Evidence Hub

Performance of a hybrid capture-based target enrichment next-generation sequencing for the identification of respiratory pathogens and resistance-associated genes in patients with severe pneumonia

Wei-Yu Hsu, Ting‐Wei Kao, H C Cho, Sheng‐Yuan Ruan, Tai-Fen Lee, Yu‐Tsung Huang, Jung‐Yien Chien, TACTICS (TAiwan CollaboraTive Intensive Care Study) Group

Microbiology Spectrum, 2024

83 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Severe pneumonia remains the leading infectious cause of death worldwide. The time-consuming nature and suboptimal sensitivity of sputum cultures hamper prompt pathogen detection for tailored treatments. Advanced techniques such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) offer rapid genetic pathogen detection and identification of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes. However, the performance of hybrid capture-based target enrichment NGS, e . g., Respiratory Pathogen ID/AMR Enrichment Panel (RPIP), for pathogen detection in patients with severe pneumonia remains uncertain. A prospective study involving adults with severe pneumonia was conducted. Respiratory samples from the lower respiratory tract were collected via bronchoalveolar lavage, bronchial washing, or endotracheal tube suction. The performance of RPIP in pathogen and AMR-associated gene detection was compared to that of conventional culture methods and the multiplex PCR-based FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (FilmArray-PN). A total of 83 subjects were enrolled. The most prevalent pathogens detected by RPIP were Rothia mucilaginosa , Stenotrophomonas maltophilia , Pseudomonas aeruginosa; herpes simplex virus-1, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus, and Pneumocystis jirovecii . Overall, the positive and negative agreement rates for bacterial detection were 63.6% and 97.5% between RPIP and culture methods, respectively, and 55.8% and 99.4% between FilmArray-PN and culture methods,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 83 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free