Evaluation of the Novel CE-IVD-Marked Multiplex PCR QIAstat-Dx Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel.

Central nervous system (CNS) infections such as meningitis and encephalitis are life-threatening conditions that demand hospital care and prompt identification of the causative agent. Since 2015, there has been only one CE-IVD-marked rapid multiplexed diagnostic assay in cassette format for bacterial and viral detection from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF): the BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis (ME) panel. In the beginning of 2022, Qiagen introduced the QIAstat-Dx meningitis/encephalitis panel. It is a CE-IVD-marked multiplex PCR cassette test intended for the identification of suspected infectious meningitis, encephalitis, or meningoencephalitis caused by bacterial, viral, or fungal pathogens. In this study, we evaluated patient and quality control samples using the QIAstat-Dx meningitis/encephalitis panel and compared the results to those of the BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel and reference methods (current routine analysis methods in our laboratory, PCR, or cultivation). The combined positive percent agreement between the two panel assays was 100%, and the negative percent agreement was 94%. We further compared specifically herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1), HSV-2, and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) dilution series using six commercial herpesvirus assays, including the two cassette tests. The results suggested that real-time PCR methods (with separate extraction) were the most sensitive methods. When comparing the cassette tests, the BioFire FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis panel produced more positive results than the QIAstat-Dx meningitis/encephalitis panel in the herpesvirus analyses. IMPORTANCE The diagnosis of infectious meningitis and encephalitis relies mostly on specific PCR and culturing methods, but commercial syndromic panel assays are bringing a change in diagnostics. With multiplexed analysis, the identification of the pathogen is potentially faster, and less sample material is needed. The novel QIAstat-Dx meningitis/encephalitis panel assay is intended for the rapid identification of pathogens from cerebrospinal fluid for suspected central nervous system (CNS) infection, which is a life-threatening condition and difficult to diagnose. We studied the performance of this panel assay using patient samples and dilution series of selected viruses. The evaluation data for this novel meningitis/encephalitis panel assay are useful for other clinical laboratories and organizations using or considering using this test.

Rapid molecular detection of pathogenic microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance markers in blood cultures: evaluation and utility of the next-generation FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 panel.

Rapid detection of pathogens causing bloodstream infections (BSI) directly from positive blood cultures is of highest importance in order to enable an adequate and timely antimicrobial therapy. In this study, the utility and performance of a recently launched next-generation fully automated test system, the Biofire FilmArray® Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) panel, was evaluated using a set of 103 well-characterized microbial isolates including 29 antimicrobial resistance genes and 80 signal-positive and 23 signal-negative clinical blood culture samples. The results were compared to culture-based reference methods, MALDI-TOF, and/or 16S rDNA sequencing. Of the clinical blood culture samples, 68 were monomicrobial (85.0%) and 12 polymicrobial (15.0%). Six samples contained ESBL (blaCTX-M), two MRSA (mecA), and three MRSE (mecA) isolates. In overall, the FilmArray BCID2 panel detected well on-panel targets and resistance markers from mono- and polymicrobial samples. However, one Klebsiella aerogenes and one Bacteroides ovatus were undetected, and the assay falsely reported one Shigella flexneri as Escherichia coli. Hence, the sensitivity and specificity for detecting microbial species were 98.8% (95%CI, 95.8-99.9%) and 99.9% (95%CI, 99.8-99.9%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting of resistance gene markers were 100%. The results were available within 70 min from signal-positive blood cultures with minimal hands-on time. In conclusion, the BCID2 test allows reliable and simplified detection of a vast variety of clinically relevant microbes causing BSI and the most common antimicrobial resistance markers present among these isolates.

UriSed 3 PRO automated microscope in screening bacteriuria at region-wide laboratory organization.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We assessed the possibility to rule out negative urine cultures by counting with UriSed 3 PRO (77 Elektronika, Hungary) at Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bacteria counting of the UriSed 3 PRO automated microscope was verified with reference phase contrast microscopy against growth in culture. After acceptance into routine, results of bacteria and leukocyte counting from 56 426 specimens with eight UriSed 3 PRO instruments were compared against results from parallel samples cultured on chromogenic agar. Laboratory data including preanalytical details were accessed through the regional database of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District. RESULTS: A combined sensitivity of 87-92% and a negative predictive value of 90-96% with a specificity of 54-50% was reached, depending on criteria. Preanalytical data (incubation time in bladder) combined with the way of urine collection would improve these figures if reliable. CONCLUSIONS: Complex patient populations, regional logistics and data interfases, and economics related to increased costs of additional particle counts against costs of screening cultures of all samples, did not support adaptation of a screening process of urine cultures. This conclusion was made locally, and may not be valid elsewhere.

Verification of UriSed 3 PRO automated urine microscope in regional laboratory environment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Ten UriSed 3 PRO automated microscopes (77 Elektronika, Hungary) were verified for nine HUSLAB laboratories with 160 000 annual urine samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Particle counting of the primary UriSed 3 PRO instrument (77 Elektronika, Hungary) was verified against reference visual microscopy with 463 urine specimens, and against urine culture on chromogenic agar plates with parallel 396 specimens. Nine secondary instruments were compared pairwise with the primary instrument. RESULTS: Relative imprecisions compared to Poisson distribution, R(CV), were estimated to be 1.0 for white blood cell (WBC) and 1.5 for red blood cell (RBC) counts, respectively. Spearman's correlations against visual microscopy were rS = 0.94 for WBC, rS = 0.87 for RBC, and rS = 0.82 for squamous epithelial cell (SEC) counts. Agreement with visual microscopy (Cohen's weighted kappa) was 0.94 for WBC, 0.89 for RBC, 0.88 for SEC, 0.59 for combined casts, and 0.49 for non-squamous epithelial cells (NEC). Bacteria were detected with a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 39 against culture at 107 CFB/L (104 CFU/mL). Created flagging limits allowed automated reporting for 70-75% of patient results. CONCLUSIONS: UriSed 3 PRO instruments were adopted into routine use after acceptance of the verification.

Evaluation of three molecular carbapenemase tests: Eazyplex SuperBug complete B, Novodiag CarbaR+, and Amplidiag CarbaR+MCR.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacilli, i.e., Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter, are of increased concern for the public health around the world. There is urgent need for rapid and accurate tests in order to provide correct treatment and to prevent bacterial spread in healthcare settings. METHODS: The aim of this study was to evaluate three commercial multiplex carbapenemase tests with CE-IVD marking: Eazyplex SuperBug complete B (AmplexDiagnostics), Novodiag CarbaR+ (Mobidiag), and Amplidiag CarbaR+MCR (Mobidiag). All these tests recognize KPC, NDM, OXA-48/181 group, VIM, OXA-23 group, and OXA-24/40 group, and Novodiag CarbaR+ and Amplidiag CarbaR+MCR additionally recognize IMP, OXA-51 group (with promoter located within ISAbaI), OXA-58 group, and MCR, and Amplidiag CarbaR+MCR further recognizes GES (carbapenemase-type only). RESULTS: The sensitivities and specificities of these tests with bacterial isolates were 100%. The sensitivity directly from clinical samples was 100%, but the specificity was lower, which is simply explained by the higher sensitivity of the molecular methods compared with culture method. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these CE-IVD marked tests provide a good alternative in the detection of carbapenemase-producing organisms.

SARS-CoV-2 sample-to-answer nucleic acid testing in a tertiary care emergency department: evaluation and utility.

BACKGROUND: Rapid sample-to-answer tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 are emerging and data on their relative performance is urgently needed. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the analytical performance of two rapid nucleic acid tests, Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Mobidiag Novodiag® Covid-19, in comparison to a combination reference of three large-scale PCR tests. Moreover, utility of the Novodiag® test in tertiary care emergency departments was assessed. RESULTS: In the preliminary evaluation, analysis of 90 respiratory samples resulted in 100% specificity and sensitivity for Xpert®, whereas analysis of 107 samples resulted in 93.4% sensitivity and 100% specificity for Novodiag®. Rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing with Novodiag® was made available for four tertiary care emergency departments in Helsinki, Finland between 18 and 31 May, coinciding with a rapidly declining epidemic phase. Altogether 361 respiratory specimens, together with relevant clinical data, were analyzed with Novodiag® and reference tests: 355/361 of the specimens were negative with both methods, and 1/361 was positive in Novodiag® and negative by the reference method. Of the 5 remaining specimens, two were negative with Novodiag®, but positive with the reference method with late Ct values. On average, a test result using Novodiag® was available nearly 8 hours earlier than that obtained with the large-scale PCR tests. CONCLUSIONS: While the performance of novel sample-to-answer PCR tests need to be carefully evaluated, they may provide timely and reliable results in detection of SARS-CoV-2 and thus facilitate patient management including effective cohorting.