Search

ABSTRACT 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.

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.

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.

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.