ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lower respiratory tract infection (LRIs) is very common both in terms of community-acquired infection and hospital-acquired infection. Sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) are the most important specimens obtained from patients with LRI. The choice of antibiotic with which to treat LRI usually depends on the antimicrobial sensitivity of bacteria isolated from sputum and BALF. However, differences in the antimicrobial sensitivity of pathogens isolated from sputum and BALF have not been evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the differences between sputum and BALF samples in terms of pathogen isolation and antimicrobial sensitivity in hospitalized patients with LRI. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2015, quality evaluation of sputum samples was not conducted before performing sputum culture; however, between 2016 and 2018, quality evaluation of sputum samples was conducted first, and only quality-assured samples were cultured. The numbers of sputum and BALF in 2013-2015 were 15,549 and 1671, while those in 2016-2018 were 12,055 and 3735, respectively. The results of pathogen culture showed that Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Hemophilus influenzae, Escherichia coli, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Streptococcus pneumoniae were in the top ten pathogens isolated from sputum and BALF. An antimicrobial susceptibility test showed that the susceptibility of BALF isolates to most antibiotics was higher compared with the susceptibility of sputum isolates, especially after quality control of sputum samples (2016-2018). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that caution is needed in making therapeutic choices for patients with LRI when using antimicrobial sensitivity results from sputum isolates as opposed to BALF isolates.
Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid/microbiology , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Respiratory System/microbiology , Sputum/microbiology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Escherichia coli/drug effects , Escherichia coli/isolation & purification , Female , Gram-Negative Bacteria/drug effects , Gram-Negative Bacteria/isolation & purification , Gram-Positive Bacteria/drug effects , Gram-Positive Bacteria/isolation & purification , Hospitals, Teaching , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , Staphylococcus aureus/isolation & purificationABSTRACT
Serology tests for viral antibodies provide an important tool to support nucleic acid testing for diagnosis of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is useful for documenting previous exposures to SARS-CoV-2, the etiological agent of COVID-19. The sensitivities of the chemiluminescent SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM immunoassay were assessed by using serum samples collected from 728 patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The specificity was evaluated on a panel of 60 serum samples from non-COVID-19 patients with high levels of rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody, or antibodies against Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), mycoplasma pneumonia, human respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), adenovirus, influenza A or influenza B. The imprecision and interference were assessed by adopting the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) EP15-A2 and EP7-A2, respectively. Sensitivities between 1 and 65 days after onset of symptoms were 94.4% and 78.7%, for IgG and IgM test, respectively. The sensitivity increased with the time after symptom onset, and rose to the top on the 22nd to 28th days. The total imprecision (CVs) was less than 6.0% for IgG and less than 6.5% for IgM. Limited cross-reactions with antibodies against EBV, CMV, mycoplasma pneumonia, human RSV, adenovirus, influenza A or influenza B were found. These data suggested the chemiluminescent SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM, assay with reliable utility and sensitivity, could be used for rapid screening and retrospective surveillance of COVID-19.