Browsing by Author "Samaro, Matthew"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    158. Diagnostic Yield and Clinical Utility of Broad Range PCR Testing at a Tertiary Children’s Hospital
    (Oxford University Press, 2023-11-27) Schneider, Jack; Prabhudas-Strycker, Kirsten; Samaro, Matthew; Goings, Michael; Mellencamp, Kagan A.; Khan, Haseeba; Boyd, LaKeisha; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background: Broad range PCR testing (BR-PCR) targets highly conserved DNA sequences of bacteria, fungi, or mycobacteria to detect a broad range of organisms in various clinical samples. Given its potential impact in providing timely diagnoses that cannot always be made through conventional testing (CT), we evaluated the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of BR-PCR at our institution. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all clinical specimen types obtained for BR-PCR at Riley Hospital for Children from October 2019 to May 2022. Percent positivity (PP) was determined by specific PCR test type (Bacterial/Fungal/NTM/TB), along with median turn-around times (in days) from sample collection. Medical charts were reviewed, and clinical impact of results was determined. Results: We identified 956 BR-PCR tests sent from 271 specimens collected from 178 patients. Only 14.5% yielded a positive result with a median days-to-result being the longest for fungal PCR at 8.1 days (7.0, 10.1) and TB PCR being the fastest at 7.8 days (6.8, 9.9). Bacterial BR-PCR yielded an overall PP of 42.6% while Fungal BR-PCR was 10.7%. Positivity rates for NTM and TB were 0% and 0.5%, respectively. Bronchial lavage was the most common specimen type (35.5%) with an overall PP of 19.9%. Of the 271 specimens, 245 returned conclusive results from both BR-PCR and clinical testing (CT) for comparison. A clinically significant organism based on CT was identified in 68 specimens (27.8%), 45 of which were confirmed by BR-PCR. 23 (33.8%) were detected by CT but not BR-PCR. 21 clinically significant organisms not detected by CT were identified by BR-PCR, which led to a change in clinical management in 12 instances: new diagnosis (91.7%); or appropriate initiation (91.7%), escalation (25.0%), or de-escalation (25.0%) of antimicrobial therapy. Conclusion: BR-PCR overall had low diagnostic yield at our institution but was influenced by specimen type. The clinical utility was predominantly seen in immunocompromised patients in which conventional testing was negative. Further data is needed to determine which specimen types and diagnoses will increase the yield and clinical value of BR-PCR and thus, aid in enhancing diagnostic stewardship.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    582. Comparing Broad-range PCR Testing and The Biofire® FilmArray® Pneumonia (PN) Panel in the Diagnosis of Bacterial Pneumonia
    (Oxford University Press, 2023-11-27) Khan, Haseeba; Prabhudas-Strycker, Kirsten; Samaro, Matthew; Mellencamp, Kagan A.; Goings, Michael; Boyd, LaKeisha; Schneider, Jack; Emery, Christopher L.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background: Given the low sensitivity of conventional microbial isolation methods for identifying respiratory pathogens in bacterial pneumonia, target-specific syndromic multiplex real-time PCR panels have been used in conjunction with culture methods to improve diagnostic yield. Additionally, broad-range polymerase chain reaction (BR-PCR) targeting bacterial 16s rRNA conserved region has shown higher sensitivity with certain specimen types, so we sought to evaluate the clinical performance of BR-PCR performed on bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens in comparison to The Biofire® FilmArray® Pneumonia (PN) Panel (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA). Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on all BAL specimens that had both a PN panel test and BR-PCR performed from January 2020 to May 2022 at all Indiana University affiliated hospitals. The PN panel test was performed in-house as per laboratory protocol, while BR-PCR was performed in a reference laboratory. Outcomes assessed included turn-around times (TAT), sensitivity and specificity of BR-PCR and clinical impact, if any. Results: A total of 68 BAL specimens from 53 patients were identified (83% of patients were immunocompromised). Percent positivity for the PN panel was 19% and that of BR-PCR was 18%. With the PN panel used as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of BR-PCR was 85% and 98%, respectively. Only one respiratory organism was detected by BR-PCR but not by the PN panel, and it was not considered pathogenic or to have a significant clinical impact. The median TAT for the PN panel was 2.1 hours (1.8, 3.2) versus 7.8 days (6.9, 10.4) for BR-PCR. Conclusion: In our cohort of patients, BR-PCR testing was not superior to the Biofire® FilmArray® Pneumonia (PN) Panel when used to detect certain bacterial etiologies of pneumonia. Additionally, faster TAT for the panel test has the potential to enhance antimicrobial stewardship practices by enabling better antibiotic utilization. Adjunctive BR-PCR testing may be useful for clinical care when conventional testing is negative and patients are at risk for a variety of potential pathogens, including fungi.