Journal Logo

Reviews

Emerging Microbiology Diagnostics for Transplant Infections: On the Cusp of a Paradigm Shift

Azar, Marwan M. MD1; Gaston, David C. MD, PhD1; Kotton, Camille N. MD2; Malinis, Maricar F. MD1,3

Author Information
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000003123
  • Free

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The diagnosis of infectious diseases in transplant populations is not bound by laws of parsimony. Due to impaired innate and adaptive immune responses following induction and maintenance immunosuppression, solid organ transplant (SOT) and hematopoietic transplant (HSCT) recipients are at increased risk for community-acquired and nosocomial infections, opportunistic and uncommon pathogens, as well as multiple pathogens simultaneously. Their immunosuppressed state also renders transplant recipients more susceptible to progressive and disseminated infections while extensive healthcare contact and antimicrobial exposure increase the likelihood of infections with multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms, together conferring a high degree of morbidity and mortality. In light of this increased susceptibility to infection, accurate and rapid diagnostics applicable to this population are essential. Though gold standard methods including culture and histopathologic examination continue to occupy a central role in the diagnosis of infectious diseases, the last decade has seen a significant shift toward culture-independent techniques. These have included single-target and multiplexed molecular testing, mass-spectrometry, and magnetic resonance-based methods which have together greatly expanded the array of pathogens identified, increased processing speed and throughput, allowed for detection of resistance, and ultimately improved the outcomes of infected transplant recipients. More recently, a new generation of diagnostics with immense potential has emerged including multiplexed molecular panels directly applicable to blood and blood culture specimens, next-generation metagenomics, and gas chromatography mass spectrometry (Figure 1). Here, we review emerging diagnostic methods applicable to the practice of transplant infectious diseases.

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.:
Overview of emerging diagnostics for transplant infectious diseases. CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; GI, gastrointestinal; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.

MOLECULAR METHODS

Molecular Methods for Bloodstream Infections

Due to a combination of impaired host defenses and increased nosocomial contact, transplant recipients are at increased risk for bloodstream infections. In the last decade, MDR Gram-negative organisms including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and drug-resistant Pseudomonas have developed into serious yet increasingly common hazards to hospitalized patients, compounding the threat posed by already established Gram-positive pathogens, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. Transplant patients are at increased risk for MDR bloodstream infections due to a multitude of factors ranging from chronic organ insufficiency, prolonged hospitalization, surgical site infections, immunosuppressive agents, intravascular catheters, prophylactic and therapeutic antimicrobials, and the potential for donor-derived infection.1-4 Infections with MDR Gram-negative organisms including ESBL and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriacae, Pseudomonas, Stenotrophomonas, Burkholderia, and Acinetobacter and resistant Gram-positive organisms like MRSA and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus are associated with increased mortality for recipients of kidney, liver, lung and heart transplants, and HSCT.3-7 An equally worrisome trend in the last decade has been the rise of drug-resistant Candida species, now the fifth most common hospital-acquired pathogen and an important cause of morbidity and mortality for transplant patients, especially in liver SOT.8 In addition to increasing azole and echinochandin resistance among established pathogens like C. albicans and C. glabrata, newly emerging species pose a significant threat to transplant recipients.9 Chief among these is Candida auris, an emerging species that has triggered global health concerns and has the potential for multidrug resistance, nosocomial outbreaks, and donor-derived transmission.10-12

Drug resistance poses challenges to the selection of appropriate prophylactic, empiric, and targeted antibiotics for suspected or confirmed bloodstream infections in any circumstance; these difficulties are magnified in the context of transplantation due to poor organ function and drug-drug interactions that further constrain antibiotic choices. The negative impact of increasing multidrug resistance is particularly concerning in the setting of transplant since inadequate empiric antimicrobial therapy in this population is strongly linked to increased mortality.13 Due to delays in identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of bloodstream pathogens using conventional methods, transplant clinicians must often select empiric antimicrobial therapy based on clinical suspicion and local resistance patterns. Unfortunately, empiric therapy based on “best-guess” estimation of pathogen and resistance patterns is often incorrect, including in up to 50% of bacteremic and 70% of fungemic patients who receive inadequate antimicrobial coverage before obtaining culture results.14,14a

To obviate intrinsic delays associated with culture-based testing for bloodstream infections, molecular techniques that rapidly identify organisms from positive blood culture bottles and directly from blood samples have been developed. In addition to organism identification, several of these methods can detect genetic determinants of resistance including the mecA gene that confers methicillin resistance in S. aureus, and genes associated with ESBL (CTX-M) or carbapenemase production (KPC, OXA-48, NDM etc). Such methods are generally of moderate complexity, requiring trained operators but benefit from minimal sample processing and automated test interpretation. Several Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved and rapid molecular tests for direct detection from blood culture broth are currently commercially available in the United States (Table 1).

TABLE 1.
TABLE 1.:
Molecular detection methods for detection of pathogens from positive blood culture bottles

Molecular assays that directly detect organisms directly from blood specimens are not currently FDA-approved for use in the United States, but several are available in Europe and Asia. Circumventing the blood culture step offers several advantages including a requirement for lower blood volumes (1 versus 10 mL for blood culture) and greater sensitivity for fastidious or unculturable organisms.15 Eliminating the growth phase does, however, result in lower sensitivity for most pathogens due to a combination of low organism burden in peripheral blood, low specimen volumes, and circulating human nucleic acids and other blood components that interfere with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based amplification, leading to false negative results. Nucleic acid amplification of DNA from dead or contaminating organisms may lead to false positive results, impacting test specificity.15 False negatives may occur in the context of polymicrobial blood cultures with all aforementioned methods.

Molecular Detection From Positive Blood Culture Bottles

Several FDA-approved assays for detection of organisms from positive blood cultures are available in the United States (Table 1). These employ various molecular methods including (1) fluorescence in-situ hybridization (QuickFISH and PNA FISH BC assays [OpGen, MD, previously AdvanDx] and Accelerate PhenoTest BC kit [Accelerate Diagnostics, AZ]),16 (2) DNA-microarray (Verigene GP and GN assays [Luminex Corporation, US]), (3) nucleic-acid-amplification (Cepheid Xpert MRSA/SA blood culture assay [Cepheid, CA) and FilmArray (Biofire Diagnostics, US]), or (4) combined methods (ePlex [GenMarkDx., CA] blood culture identification [BCID] panels).

The QuickFISH BC assays benefit from the shortest turn around times (TAT) of 20–30 minutes among all the aforementioned assays (compared with 90 min to 6.5 h for others), potentially leading to earlier institution of targeted and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. However, the assay detects a limited panel of organisms, provides no resistance information and only processes once patient sample at a time. Importantly, the assay does not distinguish MRSA from MSSA, or between clinically important Candida species such as C. glabrata and C. krusei, potentially leading to inappropriate antimicrobial coverage and limiting its overall utility in real world settings.

The PNA FISH BC assays offers no real advantages over the QuickFISH iteration, with longer TAT of 90 minutes and the additional drawbacks of potentially misidentifying 2 clinically important organisms (Micrococcus as Staphylococcus and S. anginosus as Enterococcus), which may lead to inadequate antibiotic use and other unnecessary interventions.

The Accelerate PhenoTest BC kit is the only platform to provide minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC)-based resistance information (also known as phenotypic resistance information), allowing clinicians to directly determine whether an infecting organism is susceptible or resistant to a test antibiotic, rather than inferring susceptibility from the presence of absence of resistance genes as is done with genotypic assays. Phenotypic assays have the potential for improved performance since genetic determinants of resistance may not always correlate with susceptibility (decreasing the specificity of genotypic assays) and novel or emerging mechanisms may be missed by genotypic assays (decreasing the sensitivity of genotypic assays). Conversely, genotypic information can be useful, especially in cases of MDR organisms where the choice of therapy may be guided by specific underlying resistance mutations (eg, using ceftazidime-avibactam for a KPC-producing CRE but not for an NDM-producing CRE for which the drug is not active). Additionally, the assays’ organism panel is relatively limited, the throughput is low, and provision of AST information requires 6.5 hours (versus genotypic assays that require <2.5 h). Notably, S. pneumoniae the most common bacterial cause of community-acquired pneumonia is not differentiated from other Streptococcus species.

The Verigene GP and GN assays offer a slightly broader range of bacterial targets when compared with the QuickFISH and Accelerate PhenoTest but these assays do not detect fungi including Candida species, which are important causes of BSI in transplant patients. E. coli, an important pathogen cannot be distinguished from Shigella species. Verigene assays provide genotypic resistance information including the 5 canonical genes for carbapenemase production (KPC, IMP, NDM, OXA, VIM) but the GP assay does not detect a novel variant of methicillin resistance among MRSA islolates (mecC). The TAT (2–2.5 h) is longer than competing assays and a single 1 sample can run at a time per processor. However, adding multiple processors per reader can enhance throughput.

Unlike the other listed assays, the Cepheid Xpert MRSA/SA is a monoplex test targeting S. aureus only. Up to 16 samples can be processed at once if a larger instrument is purchased and the limit of detection for S. aureus is 1000-fold lower than other assays. As with the Verigene, this assay cannot detect mecC. Notably, in coinfection with MSSA and MRSA may lead to false negative results. In FDA trials, the assay sensitivity was 100% but in high volume centers, real world incidence of false negatives (~0.5–1%) can be significant and lead to inappropriate deescalation of empiric anti-Staphylococcal antibiotics. Therefore, individual centers should perform internal verification of the assay and monitor for false negatives by comparing with culture results.17

The FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel benefits from an expanded organism panel including Candida and important organisms not covered by aforementioned assays, such as Acetinobacter, Listeria, and Hemophilus. Genotypic resistance information is provided but the range of carbapenemase resistance genes detected is limited to KPC. Additionally, mecC is not detected. Other drawbacks include a lack of specificity for important pathogens such as Klebsiella and Enterococcus. The platform offers a scalable configuration that allows up to 16 specimens to be processed at once.

Perhaps the most promising assay, the ePlex by GenMark Diagnostics combines a very expanded organism and resistance detection panel with the potential for high throughput and a short TAT of 90 minutes. The assay provides a much more expansive array of organisms than other methods, including clinically important Gram-positive rods (Bacillus, Lactobacillus, Cutibacterium acnes), anaerobes (Fusobacterium, Bacteroides), and oxidase negative Gram-negative rods (Cronobacter and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia). Beyond the 5 most common Candida species (C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. krusei, C. parapsilosis, C. tropicalis), the fungal pathogens panel (BCID-FP) identifies several less common but clinically important species, such as C. kefyr, C. dubliniensis, and C. guillermondii and other important yeasts and molds (Cryptococcus, Rhodotorula, and Fusarium) that are known causes of disease in transplant patients. Importantly, C. auris is included in the panel and can be differentiated from C. famata, a weakness of other platforms like the Vitek 2.18 The assay also detects important genetic determinants including mecA/C, vanA/B, and common genetic determinants of ESBL and carbapenemase production.

Molecular Detection From Blood Specimens

Assays for direct molecular detection of organisms directly from blood specimens without the need for a blood culture step are not yet FDA approved in the United States at the time of this writing. However, several such assays are available in parts of Asia and Europe. T2MR system assays identify organisms directly from blood and are available in the United States but include magnetic resonance-based detection in addition to PCR so are classified separately in this review. Some of the most common are the SepsiTest (Molzym, Germany), The LightCycler SeptiFast (Roche Molecular System, Switzerland), and the Magicplex Sepsis Real-time Test (Seegene, Korea). The SepsiTest, which is based on broad range PCR of ribosomal DNA followed by nucleic acid sequencing, detects numerous clinically important bacteria, yeasts and molds as well as the parasite Plasmodium on blood samples down to 1 mL within 8 to 12 hours of collection. In a multicenter study, the SeptiTest was moderately sensitive (87%) and specific (86%) in comparison to blood cultures.19 The Magiplex assay employs multiplex real-time PCR to detect a wide array of organisms and a limited set of resistance genes (vanA, vanB, and mecA) is applied directly to 1 mL of whole blood. The sensitivity was low (29%) in comparison to blood culture in a large study.20 The SeptiFast is a real-time multiplex PCR assay that employs fluorescence resonance energy transfer probes targeting internal transcribed spacer sequences within ribosomal DNA. This method detects common bacterial and fungal pathogens directly from a whole blood sample of 1.5 mL within 6 hours. When combined with blood culture results, the Septifast may improve the negative predictive value for complicated bloodstream infections for Gram-positive organisms and Candida species.21 The assay detected a higher proportion of bloodstream infections in immunocompromised patients including organ transplant recipients than in immunocompetent patients with endocarditis.22

Molecular Detection of Candida Species From Blood Specimens

Infection with Candida spp. frequently complicates solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplants. Though still considered the current standard for detection of candidemia, blood cultures are only 50% sensitive for invasive candidiasis.23 Direct detection of Candida spp. DNA in blood is an alternative to culture and can be accomplished with PCR assays, most of which are laboratory developed and internally validated. These vary in sensitivity and specificity, with overall estimated sensitivity of 95% (range 88%–98%) and specificity of 92% (88%–95%) per a 2011 meta-analysis.24 No commercial kits are FDA approved for use in the United States but Fungiplex Candida (Bruker, Germany) is CE-marked for use in Europe (Table 2). Of note, the T2MR system also utilizes PCR to detect candidemia and is both CE marked and FDA approved (see below for discussion of this platform).

TABLE 2.
TABLE 2.:
Culture-independent PCR-assays for direct detection of Aspergillus and Candida a

Multiplex PCR

Despite a battery of conventional microbiologic testing, the diagnosis remains unclear in up to 60% of cases of community-acquired pneumonia, gastrointestinal infections, and meningoencephalitis.25,26 Multiplex PCR assay (Table 3) allows for the simultaneous detection of several target sequences using multiple primer sets and have the potential to detect genes associated with antimicrobial resistance, 2 salient factors in the selection of targeted therapy.

TABLE 3.
TABLE 3.:
Multiplex PCR assays for detections of pathogens from respiratory, gastrointestinal, and cerebrospinal fluid specimens

Pneumonia

Respiratory multiplex PCR employs an automated system that incorporates sample preparation, nucleic acid extraction and PCR based detection of separate targets directly from an unprocessed clinical sample within 1–5 hours. Nasopharyngeal swab samples, nasal washes/aspirates and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) can be used for sample collection depending on the assay. At present, there are several FDA-approved respiratory multiplex assays, namely: NxTAG Respiratory Pathogen Panel (RPP; Luminex, TX), Verigene Respiratory (RP) Flex (Nanosphere, IL), FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP; BioFire Diagnostics, UT), eSensor Respiratory Viral Panel (RVP; GenMark, CA), and the Unyvero Lower Respiratory (Curetis, CA). These respiratory panels (Table 3) detect predominantly viral pathogens whereas Unyvero targets bacterial pathogens and genes associated with antimicrobial resistance.

Respiratory multiplex PCR assays allow for early diagnosis and subsequent initiation of appropriate therapy, detection of copathogens not identified by conventional methods, and institution of early isolation practices. All aforementioned strengths are critical in the care of immunocompromised hosts but few studies have assessed these assays in this population. The FilmArray RP was evaluated on BAL and/or nasopharyngeal samples from 87 immunocompromised patients (48% HSCT, 37% SOT, and 18% hematologic malignancy).64 Only viral pathogens were detected in this patient cohort. The positive predictive value was 86% while the negative predictive value was 100%. Initial iterations of the BioFire RP (v 1.6) were poorly sensitive for adenovirus (67%) but an updated version (v1.7) reported improved performance (91%) due to inclusion of more adenovirus types. However, in a large pediatric study, the BioFire RP v1.7 had low sensitivity for Adenovirus species A, C, D, and F and missed several cases in immunocompromised, including transplant patients.65,66 Therefore, this assay should be avoided as a standalone test for Adenovirus infection in a transplant population.

A similar study evaluated Unyvero on BAL samples of 522 immunocompromised patients suspected to have pneumonia.67 Assay results were available within 5 hours and the reported sensitivity and specificity were 68.4% and 86%, respectively. Surprisingly, the assay was not able to identify Streptococcus pneumoniae in the collected samples so users should be cautious when using this assay to rule out pneumococcal pneumonia. In contrast, the detection of Gram-negative pathogens had acceptable sensitivity and a good positive likelihood ratio.

Gastrointestinal Infections

Diarrheal disease is associated with significant morbidity, poor graft survival, and increased risk of death in SOT recipients.68 Early recognition of infection and distinguishing infectious from noninfectious etiologies (including drug induced injury and graft versus host disease) allows for early intervention. Multiplex PCR assays on stool samples benefit from shorter TAT compared with conventional testing methods (stool culture, microscopy, and antigen testing) and offer the convenience of simultaneous testing of a wide array of potential enteric pathogens using a single stool specimen.

FDA-approved multiplex tests for gastrointestinal pathogens include the FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel (Biofire Diagnostics, UT), xTAG Gastrointestinal Pathogens Panel (GPP; Luminex, TX), and Verigene Enteric Pathogens (Nanosphere, IL) (Table 3). There are limited published data for these assays among immunocompromised patients. The xTAG GPP was used to work-up diarrhea in 102 adult SOT recipients.69 Of 147 collected samples, at least one pathogen was detected in 25 (17%). Toxigenic C. difficile, Norovirus, and Salmonella spp. were detected in 7.5%, 4.1%, and 2.7%, respectively. xTAG GPP was evaluated in 49 adult kidney transplant recipients who experienced 54 severe diarrhea events.70 Of the 39 positive samples, the assay identified 15 instances of coinfection (38%) compared to none with standard testing. Bacterial, viral, and parasitic pathogens were identified in 32 of 39 (82%), 16 of 39 (41%), and 2 of 39 (5%), respectively. Enteropathogenic E coli (15 of 39, 38%), Campylobacter spp. (15 of 39, 38%), and Norovirus (14 of 39, 36%) were commonly detected in this cohort. FilmArray, xTAG, and Verigene detect Adenovirus serotypes F40 and F41, the most common causes of gastroenteritis in children. However, they do not detect other important serotypes including Adenovirus species C, which are more common causes of infection in transplant patients and should therefore not be used to rule out Adenovirus gastrointestinal disease in this population.71

Despite the advantages of multiplex PCR, there are limitations to consider. These assays detect the nucleic acid of viable and nonviable pathogens or free DNA/RNA72; hence, it is difficult to distinguish between disease, asymptomatic carriage, or viral shedding. C. difficile is frequently detected in these multiplex GI platforms,73-75 possibly representing colonization rather than true infection. Given the ability to detect >1 pathogen,76 interpretation of results’ clinical significance can be challenging. In contrast to culture techniques, no antimicrobial susceptibility information is provided with current assays.

Encephalitis

The FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis (ME) panel (Biofire Diagnostics, UT) was FDA-approved for detection of CNS pathogens, including 6 bacterial, 7 viral, and 2 fungal pathogens (Table 3), in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples with a quick TAT of 1 hour. In a multicenter study evaluating the FilmArray ME panel versus conventional techniques (ie, culture for bacteria and monoplex PCR for other pathogens) in normal hosts,77 the assay was 100% sensitive for the detection of 9 of 14 pathogens including E. coli K1, H. influenzae, S. pneumoniae, CMV, HSV-1, HSV-2, Human paraechovirus, VZV, and Cryptococcus neoformans/gattii. Specificity was uniformly high (≥99.2%).

In another study of hospitalized patients, which included 8 immunocompromised patients (HIV/AIDS, steroid use, active chemotherapy, transplant), the FilmArray ME detected HHV-6 in a HSCT recipient with encephalitis who had an undetectable HHV-6 by PCR.78 The FilmArray ME may be suboptimal for the diagnosis of CNS cryptococcosis. In a published report, the assay failed to detect Cryptococcus species in CSF twice in a kidney transplant recipient causing delays in diagnosis. Cryptococcus was eventually identified using a conventional cryptococcal antigen lateral flow assay.79 In another study of 14 patients (12 HIV positive and 2 HIV negative patients) with positive CSF cryptococcal antigen testing, only 5 had concordant positive culture and Film Array ME results.80 Among the 9 negative FilmArray ME negative cases, 2 had positive culture while 7 had negative cultures. The sensitivity of the FilmArray ME for cryptococcal meningitis was found to be 71.4% with a specificity of 100%. Based on these data, a negative FilmArray ME result for Cryptococcus does not rule out cryptococcal meningitis, especially for at-risk transplant patients.

Aspergillus PCR for Diagnosis and Resistance Testing

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) is the most common cause of fungal pneumonia in recipients of lung transplantation and HSCT and carries significant morbidity and mortality for all transplant populations. Detection of Aspergillus species in transplant recipients poses significant diagnostic and clinical challenges. American and European guidelines recommend diagnosing syndromes of IPA based on clinical risk factors, syndromic presentation, radiographic findings, detection of fungal antigens (galactomannan and 1,3-beta-d-glucan), histopathology, and culture.81-83 While PCR-based detection of Aspergillus species on respiratory specimens or blood was not formally recommended as a diagnostic tool in most recent IDSA guidelines82 and such assays are not currently FDA approved in the United States, European guidelines have suggested their use in conjunction with conventional diagnostics. Recently, American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for microbiologic testing of fungal infections have endorsed the inclusion of Aspergillus PCR testing on blood or BAL as part of the initial evaluation of IPA in both SOT and HSCT patients84 and the revised Consensus Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease From the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium now include Aspergillus PCR as mycological evidence for probable invasive aspergillosis.85 As a whole, PCR is emerging as an increasingly useful approach for diagnosis, particularly as assays become more standardized. The European Aspergillus PCR Initiative (EAPCRI) is working toward improving assay standardization with specific recommendations for sample processing including DNA extraction.86

PCR-based methods for Aspergillus fall into 3 general categories: (1) laboratory-developed tests independently developed by individual clinical microbiology laboratories which specifically detect Aspergillus DNA (ie, “home grown / home brewed” assays), (2) commercial kits made available by various biotechnology companies, and (3) commercially available multiplex PCR platforms detecting multiple potentially pathogenic organisms including Aspergillus species. Genetic sequences within the 18s rRNA, 18s rDNA, 5.8S rDNA, 28s rRNA, mitochondrial DNA, and internal transcribed spacer regions have been used as PCR targets.

To date, 3 meta-analyses have investigated the performance characteristics of commercially available PCR assays for whole blood or serum in published studies and have reported pooled sensitivities and specificities of 79.2% (95% CI, 71.0-85.5) and 79.6% (95% CI, 69.9-86.6), 84% (95% CI, 75-91) and 76% (95% CI, 65-84),87 and 88% (95% CI, 75-94) and 75% (95% CI, 63-84),88 respectively. In these meta-analyses, the sensitivity and specificity of PCR for 2 consecutive positive samples were 59.6% (95% CI, 40.7-76.0) and 95.1% (95% CI, 87.0-98.2), 64% (95% CI, 38-84) and 95% (95% CI, 88-98), and 75% (95% CI, 54-88) and 87% (95% CI, 78-93), respectively, an approach that was associated with reduced sensitivity but increased specificity for IPA.

Meta-analyses evaluating the performance of PCR on BAL have also been published, showing overall higher but also more variable sensitivities compared with blood PCR testing. The mean sensitivity and specificities of 90.2% (95% CI, 77.2-96.1) and 96.4% (95% CI, 93.3-98.1),89 91% (95% CI, 79-96) and 92% (95% CI, 87-96),90 and 79% (95% CI, 36-100) and 94% (95% CI, 75-100),91 respectively. Importantly, the specificity of PCR assays on BAL is lower for lung transplant recipients (sensitivity 88%, specificity 100%), reducing the ability of these assays to differentiate IPA from colonization.92 Therefore at this time, in the lung transplant population, Aspergillus PCR testing on BAL should only be used in conjunction with clinical, radiographic and additional microbiologic evidence to make the diagnosis of IPA.

Commercially produced PCR kits detecting Aspergillus spp. DNA are available from multiple developers and include AsperGenius (PathoNostics, The Netherlands), MycoGENIE (Ademtech, France), MycAssay (Microgen Bioproducts/Lab21, formerly Myconostica, United Kingdom), Bio-Evolution Aspergillus (Bio-Evolution, France), VYOO (Analytik Jena, Germany), SepsiTest (Molzym, Germany), and Magicplex (Seegene, South Korea) (see Table 2 for references and comparative evaluation of performance).

In a recent review, the performance characteristics of these Aspergillus PCR assays were overall similar with improved sensitivity on BAL than serum, in hematological patients and in patients not on antifungals.93 The AsperGenius kit additionally reports the detection of Aspergillus terreus DNA, a species intrinsically resistant to polyenes (including amphotericin-B). The MycAssay kit is notable for a broad range of detection, reporting the detection of 15 separate Aspergillus spp., including species intrinsically resistant to azoles or polyenes.30 In addition to organism detection, the AsperGenius and MycoGENIE kits detect mutations in the CYP51A gene, which is a primary mechanism for resistance to azole antifungals and an increasing reality worldwide.27,38 In fact, the prevalence of azole resistance among A. fumigatus isolates is up to 15% in certain parts of Europe and though still low (<1%) in the United States, is expected to rise in the coming decade.94

Platforms differ from kits in that they utilize PCR-based technology as a component of a standalone devoted device in a clinical microbiology laboratory. Such platforms include IRIDICA (Abbott Laboratories, US; recently discontinued),48 RenDx Fungiplex (Renishaw, United Kingdom), and the Roche SeptiFast (Roche, Switzerland); see Table 2 for references and comparative evaluation of performance. These platforms report detection of DNA of either Aspergillus fumigatus alone or multiple Aspergillus spp., as well as DNA of other fungal and bacterial pathogens. Few studies have been conducted assessing the sensitivity and specificity of these platforms. The future diagnostic utility of some of these platforms is questionable, particularly given the discontinuation of the PLEX-ID system likely as a result of financial, logistical, and regulatory considerations.48

PCR-based diagnostics for IPA benefit from increased sensitivity when compared with culture (30%–60%) and antigen-based methods including serum galactomannan (sensitivity 71%, specificity 89%),95 BAL galactomannan (sensitivity 85%, specificity 92%),96 and serum 1,3-beta-d-glucan (sensitivity 64%, specificity 92%).97 Moreover, PCR assays often have significantly shorter time to result reporting. Limitations include the inability to differentiate colonizing from infectious organisms (especially in the setting of lung SOT) as well as the inability of PCR to differentiate living or dead organisms.

Metagenomic Sequencing

Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is an unbiased, hypothesis-independent diagnostic method that identifies pathogens directly from clinical samples. In contrast to PCR-based and 16S ribosomal RNA-based genetic sequencing that target specific primers, mNGS aims to sequence the entirety of the nucleic acid present in a clinical sample. Most mNGS platforms sequence DNA, excluding microbes with RNA-based genomes (RNA viruses in particular). To address this limitation, cDNA can be synthesized from total RNA. mNGS assays also carry the potential for detection of antimicrobial resistance by identifying genetic determinants of resistance.98-100 Current mNGS platforms may vary in sequencing technologies and data analyses methods. The diagnostic capabilities of various mNGS assays are dependent on their associated organism databases. These databases can be continually updated based on newly available organism genome sequences.101 Multiple studies have demonstrated the clinical utility of mNGS performed on various biological samples including respiratory specimen, cerebrospinal fluid, and blood.

Bloodstream Infections

Blood cultures have long been considered the gold standard for the identification of bloodstream infections, due to high specificity and the ability to subsequently perform AST. However, blood cultures are insensitive for fastidious bacteria, Candida, and other fungi. In the setting of febrile neutropenia, the yield of blood cultures is <30%.102,103 Metagenomic testing on blood specimens has the potential to greatly expand the array of organisms tested and the sensitivity for fastidious organisms. A commercially available mNGS assay on plasma (Karius, Karius Inc, US) was evaluated in a cohort of HSCT recipients. Samples were collected before conditioning, at the time of stem cell infusion, at weekly intervals posttransplant and at the onset of symptoms.104 Karius testing was useful in 3 of 20 patients, including a case of Chlamydia trachomatis and MRSA infection before development of bacteremia. The Karius assay has also been employed for the diagnosis of non-BSI, including pneumonia, brain abscesses, sinusitis, and intestinal. In a study of 9 patients with underlying SOT, HSCT or active leukemia with proven fungal infections by histopathology or culture of clinical specimens (2 lung, 1 small bowel, 1 endotracheal, 1 brain, 1 sternal tissue, 1 pancreatic, 1 aortic, and 1 sinus), the Karius assay identified 7 of 9 fungi down to species level. In an eighth case, fungal DNA was identified but below level of detection of the assay.105

Noncommercial laboratory-developed mNGS assays have also been evaluated in immunocompromised populations. In a multicenter prospective study of 101 immunocompromised patients (including 22 SOT and 18 HSCT recipients), an mNGS assay on blood identified more clinically important organisms than conventional testing (36 versus 11) and was associated with a higher negative predictive value (98.4%)106 suggesting utility as a tool for antimicrobial stewardship.

Encephalitis

Encephalitis has been associated with a multitude of infectious pathogens, many of which are difficult to diagnose. Additionally, infectious encephalitis is often clinically indistinguishable from noninfectious cases, such as autoimmune encephalitis. The current diagnostic approach is hypothesis-driven and includes culture, serology, antigen-based assays, and PCR targeted to clinical, radiographic and epidemiologic factors. In the setting of SOT and HSCT, mNGS has the potential to improve diagnostic yield, as demonstrated by multiple published reports (Table 4).

TABLE 4.
TABLE 4.:
Etiologies of encephalitis in SOT and HSCT diagnosed by mNGS

In 8 of 17 reported cases, novel pathogens including Arenavirus (3 of 17), Astrovirus (4 of 17), and human beta-Coronavirus (1 of 17) were involved. In 2 cases, mNGS revealed unexpected etiologies of encephalitis (Candida species and Hepatitis E). mNGS may have a role in better defining the etiology of meningoencephalitis of unclear etiology in potential organ donors. Donor-derived encephalitis secondary to tick-borne virus encephalitis119 and Arenavirus107 were confirmed using mNGS. In a multicenter study of 58 patients with confirmed meningoencephalitis (including HSCT or SOT patients), 19 (33%) were diagnosed by conventional testing and mNGS, 26 (45%) by conventional testing alone, and 13 (22%) by mNGS alone. Based on these data, mNGS can serve as an adjunctive test but cannot yet replace conventional testing for encephalitis as a substantial proportion of pathogens was missed when using mNGS alone.120

Respiratory Infections

As with encephalitis, the causative agents of pneumonia are often undiagnosed. Several studies have investigated the utility of mNGS on respiratory specimens or blood for the diagnosis of respiratory infection of immunocompromised hosts. In a cohort of 29 lung transplant recipients, a laboratory developed mNGS assay identified only 5 cases,121 all of which were viral. In a study of 22 HSCT recipients with a respiratory illness, BAL samples were evaluated by both standard of care microbiologic testing and mNGS.122 mNGS identified 12 potential pathogens, 6 missed by conventional testing, and another 6 confirmed by conventional testing. mNGS may also have a role in the diagnosis of fungal infections in the setting of HSCT. In a study that included 5 HSCT patients with confirmed fungal pneumonia on lung biopsy (by histopathology and/or culture), mNGS identified fungal organisms in all 5 (Rhizopus microsporus [2], Mucor racemosus [2], and Rhizopus oryzae [1]).123 Histopathology demonstrated fungal elements in all whereas fungal culture was positive in only 2 (Table 5).

TABLE 5.
TABLE 5.:
The utility of mNGS in SOT and HSCT recipients with respiratory infections

Explify Respiratory (IDbyDNA, US) is a commercially available mNGS assay that is performed on BAL. The assay detects hundreds of bacterial, fungal, and viral respiratory pathogens within 3–6 days. In a study of immunosuppressed pediatric patients, results of mNGS were concordant with standard microbiologic testing for bacteria (90.2%) and viruses (94.1%) but not fungi (66.7%). In 44% of children, mNGS identified possible pathogens missed by standard testing.124 More clinical data are needed to demonstrate utility of this assay among adult transplant patients.

Magnetic Resonance-based Methods

The T2MR platform (T2 Biosystems, US) is a standalone device that employs PCR technology combined with magnetic resonance to detect superparamagnetic nanoparticles bound to amplicon-specific probes.125 The T2MR system is validated for detection of pathogens directly from blood. Akin to other molecular diagnostic approaches, it does not require a culture-based step; whole blood samples can be directly evaluated for the presence of DNA from pathogenic organisms. Two panels manufactured by T2 Biosystems are currently approved by the FDA: T2Bacteria and T2Candida (Table 2).44,45,126 A third panel, T2Candida auris, is currently research-use-only but is being investigated for detection of the intrinsically multiantifungal resistant C. auris.46 These assays do not provide genotypic resistance information.

T2Candida Panel

The sensitivity of T2Candida in a heterogeneous group of patients (that included transplant recipients) with suspected candidemia was 91.1% in a multicenter trial, along with a specificity of 99.4%,44 when compared with conventional blood cultures, which are around 50% sensitive for candidiasis.23 In another study, T2Candida was 89% sensitive and performed better than blood cultures for patients on antifungals, suggesting that the assay can identify lower burdens of organisms, nonviable and/or growth-stunted Candida organisms.47 Despite significantly improved sensitivity over cultures, the T2Candida assay does not always translate into real-world utility. The true sensitivity of the assay is likely lower than the 91% reported in the initial validation study as a large number of samples included in the study were contrived specimens with yeast concentrations around 10–100 times higher than the mean concentration in blood cultures of candidemic patients (11–100 Candida CFU/mL versus 1 CFU/mL, respectively).44 The limit of detection of the assay (1–3 CFU/mL) is in fact equal to or slightly higher than the concentration of yeast in patient blood cultures, leading to a potential for false negatives. Though the sensitivity of the assay is significantly higher than blood culture, clinicians may be unwilling to discontinue empiric antifungals in at-risk transplant patients unless candidemia is more definitively ruled out. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the assay varies greatly with the prevalence of candidemia in the population studied. In patients post-HSCT with an assumed candidemia prevalence of 20%, the PPV is 98% when compared with a PPV of 15% in immunocompetent patients without risk factors.127 Other limitations include an inability to detect other clinically important Candida species (C. guilliermondii, C. lusitanea, C. kefyr and C. auris), which account for 1–10% of Candida infections in transplant patients128 and a high incidence of indeterminate or invalid results which require repeat testing and may impede workflow.

T2Bacteria Panel

In a single-center validation study, the T2Bacteria had a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 97.6% compared with blood cultures for T2Bacteria-targeted organisms. The performance varied according to species tested with a sensitivity of 100% for P. aeruginosa and S. aureus versus 50% for K. pneumonia.126 In a more recent multicenter study of >1400 hospitalized patients with suspected bloodstream infections comparing T2Bacteria to blood cultures, the assay missed 10% (90% sensitivity) of T2Bacteria-targeted organisms and 57% (43% sensitivity) of all infecting organisms. Though the array of pathogens detected is limited and the sensitivity is less than ideal, the T2Bacteria panel performed better than culture for patients receiving antibiotics so may have particular value in this setting.129 Another advantage over blood cultures is the much shorter TAT of 3–5 hours, which may help with targeting antibiotics in transplant recipients with sepsis.

Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

A novel method for use in the diagnosis of pulmonary invasive fungal infections is detecting exhaled volatile organic compounds produced during fungal metabolism using gas chromatography mass spectrometry. Initially studied in IPA, the detection of exhaled metabolites specific to Aspergillus species including monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes using gas-chromatography mass spectrometry yielded 94.0% sensitivity and 93.0% specificity for IPA when compared with diagnosis by clinical criteria.130 This assay has the potential to detect invasive infections caused by multiple fungal pathogens, including Aspergillus and Mucorales species (down to species level), which are challenging to isolate or identify using conventional microbiologic techniques alone.131 The technique is currently limited by difficulties with standardization of breath collection (affected by variations in respiratory rate and tidal volumes as well as age, race, sex, and other factors) but is being optimized for commercial use.

Conclusions and Future Vision

Emerging diagnostics in the field of microbiology, including multiplex PCR panels, metagenomics, magnetic-resonance based testing, and breath-based diagnostics, have the potential to revolutionize the diagnosis of infectious diseases among SOT and HSCT recipients. Although more data are needed to best establish the utility of these modalities for specific transplant patient subgroups and clinical syndromes, early reports suggest that these methods complement, enhance, and sometimes outperform conventional microbiology diagnostics. Within the next decade, another wave of diagnostics including Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time Of Flight mass spectrometry directly applicable to clinical specimens, cell-free plasma DNA sequencing, pathogen-specific Immuno-Positron Emission Tomography scanning, and other modalities promise to further expand the diagnostic armamentarium at the disposal of transplant providers.

REFERENCES

1. Viehman JA, Clancy CJ, Clarke L, et al. Surgical site infections after liver transplantation: emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria and implications for prophylaxis and treatment strategies. Transplantation. 2016; 100:2107–2114
2. Camargo JF. Donor-derived infections in solid organ transplant recipients: challenging the 30-day paradigm. Transpl Infect Dis. 2017; 19
3. Lanini S, Costa AN, Puro V, et al.; Donor-Recipient Infection (DRIn) Collaborative Study GroupIncidence of carbapenem-resistant Gram negatives in Italian transplant recipients: a nationwide surveillance study. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0123706
4. Averbuch D, Tridello G, Hoek J, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in Gram-negative rods causing bacteremia in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: intercontinental prospective study of the infectious diseases working party of the european bone marrow transplantation group. Clin Infect Dis. 2017; 65:1819–1828
5. van Duin D, van Delden C; AST Infectious Diseases Community of PracticeMultidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria infections in solid organ transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2013; 13Suppl 431–41
6. Liu T, Zhang Y, Wan Q. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia among liver transplant recipients: epidemiology and associated risk factors for morbidity and mortality. Infect Drug Resist. 2018; 11:647–658
7. Alexander BD, Petzold EW, Reller LB, et al. Survival after lung transplantation of cystic fibrosis patients infected with Burkholderia cepacia complex. Am J Transplant. 2008; 8:1025–1030
8. Bassetti M, Peghin M, Carnelutti A, et al. Invasive Candida infections in liver transplant recipients: clinical features and risk factors for mortality. Transplant Direct. 2017; 3:e156
9. Wiederhold NP. Echinocandin resistance in Candida species: a review of recent developments. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2016; 18:42
10. Azar MM, Turbett SE, Fishman JA, et al. Donor-derived transmission of Candida auris during lung transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 2017; 65:1040–1042
11. Lockhart SR, Etienne KA, Vallabhaneni S, et al. Simultaneous emergence of multidrug-resistant Candida auris on 3 continents confirmed by whole-genome sequencing and epidemiological analyses. Clin Infect Dis. 2017; 64:134–140
12. Schelenz S, Hagen F, Rhodes JL, et al. First hospital outbreak of the globally emerging Candida auris in a European hospital. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2016; 5:35
13. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006; 34:1589–1596
14. Cunney RJ, McNamara EB, Alansari N, et al. The impact of blood culture reporting and clinical liaison on the empiric treatment of bacteraemia. J Clin Pathol. 1997; 50:1010–1012
14a. Buehler SS, Madison B, Snyder SR, et al. Effectiveness of practices to increase timeliness of providing targeted therapy for inpatients with bloodstream infections: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016; 29:59–103
15. Peker N, Couto N, Sinha B, et al. Diagnosis of bloodstream infections from positive blood cultures and directly from blood samples: recent developments in molecular approaches. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018; 24:944–955
16. Charnot-Katsikas A, Tesic V, Love N, et al. Use of the accelerate pheno system for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of pathogens in positive blood cultures and impact on time to results and workflow. J Clin Microbiol. 2018; 56:e01166–17
17. Buchan BW, Allen S, Burnham CA, et al. Comparison of the next-generation Xpert MRSA/SA BC assay and the GeneOhm StaphSR assay to routine culture for identification of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus in positive-blood-culture broths. J Clin Microbiol. 2015; 53:804–809
18. Mizusawa M, Miller H, Green R, et al. Can multidrug-resistant Candida auris be reliably identified in clinical microbiology laboratories? J Clin Microbiol. 2017; 55:638–640
19. Wellinghausen N, Kochem AJ, Disqué C, et al. Diagnosis of bacteremia in whole-blood samples by use of a commercial universal 16S rRNA gene-based PCR and sequence analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 2009; 47:2759–2765
20. Zboromyrska Y, Cillóniz C, Cobos-Trigueros N, et al. Evaluation of the Magicplex™ Sepsis real-time test for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections in adults. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019; 9:56
21. Fernández-Cruz A, Marín M, Kestler M, et al. The value of combining blood culture and septifast data for predicting complicated bloodstream infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria or Candida species. J Clin Microbiol. 2013; 51:1130–1136
22. Korber F, Zeller I, Grünstäudl M, et al. SeptiFast versus blood culture in clinical routine - a report on 3 years experience. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2017; 129:427–434
23. Clancy CJ, Nguyen MH. Finding the “missing 50%” of invasive candidiasis: how nonculture diagnostics will improve understanding of disease spectrum and transform patient care. Clin Infect Dis. 2013; 56:1284–1292
24. Avni T, Leibovici L, Paul M. PCR diagnosis of invasive candidiasis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 2011; 49:665–670
25. Schlaberg R, Chiu CY, Miller S, et al.; Professional Practice Committee and Committee on Laboratory Practices of the American Society for Microbiology; Microbiology Resource Committee of the College of American PathologistsValidation of metagenomic next-generation sequencing tests for universal pathogen detection. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017; 141:776–786
26. Glaser CA, Honarmand S, Anderson LJ, et al. Beyond viruses: clinical profiles and etiologies associated with encephalitis. Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 43:1565–1577
27. Dannaoui E, Gabriel F, Gaboyard M, et al. Molecular diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis and detection of azole resistance by a newly commercialized PCR kit. J Clin Microbiol. 2017; 55:3210–3218
28. Denis J, Forouzanfar F, Herbrecht R, et al. Evaluation of two commercial real-time PCR kits for Aspergillus DNA detection in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in patients with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. J Mol Diagn. 2018; 20:298–306
29. Mikulska M, Furfaro E, De Carolis E, et al. Use of Aspergillus fumigatus real-time PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage samples (BAL) for diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis, including azole-resistant cases, in high risk haematology patients: the need for a combined use with galactomannan. Med Mycol. 2019; 57:987–996
    30. White PL, Perry MD, Moody A, et al. Evaluation of analytical and preliminary clinical performance of Myconostica MycAssay Aspergillus when testing serum specimens for diagnosis of invasive Aspergillosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2011; 49:2169–2174
    31. Aslan M, Oz Y, Aksit F, et al. Potential of polymerase chain reaction and galactomannan for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in patients with febrile neutropenia. Mycoses. 2015; 58:343–349
    32. Danylo A, Courtemanche C, Pelletier R, et al. Performance of MycAssay aspergillus DNA real-time PCR assay compared with the galactomannan detection assay for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis from serum samples. Med Mycol. 2014; 52:577–583
    33. Guinea J, Padilla C, Escribano P, et al. Evaluation of MycAssay™ Aspergillus for diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in patients without hematological cancer. PLoS One. 2013; 8:e61545
    34. Lass-Flörl C, Follett SA, Moody A, et al. Detection of Aspergillus in lung and other tissue samples using the MycAssay Aspergillus real-time PCR kit. Can J Microbiol. 2011; 57:765–768
    35. Orsi CF, Gennari W, Venturelli C, et al. Performance of 2 commercial real-time polymerase chain reaction assays for the detection of Aspergillus and pneumocystis DNA in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from critical care patients. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012; 73:138–143
    36. Pini P, Bettua C, Orsi CF, et al. Clinical performance of a commercial real-time PCR assay for Aspergillus DNA detection in serum samples from high-risk patients: comparison with a galactomannan enzyme immunoassay. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015; 34:131–136
    37. Torelli R, Sanguinetti M, Moody A, et al. Diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis by a commercial real-time PCR assay for Aspergillus DNA in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from high-risk patients compared to a galactomannan enzyme immunoassay. J Clin Microbiol. 2011; 49:4273–4278
    38. Chong GL, van de Sande WW, Dingemans GJ, et al. Validation of a new Aspergillus real-time PCR assay for direct detection of Aspergillus and azole resistance of Aspergillus fumigatus on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. J Clin Microbiol. 2015; 53:868–874
    39. Chong GM, van der Beek MT, von dem Borne PA, et al. PCR-based detection of Aspergillus fumigatus Cyp51A mutations on bronchoalveolar lavage: a multicentre validation of the AsperGenius assay® in 201 patients with haematological disease suspected for invasive aspergillosis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71:3528–3535
    40. Pelzer BW, Seufert R, Koldehoff M, et al. Performance of the AsperGenius® PCR assay for detecting azole resistant Aspergillus fumigatus in BAL fluids from allogeneic HSCT recipients: a prospective cohort study from Essen, West Germany. Med Mycol. 2020; 58:268–271
      41. White PL, Posso RB, Barnes RA. Analytical and clinical evaluation of the pathonostics aspergenius assay for detection of invasive aspergillosis and resistance to azole antifungal drugs during testing of serum samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2015; 53:2115–2121
      42. White PL, Posso RB, Barnes RA. Analytical and clinical evaluation of the pathonostics aspergenius assay for detection of invasive aspergillosis and resistance to azole antifungal drugs directly from plasma samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2017; 55:2356–2366
      43. Fuchs S, Lass-Flörl C, Posch W. Diagnostic performance of a novel multiplex PCR assay for Candidemia among ICU patients. J Fungi (Basel). 2019; 5:E86
        44. Mylonakis E, Clancy CJ, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, et al. T2 magnetic resonance assay for the rapid diagnosis of candidemia in whole blood: a clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2015; 60:892–899
        45. Arendrup MC, Andersen JS, Holten MK, et al. Diagnostic performance of T2Candida among ICU patients with risk factors for invasive candidiasis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019; 6:ofz136
        46. Sexton DJ, Bentz ML, Welsh RM, et al. Evaluation of a new T2 magnetic resonance assay for rapid detection of emergent fungal pathogen Candida auris on clinical skin swab samples. Mycoses. 2018; 61:786–790
        47. Clancy CJ, Pappas PG, Vazquez J, et al. Detecting infections rapidly and easily for candidemia trial, part 2 (DIRECT2): a prospective, multicenter study of the t2candida panel. Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 66:1678–1686
        48. Özenci V, Patel R, Ullberg M, et al. Demise of polymerase chain reaction/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry as an infectious diseases diagnostic tool. Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 66:452–455
        49. Massire C, Buelow DR, Zhang SX, et al. PCR followed by electrospray ionization mass spectrometry for broad-range identification of fungal pathogens. J Clin Microbiol. 2013; 51:959–966
        50. Simner PJ, Uhl JR, Hall L, et al. Broad-range direct detection and identification of fungi by use of the PLEX-ID PCR-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) system. J Clin Microbiol. 2013; 51:1699–1706
        51. Stevenson M, Pandor A, Martyn-St James M, et al. Sepsis: the Lightcycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE®, SepsiTest™ and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay for rapidly identifying bloodstream bacteria and fungi – a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2016; 20:1–246
        52. Bloos F, Sachse S, Kortgen A, et al. Evaluation of a polymerase chain reaction assay for pathogen detection in septic patients under routine condition: an observational study. PLoS One. 2012; 7:e46003
        53. Fitting C, Parlato M, Adib-Conquy M, et al. Dnaemia detection by multiplex PCR and biomarkers for infection in systemic inflammatory response syndrome patients. PLoS One. 2012; 7:e38916
        54. Kühn C, Disqué C, Mühl H, et al. Evaluation of commercial universal rRNA gene PCR plus sequencing tests for identification of bacteria and fungi associated with infectious endocarditis. J Clin Microbiol. 2011; 49:2919–2923
        55. McKeating C, White PL, Posso R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fungal PCR and β-d-glucan for detection of candidaemia: a preliminary evaluation. J Clin Pathol. 2018; 71:420–424
          56. White PL, Hibbitts SJ, Perry MD, et al. Evaluation of a commercially developed semiautomated PCR-surface-enhanced raman scattering assay for diagnosis of invasive fungal disease. J Clin Microbiol. 2014; 52:3536–3543
          57. Chang SS, Hsieh WH, Liu TS, et al. Multiplex PCR system for rapid detection of pathogens in patients with presumed sepsis – a systemic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013; 8:e62323
          58. Dark P, Blackwood B, Gates S, et al. Accuracy of LightCycler(®) SeptiFast for the detection and identification of pathogens in the blood of patients with suspected sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2015; 41:21–33
          59. Lehmann LE, Hunfeld KP, Emrich T, et al. A multiplex real-time PCR assay for rapid detection and differentiation of 25 bacterial and fungal pathogens from whole blood samples. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2008; 197:313–324
          60. Steinmann J, Buer J, Rath PM, et al. Invasive aspergillosis in two liver transplant recipients: diagnosis by SeptiFast. Transpl Infect Dis. 2009; 11:175–178
          61. Carrara L, Navarro F, Turbau M, et al. Molecular diagnosis of bloodstream infections with a new dual-priming oligonucleotide-based multiplex PCR assay. J Med Microbiol. 2013; 62Pt 111673–1679
          62. Ljungström L, Enroth H, Claesson BE, et al. Clinical evaluation of commercial nucleic acid amplification tests in patients with suspected sepsis. BMC Infect Dis. 2015; 15:199
          63. Ziegler I, Fagerström A, Strålin K, et al. Evaluation of a commercial multiplex PCR assay for detection of pathogen DNA in blood from patients with suspected sepsis. PLoS One. 2016; 11:e0167883
          64. Hammond SP, Gagne LS, Stock SR, et al. Respiratory virus detection in immunocompromised patients with filmarray respiratory panel compared to conventional methods. J Clin Microbiol. 2012; 50:3216–3221
          65. Doern CD, Lacey D, Huang R, et al. Evaluation and implementation of filmarray version 1.7 for improved detection of adenovirus respiratory tract infection. J Clin Microbiol. 2013; 51:4036–4039
          66. Song E, Wang H, Salamon D, et al. Performance characteristics of filmarray respiratory panel v1.7 for detection of adenovirus in a large cohort of pediatric nasopharyngeal samples: one test may not fit all. J Clin Microbiol. 2016; 54:1479–1486
          67. Affolter K, Schumann DM, Tamm M, et al. Multiplex PCR on the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of immunocompromised patients. Chest. 2018; 154:722–725
          68. Bunnapradist S, Neri L, Wong W, et al. Incidence and risk factors for diarrhea following kidney transplantation and association with graft loss and mortality. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008; 51:478–486
          69. Mengelle C, Mansuy JM, Prere MF, et al. Simultaneous detection of gastrointestinal pathogens with a multiplex luminex-based molecular assay in stool samples from diarrhoeic patients. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013; 19:E458–E465
          70. Coste JF, Vuiblet V, Moustapha B, et al. Microbiological diagnosis of severe diarrhea in kidney transplant recipients by use of multiplex PCR assays. J Clin Microbiol. 2013; 51:1841–1849
          71. McMillen T, Lee YJ, Kamboj M, et al. Limited diagnostic value of a multiplexed gastrointestinal pathogen panel for the detection of adenovirus infection in an oncology patient population. J Clin Virol. 2017; 94:37–41
          72. Liesman RM, Binnicker MJ. The role of multiplex molecular panels for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal infections in immunocompromised patients. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2016; 29:359–365
          73. Aad G, Abajyan T, et al.; Atlas CollaborationJet energy measurement and its systematic uncertainty in proton-proton collisions at [formula: see text] TeV with the ATLAS detector. Eur Phys J C Part Fields. 2015; 75:17
          74. Buss SN, Leber A, Chapin K, et al. Multicenter evaluation of the biofire filmarray gastrointestinal panel for etiologic diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis. J Clin Microbiol. 2015; 53:915–925
          75. Spina A, Kerr KG, Cormican M, 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
          76. Wessels E, Rusman LG, van Bussel MJ, et al. Added value of multiplex Luminex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel (xTAG® GPP) testing in the diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014; 20:O182–O187
          77. Leber AL, Everhart K, Balada-Llasat JM, et al. Multicenter evaluation of biofire filmarray meningitis/encephalitis panel for detection of bacteria, viruses, and yeast in cerebrospinal fluid specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2016; 54:2251–2261
          78. Chang D, Okulicz JF, Nielsen LE, et al. A tertiary care center’s experience with novel molecular meningitis/encephalitis diagnostics and implementation with antimicrobial stewardship. Mil Med. 2018; 183:e24–e27
          79. O’Halloran JA, Franklin A, Lainhart W, et al. Pitfalls associated with the use of molecular diagnostic panels in the diagnosis of cryptococcal meningitis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017; 4:ofx242
          80. Walker M, Sheets J, Hamer D, et al. 2052 Performance of the Biofire filmarray meningitis/encephalitis panel in cryptococcal meningitis diagnosis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018; 5Suppl 1S599
          81. De Pauw B, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP, et al.; European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus GroupRevised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group. Clin Infect Dis. 2008; 46:1813–1821
          82. Patterson TF, Thompson GR 3rd, Denning DW, et al. Executive summary: practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aspergillosis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 63:433–442
          83. Ullmann AJ, Aguado JM, Arikan-Akdagli S, et al. Diagnosis and management of Aspergillus diseases: executive summary of the 2017 ESCMID-ECMM-ERS guideline. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018; 24Suppl 1e1–e38
          84. Hage CA, Carmona EM, Evans SE, et al. Summary for clinicians: microbiological laboratory testing in the diagnosis of fungal infections in pulmonary and critical care practice. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019; 16:1473–1477
          85. Donnelly JP, Chen SC, Kauffman CA, et al. Revision and update of the consensus definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium. Clin Infect Dis. 2019ciz1008
          86. White PL, Barnes RA, Springer J, et al.; EAPCRIClinical performance of Aspergillus PCR for testing serum and plasma: a study by the European Aspergillus PCR initiative. J Clin Microbiol. 2015; 53:2832–2837
          87. Arvanitis M, Ziakas PD, Zacharioudakis IM, et al. PCR in diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis: a meta-analysis of diagnostic performance. J Clin Microbiol. 2014; 52:3731–3742
          88. Mengoli C, Cruciani M, Barnes RA, et al. Use of PCR for diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009; 9:89–96
          89. Avni T, Levy I, Sprecher H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of PCR alone compared to galactomannan in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis: a systematic review. J Clin Microbiol. 2012; 50:3652–3658
          90. Sun W, Wang K, Gao W, et al. Evaluation of PCR on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis: a bivariate metaanalysis and systematic review. PLoS One. 2011; 6:e28467
          91. Tuon FF. A systematic literature review on the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) from bronchoalveolar lavage clinical samples. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2007; 24:89–94
          92. Luong ML, Clancy CJ, Vadnerkar A, et al. Comparison of an Aspergillus real-time polymerase chain reaction assay with galactomannan testing of bronchoalvelolar lavage fluid for the diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in lung transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis. 2011; 52:1218–1226
          93. Rath PM, Steinmann J. Overview of commercially available PCR assays for the detection of Aspergillus spp. DNA in patient samples. Front Microbiol. 2018; 9:740
          94. Chowdhary A, Sharma C, Meis JF. Azole-resistant aspergillosis: epidemiology, molecular mechanisms, and treatment. J Infect Dis. 2017; 216Suppl 3S436–S444
          95. Pfeiffer CD, Fine JP, Safdar N. Diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis using a galactomannan assay: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42:1417–1427
          96. Hadrich I, Makni F, Cheikhrouhou F, et al. Clinical utility and prognostic value of galactomannan in neutropenic patients with invasive aspergillosis. Pathol Biol (Paris). 2012; 60:357–361
          97. Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Alexander BD, Kett DH, et al. Multicenter clinical evaluation of the (1–>3) beta-d-glucan assay as an aid to diagnosis of fungal infections in humans. Clin Infect Dis. 2005; 41:654–659
          98. Falgenhauer L, Waezsada SE, Yao Y, et al.; RESET consortiumColistin resistance gene mcr-1 in extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing and carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria in Germany. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016; 16:282–283
          99. Harrison EM, Paterson GK, Holden MT, et al. Whole genome sequencing identifies zoonotic transmission of MRSA isolates with the novel mecA homologue mecC. EMBO Mol Med. 2013; 5:509–515
          100. Laabei M, Recker M, Rudkin JK, et al. Predicting the virulence of MRSA from its genome sequence. Genome Res. 2014; 24:839–849
          101. Deurenberg RH, Bathoorn E, Chlebowicz MA, et al. Application of next generation sequencing in clinical microbiology and infection prevention. J Biotechnol. 2017; 243:16–24
          102. Ramphal R. Changes in the etiology of bacteremia in febrile neutropenic patients and the susceptibilities of the currently isolated pathogens. Clin Infect Dis. 2004; 39Suppl 1S25–S31
          103. Hämäläinen S, Kuittinen T, Matinlauri I, et al. Neutropenic fever and severe sepsis in adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients receiving intensive chemotherapy: causes and consequences. Leuk Lymphoma. 2008; 49:495–501
          104. Fung M, Zompi S, Seng H, et al. Plasma cell-free DNA next-generation sequencing to diagnose and monitor infections in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018; 5:ofy301
          105. Hong DK, Blauwkamp TA, Kertesz M, et al. Liquid biopsy for infectious diseases: sequencing of cell-free plasma to detect pathogen DNA in patients with invasive fungal disease. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018; 92:210–213
          106. Parize P, Muth E, Richaud C, et al. Untargeted next-generation sequencing-based first-line diagnosis of infection in immunocompromised adults: a multicentre, blinded, prospective study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017; 23:574.e1–574.e6
          107. Palacios G, Druce J, Du L, et al. A new arenavirus in a cluster of fatal transplant-associated diseases. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358:991–998
          108. Harrington DW, Wilson K, Rosenberg MW. Waiting for a specialist consultation for a new condition in Ontario: impacts on patients’ lives. Healthc Policy. 2014; 9:90–103
            109. Brown JR, Morfopoulou S, Hubb J, et al. Astrovirus VA1/HMO-C: an increasingly recognized neurotropic pathogen in immunocompromised patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2015; 60:881–888
            110. Naccache SN, Peggs KS, Mattes FM, et al. Diagnosis of neuroinvasive astrovirus infection in an immunocompromised adult with encephalitis by unbiased next-generation sequencing. Clin Infect Dis. 2015; 60:919–923
            111. Christopeit M, Grundhoff A, Rohde H, et al. Suspected encephalitis with Candida tropicalis and Fusarium detected by unbiased RNA sequencing. Ann Hematol. 2016; 95:1919–1921
            112. Lum SH, Turner A, Guiver M, et al. An emerging opportunistic infection: fatal astrovirus (VA1/HMO-C) encephalitis in a pediatric stem cell transplant recipient. Transpl Infect Dis. 2016; 18:960–964
            113. Salzberg SL, Breitwieser FP, Kumar A, et al. Next-generation sequencing in neuropathologic diagnosis of infections of the nervous system. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2016; 3:e251
              114. Sato M, Kuroda M, Kasai M, et al. Acute encephalopathy in an immunocompromised boy with astrovirus-MLB1 infection detected by next generation sequencing. J Clin Virol. 2016; 78:66–70
              115. Morfopoulou S, Brown JR, Davies EG, et al. Human coronavirus OC43 associated with fatal encephalitis. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375:497–498
              116. Wilson MR, Zimmermann LL, Crawford ED, et al. Acute West Nile Virus meningoencephalitis diagnosed via metagenomic deep sequencing of cerebrospinal fluid in a renal transplant patient. Am J Transplant. 2017; 17:803–808
              117. Murkey JA, Chew KW, Carlson M, et al. Hepatitis E virus-associated meningoencephalitis in a lung transplant recipient diagnosed by clinical metagenomic sequencing. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017; 4:ofx121
              118. Morfopoulou S, Mee ET, Connaughton SM, et al. Deep sequencing reveals persistence of cell-associated mumps vaccine virus in chronic encephalitis. Acta Neuropathol. 2017; 133:139–147
              119. Lipowski D, Popiel M, Perlejewski K, et al. A cluster of fatal tick-borne encephalitis virus infection in organ transplant setting. J Infect Dis. 2017; 215:896–901
              120. Wilson MR, Sample HA, Zorn KC, et al. Clinical metagenomic sequencing for diagnosis of meningitis and encephalitis. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:2327–2340
              121. Lewandowska DW, Schreiber PW, Schuurmans MM, et al. Metagenomic sequencing complements routine diagnostics in identifying viral pathogens in lung transplant recipients with unknown etiology of respiratory infection. PLoS One. 2017; 12:e0177340
              122. Langelier C, Zinter MS, Kalantar K, et al. Metagenomic sequencing detects respiratory pathogens in hematopoietic cellular transplant patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018; 197:524–528
              123. Li H, Gao H, Meng H, et al. Detection of pulmonary infectious pathogens from lung biopsy tissues by metagenomic next-generation sequencing. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2018; 8:205
              124. Schlaberg R, Xie H, Flygare S, et al. Detection of previously missed pathogens in immunocompromised children with pneumonia by a fully-validated next-generation sequencing test. A27 Bronchiectasis and Lung Infection. 2017A7561–A7561
              125. Neely LA, Audeh M, Phung NA, et al. T2 magnetic resonance enables nanoparticle-mediated rapid detection of candidemia in whole blood. Sci Transl Med. 2013; 5:182ra54
              126. De Angelis G, Posteraro B, De Carolis E, et al. T2Bacteria magnetic resonance assay for the rapid detection of ESKAPEc pathogens directly in whole blood. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018; 73Suppl 4iv20–iv26
              127. Clancy CJ, Nguyen MH. T2 magnetic resonance for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: charting a path forward. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018; 73Suppl 4iv2–iv5
              128. Neofytos D, Fishman JA, Horn D, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of invasive fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients. Transpl Infect Dis. 2010; 12:220–229
              129. Nguyen MH, Clancy CJ, Pasculle AW, et al. Performance of the T2Bacteria panel for diagnosing bloodstream infections: a diagnostic accuracy study. Ann Intern Med. 2019; 170:845–852
              130. Koo S, Thomas HR, Daniels SD, et al. A breath fungal secondary metabolite signature to diagnose invasive aspergillosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2014; 59:1733–1740
              131. Acharige MJT, Koshy S, Ismail N, et al. Breath-based diagnosis of fungal infections. J Breath Res. 2018; 12:027108
              Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.