Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Utility of pan-bacterial and pan-fungal PCR in endophthalmitis: case report and review of the literature.
Ercanbrack, Carson W; Rahal, Dania A; Chauhan, Muhammad Z; Jabbehdari, Sayena; Uwaydat, Sami H.
Affiliation
  • Ercanbrack CW; College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
  • Rahal DA; College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
  • Chauhan MZ; Harvey and Bernice Jones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
  • Jabbehdari S; Harvey and Bernice Jones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
  • Uwaydat SH; Harvey and Bernice Jones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. SHUwaydat@uams.edu.
J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect ; 14(1): 37, 2024 Aug 01.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39088113
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Endophthalmitis is a clinical diagnosis but identification of the disease-causing agent or agents allows for a more tailored treatment. This is routinely done through intraocular fluid cultures and staining. However, culture-negative endophthalmitis is a relatively common occurrence, and a causative organism cannot be identified. Thus, further diagnostic testing, such as pan-bacterial and pan-fungal polymerase chain reactions (PCRs), may be required. BODY There are now newer, other testing modalities, specifically pan-bacterial and pan-fungal PCRs, that may allow ophthalmologists to isolate a causative agent when quantitative PCRs and cultures remain negative. We present a case report in which pan-fungal PCR was the only test, amongst quantitative PCRs, cultures, and biopsies, that was able to identify a pathogen in endophthalmitis. Pan-PCR has unique advantages over quantitative PCR in that it does not have a propensity for false-positive results due to contamination. Conversely, pan-PCR has drawbacks, including its inability to detect viruses and parasites and its increased turnaround time and cost. Based on two large retrospective studies, pan-PCR was determined not to be recommended in routine cases of systemic infection as it does not typically add value to the diagnostic workup and does not change the treatment course in most cases. However, in cases like the one presented, pan-bacterial and pan-fungal PCRs may be considered if empiric treatment fails or if the infective organism cannot be isolated. If pan-PCR remains negative or endophthalmitis continues to persist, an even newer form of testing, next-generation sequencing, may aid in the diagnostic workup of culture-negative endophthalmitis.

CONCLUSION:

Pan-bacterial and pan-fungal PCR testing is a relatively new diagnostic tool with unique advantages and drawbacks compared to traditional culturing and PCR methods. Similar to the tests' use in non-ophthalmic systemic infections, pan-bacterial and pan-fungal PCRs are unlikely to become the initial diagnosis test and completely replace culture methods. However, they can provide useful diagnostic information if an infectious agent is unable to be identified with traditional methods or if empiric treatment of endophthalmitis continues to fail.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States Country of publication: Germany

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States Country of publication: Germany