» Articles » PMID: 31996444

Clinical Performance of the Novel GenMark Dx EPlex Blood Culture ID Gram-Positive Panel

Abstract

Rapid identification from positive blood cultures is standard of care (SOC) in many clinical microbiology laboratories. The GenMark Dx ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram-Positive (BCID-GP) Panel is a multiplex nucleic acid amplification assay based on competitive DNA hybridization and electrochemical detection using eSensor technology. This multicenter study compared the investigational-use-only (IUO) BCID-GP Panel to other methods of identification of 20 Gram-positive bacteria, four antimicrobial resistance genes, and both Pan and Pan Gram-Negative targets that are unique to the BCID-GP Panel. Ten microbiology laboratories throughout the United States collected residual, deidentified positive blood culture samples for analysis. Five laboratories tested both clinical and contrived samples with the BCID-GP Panel. Comparator identification methods included each laboratory's SOC, which included matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) and automated identification systems as well as targeted PCR/analytically validated real-time PCR (qPCR) with bidirectional sequencing. A total of 2,342 evaluable samples (1,777 clinical and 565 contrived) were tested with the BCID-GP Panel. The overall sample accuracy for on-panel organisms was 89% before resolution of discordant results. For pathogenic Gram-positive targets ( group, spp., , , spp., , , , spp., , spp., , group, , and ), positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) ranged from 93.1% to 100% and 98.8% to 100%, respectively. For contamination rule-out targets ( group, , , , and ), PPA and NPA ranged from 84.5% to 100% and 99.9% to 100%, respectively. Positive percent agreement and NPA for the Pan and Pan Gram-Negative targets were 92.4% and 95.7% for the former and 99.9% and 99.6% for the latter. The PPAs for resistance markers were as follows: , 97.2%; , 100%; , 96.8%; and , 100%. Negative percent agreement ranged from 96.6% to 100%. In conclusion, the ePlex BCID-GP Panel compares favorably to SOC and targeted molecular methods for the identification of 20 Gram-positive pathogens and four antimicrobial resistance genes in positive blood culture bottles. This panel detects a broad range of pathogens and mixed infections with yeast and Gram-negative organisms from the same positive blood culture bottle.

Citing Articles

The role of rapid multiplex molecular syndromic panels in the clinical management of infections in critically ill patients: an experts-opinion document.

Candel F, Salavert M, Canton R, Del Pozo J, Galan-Sanchez F, Navarro D Crit Care. 2024; 28(1):440.

PMID: 39736683 PMC: 11687037. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-024-05224-3.


Getting Up to Speed: Rapid Pathogen and Antimicrobial Resistance Diagnostics in Sepsis.

Liborio M, Harris P, Ravi C, Irwin A Microorganisms. 2024; 12(9).

PMID: 39338498 PMC: 11434042. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms12091824.


Impact of Introducing a Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Blood Culture Panel on Anti-Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Carbapenem Antimicrobial Agents in a Children's Hospital.

Kuruma K, Funakoshi H, Shibata M, Okita K, Suwa J, Tame T Cureus. 2024; 16(8):e66282.

PMID: 39238738 PMC: 11376315. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.66282.


Advancing quantitative PCR with color cycle multiplex amplification.

Chen W, Zhang K, Huang F, Zhao L, Waldren G, Jiang Q Nucleic Acids Res. 2024; 52(17):e81.

PMID: 39119904 PMC: 11417387. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkae683.


Clinical impact and cost-consequence analysis of ePlex® blood culture identification panels for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections: a single-center randomized controlled trial.

Caspar Y, Deves A, Richarme C, Le Marechal M, Ponderand L, Mounayar A Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2024; 43(6):1193-1203.

PMID: 38536524 PMC: 11178566. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-024-04820-z.


References
1.
Bottone E . Bacillus cereus, a volatile human pathogen. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010; 23(2):382-98. PMC: 2863360. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00073-09. View

2.
Roshdy D, Tran A, LeCroy N, Zeng D, Ou F, Daniels L . Impact of a rapid microarray-based assay for identification of positive blood cultures for treatment optimization for patients with streptococcal and enterococcal bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol. 2015; 53(4):1411-4. PMC: 4365208. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00104-15. View

3.
Goto M, Al-Hasan M . Overall burden of bloodstream infection and nosocomial bloodstream infection in North America and Europe. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013; 19(6):501-9. DOI: 10.1111/1469-0691.12195. View

4.
Lee C, Lin W, Shih H, Wu C, Chen P, Lee H . Clinical significance of potential contaminants in blood cultures among patients in a medical center. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2007; 40(5):438-44. View

5.
Scohy A, Noel A, Boeras A, Brassinne L, Laurent T, Rodriguez-Villalobos H . Evaluation of the Bruker® MBT Sepsityper IVD module for the identification of polymicrobial blood cultures with MALDI-TOF MS. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018; 37(11):2145-2152. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-018-3351-2. View