The Journal of infection · 2021
Metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the diagnosis of suspected pneumonia in immunocompromised patients.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Peng Jin-Min, Du Bin, Qin Han-Yu, Wang Qian, Shi Yan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), compared with that of comprehensive conventional microbiological tests (CMTs), of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) as a front-line diagnostic for immunocompromised patients with suspected pneumonia.
METHODS: Sixty critically ill immunocompromised patients undergoing both mNGS of BALF and CMTs for suspected pneumonia were retrospectively analysed. The diagnostic performance was compared between mNGS and CMTs, using the composite diagnosis as the reference standard.
RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were diagnosed with microbiologically confirmed pneumonia, with 55% having polymicrobial infections. There was no significant difference in the overall diagnostic accuracy between mNGS and CMTs (61.7% vs 76.7%; P = 0.11). mNGS and CMTs had comparable diagnostic accuracy for bacterial and viral infections. Although mNGS identified more viral pneumonia, it had a much lower diagnostic accuracy for fungal infections (76.7% vs 99.2%; P < 0.001), mainly due to the low sensitivity for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (45.5% vs 100%; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The overall diagnostic performance of BALF mNGS as a first-line diagnostic was similar to that of comprehensive CMTs, except in the case of a lack of consideration of potential pathogens or limited CMTs. The combination of mNGS and CMTs may be the best diagnostic strategy.
METHODS: Sixty critically ill immunocompromised patients undergoing both mNGS of BALF and CMTs for suspected pneumonia were retrospectively analysed. The diagnostic performance was compared between mNGS and CMTs, using the composite diagnosis as the reference standard.
RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were diagnosed with microbiologically confirmed pneumonia, with 55% having polymicrobial infections. There was no significant difference in the overall diagnostic accuracy between mNGS and CMTs (61.7% vs 76.7%; P = 0.11). mNGS and CMTs had comparable diagnostic accuracy for bacterial and viral infections. Although mNGS identified more viral pneumonia, it had a much lower diagnostic accuracy for fungal infections (76.7% vs 99.2%; P < 0.001), mainly due to the low sensitivity for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (45.5% vs 100%; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The overall diagnostic performance of BALF mNGS as a first-line diagnostic was similar to that of comprehensive CMTs, except in the case of a lack of consideration of potential pathogens or limited CMTs. The combination of mNGS and CMTs may be the best diagnostic strategy.