017
Multicenter Study Comparative StudyUntargeted next-generation sequencing-based first-line diagnosis of infection in immunocompromised adults: a multicentre, blinded, prospective study.
- P Parize, E Muth, C Richaud, M Gratigny, B Pilmis, A Lamamy, J-L Mainardi, J Cheval, L de Visser, F Jagorel, L Ben Yahia, G Bamba, M Dubois, O Join-Lambert, M Leruez-Ville, X Nassif, A Lefort, F Lanternier, F Suarez, O Lortholary, M Lecuit, and M Eloit.
- Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Necker Pasteur Center for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Necker Enfants Malades University Hospital, Institut Imagine, Paris, France.
- Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017 Aug 1; 23 (8): 574.e1-574.e6.
ObjectiveInfections are the major cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Improving microbiological diagnosis in these patients is of paramount clinical importance.MethodsWe performed this multicentre, blinded, prospective, proof-of-concept study, to compare untargeted next-generation sequencing with conventional microbiological methods for first-line diagnosis of infection in 101 immunocompromised adults. Patients were followed for 30 days and their blood samples, and in some cases nasopharyngeal swabs and/or biological fluids, were analysed. At the end of the study, expert clinicians evaluated the results of both methods. The primary outcome measure was the detection rate of clinically relevant viruses and bacteria at inclusion.ResultsClinically relevant viruses and bacteria identified by untargeted next-generation sequencing and conventional methods were concordant for 72 of 101 patients in samples taken at inclusion (κ test=0.2, 95% CI 0.03-0.48). However, clinically relevant viruses and bacteria were detected in a significantly higher proportion of patients with untargeted next-generation sequencing than conventional methods at inclusion (36/101 (36%) vs. 11/101 (11%), respectively, p <0.001), and even when the latter were continued over 30 days (19/101 (19%), p 0.003). Untargeted next-generation sequencing had a high negative predictive value compared with conventional methods (64/65, 95% CI 0.95-1).ConclusionsUntargeted next-generation sequencing has a high negative predictive value and detects more clinically relevant viruses and bacteria than conventional microbiological methods. Untargeted next-generation sequencing is therefore a promising method for microbiological diagnosis in immunocompromised adults.Copyright © 2017 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.