1887

Journal of Medical Microbiology logo

Volume 73, Issue 2

Comparative evaluation of the detection rate, workflow and associated costs of a multiplex PCR panel versus conventional methods in diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis Open Access

Abstract

Infectious gastroenteritis is a common reason for consulting a physician. Although most cases of gastrointestinal illness are self-limiting, the identification of the etiologic pathogen by stool specimen analysis is important in cases of more severe illness and for epidemiological reasons.

Due to the broad range of causative pathogens, the conventional examination of a stool specimen is labour-intensive and usually requires different diagnostic methods. Multiplex PCR tests [e.g. BioFire Gastrointestinal (GI) Panel] allow the rapid detecting of up to 22 pathogens in one test.

Using a multiplex PCR panel to test stool specimens for infectious gastroenteritis pathogens can improve the detection rate, reduce the time-to-result and hands-on time and lower the costs of a microbiology laboratory.

This study was aimed at evaluating the detection rate, the workflow and associated costs of stool specimen management using the BioFire GI Panel versus conventional methods.

Stool specimens were evaluated prospectively during the routine operation. Pathogen detection rate, hands-on time, time-to-result and material and personnel costs were determined for the BioFire GI Panel and conventional methods—the latter based on physician request and excluding viral testing.

Analysing 333 specimens collected between 2019 and 2020, the detection rate of enteropathogens was significantly higher with a positivity rate of 39.9 % using the multiplex PCR panel compared with 15.0 % using the conventional methods. The BioFire GI Panel presented results in a median time of 2.2 h compared with 77.5 h for culture and 22.1 h for antigen testing, noting that no tests were performed at weekends except for toxinogenic . Based on list prices, the BioFire GI Panel was nine times more expensive compared with conventional methods, whereas hands-on-time was significantly lower using the BioFire GI Panel.

Multiplex PCR panels are valuable tools for laboratory identification of infectious agents causing diarrhoea. The higher costs of such a multiplex PCR panel might be outweighed by the higher detection rate, ease of handling, rapid results and most likely improved patient management. However, these panels do not provide information on antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Therefore, if this is necessary for targeted therapy or if outbreak monitoring and control is required, specimens must still be cultured.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): BIOFIRE , costs , FilmArray GI Panel , infectious gastroenteritis , multiplex PCR and workflow
© 2024 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001795
2024-02-16
2024-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/73/2/jmm001795.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001795&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Kotloff KL, Nataro JP, Blackwelder WC, Nasrin D, Farag TH et al. Burden and aetiology of diarrhoeal disease in infants and young children in developing countries (the global enteric multicenter study, GEMS): a prospective, case-control study. Lancet 2013; 382:209–222 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Kosek M, Bern C, Guerrant RL. The global burden of diarrhoeal disease, as estimated from studies published between 1992 and 2000. Bull World Health Organ 2003; 81:197–204 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Wilking H, Spitznagel H, Werber D, Lange C, Jansen A et al. Acute gastrointestinal illness in adults in Germany: a population-based telephone survey. Epidemiol Infect 2013; 141:2365–2375 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson M-A et al. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States--major pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis 2011; 17:7–15 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Scallan E, Griffin PM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Hoekstra RM. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States--unspecified agents. Emerg Infect Dis 2011; 17:16–22 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cronquist AB, Mody RK, Atkinson R, Besser J, Tobin D’Angelo M et al. Impacts of culture-independent diagnostic practices on public health surveillance for bacterial enteric pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54:S432–S439 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Langley G, Besser J, Iwamoto M, Lessa FC, Cronquist A et al. Effect of culture-independent diagnostic tests on future emerging infections program surveillance. Emerg Infect Dis 2015; 21:1582–1588 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Herikstad H, Yang S, Van Gilder TJ, Vugia D, Hadler J et al. A population-based estimate of the burden of diarrhoeal illness in the United States: FoodNet, 1996-7. Epidemiol Infect 2002; 129:9–17 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Gordon MA. Salmonella infections in immunocompromised adults. J Infect 2008; 56:413–422 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Dunbar SA. Molecular revolution entering GI diagnostic testing. MLO Med Lab Obs 2013; 45:28 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Koplan JP, Fineberg HV, Ferraro MJ, Rosenberg ML. Value of stool cultures. Lancet 1980; 2:413–416 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Guerrant RL, Shields DS, Thorson SM, Schorling JB, Gröschel DH. Evaluation and diagnosis of acute infectious diarrhea. Am J Med 1985; 78:91–98 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Humphries RM, Linscott AJ. Laboratory diagnosis of bacterial gastroenteritis. Clin Microbiol Rev 2015; 28:3–31
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Mortensen JE, Ventrola C, Hanna S, Walter A. Comparison of time-motion analysis of conventional stool culture and the BD MAX. BMC Clin Pathol 2015; 15:9 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Guarino A, Giannattasio A. New molecular approaches in the diagnosis of acute diarrhea: advantages for clinicians and researchers. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2011; 27:24–29 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Halligan E, Edgeworth J, Bisnauthsing K, Bible J, Cliff P et al. Multiplex molecular testing for management of infectious gastroenteritis in a hospital setting: a comparative diagnostic and clinical utility study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014; 20:460–467 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fidalgo B, Rubio E, Pastor V, Parera M, Ballesté-Delpierre C et al. Improved diagnosis of gastrointestinal infections using a semi-automated multiplex real-time PCR for detection of enteropathogens. J Med Microbiol 2021; 70: [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Rand KH, Tremblay EE, Hoidal M, Fisher LB, Grau KR et al. Multiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panels: implications for infection control. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2015; 82:154–157 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Truong J, Cointe A, Le Roux E, Bidet P, Michel M et al. Clinical impact of a gastrointestinal PCR panel in children with infectious diarrhoea. Arch Dis Child 2022; 107:601–605 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferrer J, Giménez E, Carretero D, Buesa J, Morillas F et al. BD MAX enteric bacterial, bacterial plus, and virus panels for diagnosis of acute infectious gastroenteritis: a cost-benefit analysis. Microbiol Spectr 2022; 10:e0088022 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Machiels JD, Cremers AJH, van Bergen-Verkuyten MCGT, Paardekoper-Strijbosch SJM, Frijns KCJ et al. Impact of the BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal panel on patient care and infection control. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0228596 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Khare R, Espy MJ, Cebelinski E, Boxrud D, Sloan LM et al. Comparative evaluation of two commercial multiplex panels for detection of gastrointestinal pathogens by use of clinical stool specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2014; 52:3667–3673 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Buss SN, Leber A, Chapin K, Fey PD, Bankowski MJ et al. Multicenter evaluation of the BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal panel for etiologic diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis. J Clin Microbiol 2015; 53:915–925 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Huang RSP, Johnson CL, Pritchard L, Hepler R, Ton TT et al. Performance of the Verigene(R) enteric pathogens test, Biofire FilmArray gastrointestinal panel and Luminex xTAG(R) gastrointestinal pathogen panel for detection of common enteric pathogens. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2016; 86:336–339 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hannet I, Engsbro AL, Pareja J, Schneider UV, Lisby JG et al. Multicenter evaluation of the new QIAstat gastrointestinal panel for the rapid syndromic testing of acute gastroenteritis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2019; 38:2103–2112 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. McAuliffe GN, Anderson TP, Stevens M, Adams J, Coleman R et al. Systematic application of multiplex PCR enhances the detection of bacteria, parasites, and viruses in stool samples. J Infect 2013; 67:122–129 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Onori M, Coltella L, Mancinelli L, Argentieri M, Menichella D et al. Evaluation of a multiplex PCR assay for simultaneous detection of bacterial and viral enteropathogens in stool samples of paediatric patients. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2014; 79:149–154 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Spina A, Kerr KG, Cormican M, Barbut F, Eigentler A et al. Spectrum of enteropathogens detected by the FilmArray GI Panel in a multicentre study of community-acquired gastroenteritis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21:719–728 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Calderaro A, Martinelli M, Buttrini M, Montecchini S, Covan S et al. Contribution of the FilmArray® gastrointestinal panel in the laboratory diagnosis of gastroenteritis in a cohort of children: a two-year prospective study. Int J Med Microbiol 2018; 308:514–521 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Carmon D, Rohana H, Azrad M, Peretz A. The impact of a positive Biofire® FilmArray® gastrointestinal panel result on clinical management and outcomes. Diagnostics 2023; 13:1094 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhan Z, Guo J, Xiao Y, He Z, Xia X et al. Comparison of BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal panel versus Luminex xTAG Gastrointestinal pathogen panel (xTAG GPP) for diarrheal pathogen detection in China. Int J Infect Dis 2020; 99:414–420 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. DiDiodato G, Allen A, Bradbury N, Brown J, Cruise K et al. The efficacy of the BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal panel to reduce hospital costs associated with contact isolation: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Cureus 2022; 14:e27931 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Beal SG, Tremblay EE, Toffel S, Velez L, Rand KH. A gastrointestinal PCR panel improves clinical management and lowers health care costs. J Clin Microbiol 2018; 56:01457 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Cybulski RJ, Bateman AC, Bourassa L, Bryan A, Beail B et al. Clinical impact of a multiplex gastrointestinal polymerase chain reaction panel in patients with acute gastroenteritis. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 67:1688–1696 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Torres-Miranda D, Akselrod H, Karsner R, Secco A, Silva-Cantillo D et al. Use of BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal PCR panel associated with reductions in antibiotic use, time to optimal antibiotics, and length of stay. BMC Gastroenterol 2020; 20:246 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Robert-Koch-Institut Salmonellose; 2016 https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Merkblaetter/Ratgeber_Salmonellose.html
  37. Robert-Koch-Institut Shigellose; 2021 https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Merkblaetter/Ratgeber_Shigellose.html
  38. Robert-Koch-Institut Campylobacter-Enteritis; 2018 https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Merkblaetter/Ratgeber_Campylobacter.html
  39. Saha S, Sajib MSI, Garrett D, Qamar FN. Antimicrobial resistance in Typhoidal salmonella: around the world in 3 Days. Clin Infect Dis 2020; 71:S91–S95 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Imdad A, Retzer F, Thomas LS, McMillian M, Garman K et al. Impact of culture-independent diagnostic testing on recovery of enteric bacterial infectionsx. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 66:1892–1898 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001795
Loading
Comparative evaluation of the detection rate, workflow and associated costs of a multiplex PCR panel versus conventional methods in diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis
J. Med. Microbiol. 73, 001795 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001795
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001795
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001795
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error