Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34301343›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2021

Evaluation of GeneXpert PA assay compared to genomic and (semi-)quantitative culture methods for direct detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in endotracheal aspirates.

Thomas Ewout van der Schalk, Jasmine Coppens, Leen Timbermont, Agata Turlej-Rogacka, Liesbet Van Heirstraeten, Matilda Berkell, Li Yu, Christine Lammens, Basil Britto Xavier, Veerle Matheeussen and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Thomas Ewout van der SchalkLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Jasmine CoppensLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Leen TimbermontLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Agata Turlej-RogackaLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Liesbet Van HeirstraetenLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Matilda BerkellLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Li YuStatistical Sciences, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, USA.
Christine LammensLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Basil Britto XavierLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Veerle MatheeussenLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Antwerp University Hospital , Edegem, Belgium.
Margareta IevenLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Michael McCarthyEarly-Stage Development, Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolism, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, USA.
Philippe G JorensDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine , Antwerp University Hospital , Edegem , Belgium.
Alexey RuzinMicrobial Sciences, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, USA.
Mark T EsserMicrobial Sciences, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, USA.
Samir Kumar-SinghLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Herman GoossensLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Surbhi Malhotra-KumarLaboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute , University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium. surbhi.malhotra@uantwerpen.be.ORCID 0000-0001-8699-8905
University of Antwerp · BEAntwerp University Hospital · BEAstraZeneca (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPseudomonas aeruginosa is a common cause of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Rapid and accurate detection of lower respiratory tract colonization and/or infection with P. aeruginosa may advise targeted preventive (antibody-based) strategies and antibiotic therapy. To investigate this, we compared semi-quantitative culture results from 80 endotracheal aspirates (ETA) collected from mechanically-ventilated patients, to two culture and two non-culture-based methods for detection of P. aeruginosa.

methodsP. aeruginosa-positive (n = 40) and -negative (n = 40) ETAs from mechanically ventilated patients analyzed initally by (i) routine semi-quantitative culture, were further analyzed with (ii) quantitative culture on chromogenic ChromID P. aeruginosa and blood agar; (iii) enrichment in brain heart infusion broth followed by plating on blood agar and ChromID P. aeruginosa; (iv) O-antigen acetylase gene-based TaqMan qPCR; and (v) GeneXpert PA PCR assay.

resultsOf the 80 ETA samples included, one sample that was negative for P. aeruginosa by semi-quantitative culture was found to be positive by the other four methods, and was included in an "extended" gold standard panel. Based on this extended gold standard, both semi-quantitative culture and the GeneXpert PA assay showed 97.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity. The quantitative culture, enrichment culture and O-antigen acetylase gene-based TaqMan qPCR had a sensitivity of 97.6%, 89.5%, 92.7%, and a specificity of 97.4%, 100%, and 71.1%, respectively.

conclusionThis first evaluation of the GeneXpert PA assay with ETA samples found it to be as sensitive and specific as the routine, hospital-based semi-quantitative culture method. Additionally, the GeneXpert PA assay is easy to perform (hands-on time ≈ 5 min) and rapid (≈ 55 min assay time). The combination of the high sensitivity and high specificity together with the rapid acquisition of results makes the GeneXpert PA assay a highly recommended screening technique. Where this equipment is not available, semi-quantitative culture remains the most sensitive of the culture methods evaluated here for P. aeruginosa detection in ETA samples.

Indexed as

Respiration, ArtificialBacteriological TechniquesBelgiumGenomicsHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionPseudomonas aeruginosaSensitivity and SpecificityTracheaCepheidChromID® P. aeruginosaChromogenic mediumGeneXpertPseudomonas aeruginosaRapid diagnosticsReal-time PCRVAPVentilator-associated pneumonia

Identifiers

PMID34301343
PMCPMC8300976
OpenAlexW3184042189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.