Utility of a multiplex pathogen detection system directly from respiratory specimens for treatment and diagnostic stewardship.

The availability of syndrome-based panels for various ailments has widened the scope of diagnostics in many clinical settings. These panels can detect a multitude of pathogens responsible for a particular condition, which can lead to a timely diagnosis and better treatment outcomes. In contrast to traditional identification methods based on pathogen growth on culture, syndrome-based panels offer a quicker diagnosis, which can be especially beneficial in situations requiring urgent care, such as intensive care units. One such panel is the Biofire Filmarray Pneumonia plus Panel (BFP), which we have compared against microbiological culture and identification. The lower respiratory samples from patients were tested with BFP, culture, and identification with culture considered the gold standard. The phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility results (Vitek 2) were compared with the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes detected in BFP. Statistical analysis was carried out using GraphPad 7.0 and MS Excel (Microsoft Inc.). The results showed a positive percent agreement of 100% and a negative percent agreement of 47.8% with an overall agreement of 76.72% compared to culture. BFP was better at identifying fastidious bacteria, and the agreement with culture was higher for high bacterial identification numbers (107 and 106). There was also a correlation between the number of pathogens detected and growth in culture. Carbapenemase genes were detected in around 80% of phenotypically resistant samples and correlated with in-house PCR 60% of the time. Hence, BFP results need to be interpreted with caution especially when multiple pathogens are detected. Similarly, the presence or absence of AMR genes should be used to guide the therapy while being watchful of unusual resistance or susceptibility. The cost constraints and low throughput call for patient selection criteria and prioritization in emergency or resource-limited conditions.IMPORTANCEApplication of syndrome-based panels in clinical microbiology is of huge support in infectious conditions requiring urgent interventions, such as pneumonia. Interpreting the results requires caution; hence, we have compared the results obtained from Biofire Filmarray Pneumonia plus Panel with standard microbiological methods.

Secondary infections in COVID-19: Antemortem and postmortem culture study.

Background: Secondary bacterial infections during COVID-19 hospitalization have been reported in about 6-15% of patients. Aims: To study the secondary bacterial infections that affected the COVID-19 patients during their hospitalisation and to unearth the bacteriological profile of samples obtained after their demise. Settings and Design: This prospective study was carried out at a COVID-19 dedicated, apex tertiary care centre in North India from July 2020 to April 2021. Methods and Materials: Samples of 268 patients were considered for the study. Nasopharyngeal swab specimen, blood, and tissue (lung) were collected from the deceased body as early as possible and processed. Statistical Analysis: Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 11.1 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). Results: A total of 170 samples were received from patients before their death, which included blood, urine, respiratory samples, pus, and cerebrospinal fluid. Forty-four pathogens were isolated, which consisted of Acinetobacter baumannii (43.1%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (36.3%), Escherichia coli (11.3%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4.5%), Enterococcus faecium (4.5%). Two hundred fifty-eight samples were collected from the deceased bodies wherein the nasopharyngeal sample was highest, followed by tissue and blood. A total of 43 pathogens were isolated among them which included A. baumannii (44.1%), followed by K. pneumoniae (25.5%), E. coli (20.9%), P. aeruginosa (6.97%) and Enterobacter cloacae (2.3%). All these isolates were highly resistant to antimicrobials. Conclusions: In our study, bacterial profiles in antemortem and postmortem samples were found to be similar, suggesting that resistant pathogens may be the cause of mortality in COVID-19 infected hospitalised patients.

SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in deceased bodies: implications for infection prevention.

Background & objectives: High transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 has significant implications on healthcare workers' safety, preservation, handling, transportation and disposal of the deceased bodies. The objective of this study was to detect SARS-CoV-2 antigen in nasopharyngeal samples and its implications in handling and care of COVID-19 deceased bodies. Methods: A study was conducted at a dedicated COVID-19 centre on deceased individuals from April to December 2020. Rapid antigen test (RAT) and reverse transcription (RT)-PCR was compared on all the SARS-CoV-2 positive cadavers recruited in the study. Results: A total of 115 deceased individuals were included in the study. Of these, 79 (68.7%) were male and 36 (31.3%) were female and majority were in the age group of 51-60 yr [31 (27%)]. SARS-CoV-2 antigen test was positive in 32 (27.8%) and negative in 83 (72.1%) individuals. The mean time interval between deaths to the sample collection was 13.2 h with interquartile range of eight to 20 h. Reverse transcription (RT)-PCR was used as the reference test and 24 (20.9%) cases were true positive; 93.6 per cent [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.8-98.4%] sensitivity, 45.2 per cent (95% CI 35.5-55%) specificity, 60.2 per cent (95% CI 50.6-69.8%) positive predictive value and 88.8 per cent (95% CI 82.7-95%) negative predictive value of antigen test was computed. Interpretation & conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 antigen test was positive beyond 19 h in COVID-19 deceased individuals. Antigen test was found to be highly sensitive in the deceased. Patients, suspected of having died due to COVID-19, can be screened by this method. As infectiousness of the virus in the deceased bodies cannot be directly concluded from either the antigen or RT-PCR test, yet possible transmission cannot be completely ruled out. Strict infection control measures need to be followed during the handling and clearance of COVID-19 cadavers.

Infection Trends, Susceptibility Pattern, and Treatment Options for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Infections in Trauma Patients: A Retrospective Study.

Introduction Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is an emerging environmental, gram-negative, multidrug-resistant organism, associated with risk factors such as prolonged hospitalization, invasive procedures, admission to the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, use of indwelling catheters, administration of immunosuppressants or corticosteroids, human immunodeficiency virus infection, underlying malignancy, and organ transplantation. The organism, despite being of low invasiveness in immune-competent individuals, is difficult to treat because of intrinsic resistance to several antimicrobial agents. Materials and Methods This study focuses on commonly encountered resistance from among the isolates over a duration of 7 years from 2012 to 2018, analyzed retrospectively. Identification and susceptibility testing were performed using Vitek 2 (BioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France). Results Bloodstream infections were found to be most common (52.02%), followed by respiratory infections (35.83%). The median age of the patients was 36 years, and male to female ratio was 143:27. The median duration of hospital stay was 18 days, and mortality was seen in 18.82% of patients. Susceptibility to cotrimoxazole and levofloxacin was seen in 97.1% of isolates (168 out of 173) and 90.1% of isolates (156 out of 173), respectively. Conclusion Despite being effective in a majority of S . maltophilia isolates, both cotrimoxazole and levofloxacin have their shortcomings. Cotrimoxazole is bacteriostatic and can cause bone marrow suppression and resistance to levofloxacin sometimes develops during therapy. Thus, the therapy should be decided considering the characteristics of both of these drugs.

Microbiological Profile and the Resistance Pattern of Pathogens in Neurosurgical Patients from a New Delhi Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical patients are considered to be at higher risk for infections including nosocomial infections compared with other critically ill individuals. Empirical antimicrobial therapy is of utmost importance for the survival of infected neurosurgical patients. METHODS: The microbial distribution and antimicrobial resistance patients from January 2012 to December 2021 (10 years) were analyzed retrospectively. Identification was done using VITEK-2 and MALDI-TOF systems. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was determined by the Kirby Bauer Disk Diffusion Agar method (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) and VITEK-2. RESULTS: A total of 48,474 samples were received, out of which 10,134 (21%) had growth. Respiratory specimens showed the maximum isolation of pathogens (42% n = 4292). The predominant bacterial pathogens were gram negative (n = 8972; 88.5%), whereas gram positives were only 11.5% (n = 1162) of the total organisms. Among the gram positives, the most common was Staphylococcus aureus (64.6%), and among gram negatives, the most common pathogen was Acinetobacter baumanni (38.6%). The weighted average of the drug-resistance profile across all gram positives was >50% for fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin), gentamicin, erythromycin, and ampicillin, and in the case of gram negatives it was >90% for ampicillin-sulbactam, ticarcillin, cefazolin, cefotaxime, and ceftriaxone. Thirty-two patients were found to have candidemia, out of which 6 were C. albicans and the rest were nonalbican. Six neurosurgery patients had infection with C. auris, 4 from blood samples and 2 from urine. CONCLUSIONS: This study will add to the current knowledge and provide a better understanding of pathogen profile and resistance patterns in traumatic brain injury patients.

Clinical Validation of Standard Q COVID-19 Antigen and IgM/IgG Combo Kit Assay at a Tertiary Care Center in Northern India.

Background Expansion of the testing capacities for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 is an important issue in the face of ever-increasing case load. So, there is need of point-of-care diagnostic tests in the existing laboratory capacities for early treatment, isolation, and clinical decision making, especially in resource limited settings. Materials and Methods This prospective cohort study was conducted at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Nasopharyngeal samples and blood samples were collected for antigen and antibody testing. Rapid antigen test was performed as per the kit's instructions. The performance of the kit was compared with the gold standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Results Eighty-eight out of 110 patients tested positive by RT-PCR for coronavirus disease 2019 in last 48 to 72 hours were included in the study. Overall, the sensitivity of combined antibody test was 52%, antigen test 26%, and combined sensitivity of both antigen and antibody was 72.7%, respectively. Conclusion The combo kit needs to be used with caution in low prevalence settings, where cases may be missed.

SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection in Respiratory and Nonrespiratory Specimens in COVID-19 Patients.

Rapid antigen testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) available at present provides immediate results at low cost with less expertise and without any need of sophisticated infrastructure. Most of these test kits available are for nasopharyngeal samples. This is a novel study to detect the presence of COVID antigen in samples other than throat and oropharyngeal. Various samples received from patients admitted in the COVID-19 dedicated center were tested for the presence of antigen. Same procedure was followed as done for the nasopharyngeal sample. A total of 150 samples were tested, which included ascitic fluid, pleural fluid, drain fluid, bile, bronchoalveolar lavage, cerebrospinal fluid, endotracheal tube aspirate, sputum, tissue, and urine. Out of 150, 11 (7.33%) were positive and 138 (92.66%) were negative for the antigen test. The COVID-19 antigen test kit, though designed for nasopharyngeal samples, was able to detect the presence of antigen in other clinical samples.

Evaluation of COVID-19 Antigen Fluorescence Immunoassay Test for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: Tests detecting SARS-CoV-2-specific antigen have recently been developed, and many of them are now commercially available. However, the real-world performance of these assays is uncertain; therefore, their validation is important. In this study, we have evaluated the performance of STANDARD F COVID-19 antigen fluorescence immunoassay (FIA) kit. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal samples collected from patients were subjected to the test as per manufacturer's instructions. The performance of the kit was compared with the gold standard real-time polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients were tested with STANDARD F COVID-19 antigen FIA test kit. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of this test were found to be 38%, 99%, 96.2%, and 72%, respectively, with a diagnostic accuracy of 75.7%. CONCLUSION: STANDARD F COVID-19 antigen FIA showed high specificity and positive predictive value but low sensitivity and negative predictive value.

Profile of co-infections & secondary infections in COVID-19 patients at a dedicated COVID-19 facility of a tertiary care Indian hospital: Implication on antimicrobial resistance.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns over secondary infections because it has limited treatment options and empiric antimicrobial treatment poses serious risks of aggravating antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Studies have shown that COVID-19 patients are predisposed to develop secondary infections. This study was conducted to ascertain the prevalence and profiles of co- & secondary infections in patients at the COVID-19 facility in North India. METHODS: We studied the profile of pathogens isolated from 290 clinical samples. Bacterial and fungal pathogens were identified, and antimicrobial susceptibility was determined by the Vitek2® system. Additionally, respiratory samples were tested for any viral/atypical bacterial co-infections and the presence of AMR genes by FilmArray test. The clinical and outcome data of these patients were also recorded for demographic and outcome measures analyses. RESULTS: A total of 151 (13%) patients had secondary infections, and most got infected within the first 14 days of hospital admission. Patients aged >50 years developed severe symptoms (p = 0.0004) and/or had a fatal outcome (p = 0.0005). In-hospital mortality was 33%.K.pneumoniae (33.3%) was the predominant pathogen, followed by A. baumannii (27.1%). The overall resistance was up to 84%.Majority of the organisms were multidrug-resistant (MDR) harbouring MDR genes. CONCLUSION: A high rate of secondary infections with resistant pathogens in COVID-19 patients highlights the importance of antimicrobial stewardship programs focussing on supporting the optimal selection of empiric treatment and rapid-de-escalation, based on culture reports.

Rapid chromatographic immunoassay-based evaluation of COVID-19: A cross-sectional, diagnostic test accuracy study & its implications for COVID-19 management in India.

Background & objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has so far affected over 41 million people globally. The limited supply of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) kits and reagents has made meeting the rising demand for increased testing incompetent, worldwide. A highly sensitive and specific antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) is the need of the hour. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of a rapid chromatographic immunoassay-based test (index test) compared with a clinical reference standard (rRT-PCR). Methods: A cross-sectional, single-blinded study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in north India. Paired samples were taken for RDT and rRT-PCR (reference standard) from consecutive participants screened for COVID-19 to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the RDT. Further subgroup analysis was done based on the duration of illness and cycle threshold values. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to measure the level of agreement between the two tests. Results: Of the 330 participants, 77 were rRT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sixty four of these patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RDT. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 81.8 and 99.6 per cent, respectively. The sensitivity of RDT was higher (85.9%) in participants with a duration of illness ≤5 days. Interpretation & conclusions: With an excellent specificity and moderate sensitivity, this RDT may be used to rule in COVID-19 in patients with a duration of illness ≤5 days. Large-scale testing based on this RDT across the country would result in quick detection, isolation and treatment of COVID-19 patients.