Search

Bordetella hinzii has emerged as an unusual cause of infection in immunocompromised patients, previously linked to zoonotic transmission. Antimicrobial susceptibility and genetic diversity of B. hinzii are poorly understood. This study reports phenotypic and genomic characteristics of the first four Australian isolates of B. hinzii obtained from elderly immunocompromised patients. Bordetella hinzii isolates were identified by MALDI-TOF and whole genome sequencing (WGS). Antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed using disk diffusion or E-test. Genomes of B. hinzii were analysed in global context. A phylogenetic tree was constructed of all isolates using Roary and a maximum-likelihood tree was generated from the core-snp alignment. Bordetella hinzii minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were largely uniform with high MICs to ampicillin, ceftriaxone and ciprofloxacin and low MICs to meropenem and piperacillin-tazobactam. Genomic analysis of isolate sequences divided strains analysed into two phylogenetically distinct groups, with one Australian B. hinzii isolate (AUS-4) assigned to Group 1, and the remaining isolates (AUS1-AUS3 and AUS-5) to Group 2. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis revealed two isolates, AUS-1 and AUS-2, were closely related with 14 SNP differences between them. All other Australian isolates were unrelated to each and all other isolates from the international dataset. Bordetella hinzii appears to pose a risk to immunocompromised individuals but remains susceptible to extended spectrum β-lactam and carbapenem antibiotics. Genomic analysis suggested a dissemination of genetically distinct strains.

Bloodstream infection survival is linked to timely administration of optimal antimicrobial therapy. Commercial multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays, such as the BioFire Blood Culture Identification Panel (BCID) used for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections, have significantly improved the turnaround time for optimisation of antimicrobial therapy. Reported concordance with culture-based methods and multiplex PCR analysis is high and only limited by (1) the range of targets available on the multiplex panel; and (2) the complexity of microorganisms present in the blood culture specimen. In this study, we evaluated the use of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel (BCID2), including an expanded repertoire of targets for Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, yeast and antimicrobial resistance genes compared to the BCID panel. The BCID2 panel identified microorganisms in 39/42 (92.9%) blood cultures where monomicrobial growth was detected; the three unidentified blood cultures contained organisms not included in the BCID2 panel. Polymicrobial blood culture analysis revealed a lower degree of concordance (28.6%); however, most disagreement was due to the culture-based identification of off-panel microorganisms of low clinical significance. Turnaround time, from blood culture collection to organism identification on the blood cultures correctly identified by BCID2, was 24.6 (±16.8) hours for the BCID2 panel versus 38.2 (±21.9) hours for conventional methods. Analysis of the theoretical impact of the BCID2 identification on clinical management found therapy would be altered in 45.1% (23/51) of patients. The BCID2 panel is anticipated to improve the diagnosis and antimicrobial management of patients with serious bloodstream infections.