Anúncio
Mr t2 candida
Mr t2 candida
Mr t2 candida
Mr t2 candida
Anúncio
Mr t2 candida
Mr t2 candida
Mr t2 candida
Mr t2 candida
Próximos SlideShares
Int j healthalliedsci_2016_5_4_210_194083Int j healthalliedsci_2016_5_4_210_194083
Carregando em ... 3
1 de 8
Anúncio

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Apresentações para você(20)

Anúncio

Similar a Mr t2 candida(20)

Anúncio

Mr t2 candida

  1. M A J O R A R T I C L E T2 Magnetic Resonance Assay for the Rapid Diagnosis of Candidemia in Whole Blood: A Clinical Trial Eleftherios Mylonakis,1 Cornelius J. Clancy,2 Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner,3 Kevin W. Garey,4 George J. Alangaden,5 Jose A. Vazquez,6 Jeffrey S. Groeger,7 Marc A. Judson,8 Yuka-Marie Vinagre,9 Stephen O. Heard,10 Fainareti N. Zervou,1 Ioannis M. Zacharioudakis,1 Dimitrios P. Kontoyiannis,11 and Peter G. Pappas12 1 Infectious Diseases Division, Rhode Island Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence; 2 Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 3 Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Texas Medical School at Houston and Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center; 4 University of Houston College of Pharmacy, Texas; 5 Division of Infectious Diseases, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan; 6 Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at Georgia Regents University, Augusta; 7 Urgent Care Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; 8 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Albany Medical College, New York; 9 Department of Critical Care Medicine, St Vincent Hospital; 10 Department of Anesthesiology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts; 11 Department of Infectious Diseases, Infection Control and Employee Health, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston; and 12 Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Alabama at Birmingham Background. Microbiologic cultures, the current gold standard diagnostic method for invasive Candida infec- tions, have low specificity and take up to 2–5 days to grow. We present the results of the first extensive multicenter clinical trial of a new nanodiagnostic approach, T2 magnetic resonance (T2MR), for diagnosis of candidemia. Methods. Blood specimens were collected from 1801 hospitalized patients who had a blood culture ordered for routine standard of care; 250 of them were manually supplemented with concentrations from <1 to 100 colony- forming units (CFUs)/mL for 5 different Candida species. Results. T2MR demonstrated an overall specificity per assay of 99.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 99.1%– 99.6%) with a mean time to negative result of 4.2 ± 0.9 hours. Subanalysis yielded a specificity of 98.9% (95% CI, 98.3%–99.4%) for Candida albicans/Candida tropicalis, 99.3% (95% CI, 98.7%–99.6%) for Candida parapsilosis, and 99.9% (95% CI, 99.7%–100.0%) for Candida krusei/Candida glabrata. The overall sensitivity was found to be 91.1% (95% CI, 86.9%–94.2%) with a mean time of 4.4 ± 1.0 hours for detection and species identification. The sub- group analysis showed a sensitivity of 92.3% (95% CI, 85.4%–96.6%) for C. albicans/C. tropicalis, 94.2% (95% CI, 84.1%–98.8%) for C. parapsilosis, and 88.1% (95% CI, 80.2%–93.7%) for C. krusei/C. glabrata. The limit of detection was 1 CFU/mL for C. tropicalis and C. krusei, 2 CFU/mL for C. albicans and C. glabrata, and 3 CFU/mL for C. para- psilosis. The negative predictive value was estimated to range from 99.5% to 99.0% in a study population with 5% and 10% prevalence of candidemia, respectively. Conclusions. T2MR is the first fully automated technology that directly analyzes whole blood specimens to iden- tify species without the need for prior isolation of Candida species, and represents a breakthrough shift into a new era of molecular diagnostics. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01752166. Keywords. T2 magnetic resonance; T2MR; Candida; fungal infections; clinical trial. Few advances have occurred in the past decades to ad- equately address the most severe and costly infectious diseases affecting hospitalized patients, such as invasive fungal infections. Candida species infections represent- ed 6% of all hospital-acquired infections in the United States in 2011, and ranked first among causes of pri- mary bloodstream infections [1]. Despite antifungal Received 18 September 2014; accepted 22 November 2014. Correspondence: Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, FIDSA, Infectious Diseases Division, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy St, 3rd Floor, Ste 328/330, Providence, RI 02903 (emylonakis@lifespan. org). Clinical Infectious Diseases® © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciu959 T2MR for Diagnosis of Candidemia • CID • 1 Clinical Infectious Diseases Advance Access published January 12, 2015 atMcMasterUniversityLibraryonJanuary27,2015http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
  2. therapy, candidemia has an associated mortality that is as high as 40% or more [2,3].Along with timely control of the source of the infection [4], early initiation of appropriate treatment is an important intervention to improve prognosis, particularly among patients with septic shock [5, 6]. For example, patients who receive appropriate antifungal therapy within the first day after blood is drawn for culture have an estimated mortality of 24%, with the corresponding figures for treatment 1 and 2 days later being 37% and 41%, respectively [6]. Automated blood cultures, the current “gold standard” for diagnosis of candidemia, take 2–5 days to finalize, leading to a significant delay in the implementation of culture-driven therapy [7, 8]. In contrast, emerging methods, such as matrix- assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spec- trometry, require the time necessary for culture to isolate the pathogen before species identification [9], whereas molecular methods, in particular polymerase chain reaction methodolo- gies, have limited clinical adoption to date [10]. The com- mercially available (1,3)-β-D-glucan assay is not specific for Candida, and high rates of false-positive results in high-risk populations have been reported [11]. The lack of diagnostic tools has led to the current clinical re- ality, where the administration of antifungal agents remains merely a “best guess” based on the local epidemiology and the individual patient’s risk factors and clinical picture [7, 12]. This overuse of the few available antifungal agents is concerning, in light of the side effects [13] and the excess cost [14], as well as the association of antifungal treatment with the rise of resistant pathogens [15–17]. Thus, diagnostic methods that directly test whole clinical samples and provide rapid, sensitive, and specific results are long awaited [8, 11, 18–21]. A new nanodiagnostic method using manual application of T2 magnetic resonance (T2MR) to detect Candida species was pre- viously found to have high sensitivity and specificity and a time to result of <3 hours [22]. This technology was used to develop an automated instrument platform, T2Dx, to provide a “patient sample-to-answer” clinical diagnostic test, T2Candida, which is currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). By augmenting the T2MR technology with on-board sample handling technology, the fully automated T2Dx increases throughput while also enabling multiplex detection of 5 Candida species on a single blood sample. Herein, we present the results of the first extensive clinical trial to validate the sensitivity and spe- cificity of the new approach to diagnose candidemia. METHODS T2Dx Instrument The T2Dx instrument automatically completes all steps in the T2Candida panel after specimen loading. Specifically, T2Dx lyses the red blood cells, concentrates the pathogen cells and cellular debris, lyses the Candida cells by mechanical bead beat- ing, amplifies Candida DNA using a thermostable polymerase (T2Biosystems, Inc) and pan-Candida primers for the interven- ing transcribed spacer 2 region within the Candida ribosomal DNA operon, and finally, detects amplified product by ampli- con-induced agglomeration of supermagnetic particles and T2MR measurement. The internal control, a synthetic DNA tar- get, monitors the integrity of the T2Candida results and is pro- cessed with each clinical specimen. If the internal control is invalid and there are no positive T2MR signals, an “invalid” re- sult is displayed, indicating that the specimen could contain in- hibitors that would interfere with Candida detection. The readout of the test is positive or negative without any quantifiable data report. Also, positive and negative T2Candida external con- trols were run each day before loading clinical specimens for quality-control checks of the reagents and the T2Dx instrument. Patients and Data Collection The clinical trial was conducted from 31 July 2013 to 24 April 2014 at 12 centers (Supplementary Table 1). The institutional review board of each center approved the study protocol. Writ- ten informed consent was obtained from all patients. Patients aged 18–95 years with a blood culture ordered per routine stan- dard of care during their current hospitalization were enrolled (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01752166). Sample Collection and Outcomes A set of aerobic and anaerobic blood cultures and 3 whole blood T2MR specimens were collected. T2MR clinical specimens were collected in prelabeled and de-identified K2 ethylenediaminetet- raacetic acid plastic blood collection vacutainers. Tube A was stored at room temperature (20°C–25°C) and was analyzed within 12 hours of collection, whereas tubes B and C were maintained in frozen storage (−70°C to −80°C). A total of 300 samples (also collected from patients referred for a blood culture per routine standard of care) were used for the contrived arm of the study. More specifically, 250 were man- ually supplemented (contrived samples) with clinically relevant titers of the 5 Candida species targeted by the T2MR technology (C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis, C. tropicalis, and C. krusei), and 50 were used as negative controls. Different clinical isolates were used for each specimen. The contrived arm of the study was developed in collaboration with the FDA prior to the beginning of the study due to the expectation that the prospec- tive arm would not recruit candidemic patients representative of the full range of titer levels in infected patients, and due to the limitations of blood culture as a comparator, including its poor sensitivity. Contrived specimens were spiked at known concen- trations of the targeted Candida species based on FDA input regarding the range of clinically relevant concentrations. Colo- ny-forming units (CFUs) were confirmed by culture on yeast 2 • CID • Mylonakis et al atMcMasterUniversityLibraryonJanuary27,2015http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
  3. peptone dextrose agar media. Contrived specimens were de- identified as to the Candida species and concentration, and were shipped under refrigerated conditions (2°C–8°C) to each test site. Each specimen was analyzed within 48 hours of receipt, after having been placed at room temperature for 1–12 hours to equilibrate. This incubation at room temperature for up to 12 hours was previously shown to have no effect on the CFUs per milliliter of the specimens (data not shown). The specimens of the contrived arm of the study were randomly inserted into the clinical specimens with which they were tested at the same time. Finally, the limit of detection (LOD) for the assay was de- termined by 10 different isolates (2 each from the 5 different Candida species) using quantified spiked samples. The LOD was defined as the lowest CFU per milliliter of Candida species in a specimen that was detected with ≥95% positive detection for ≥20 replicates. When a different LOD was observed across the 2 tested strains, the higher level of CFUs per milliliter was determined as the LOD for that species. T2Candida panel results are grouped on the basis of antifun- gal resistance patterns of different Candida species [7], and 3 results are reported: C. albicans/C. tropicalis, C. krusei/C. glab- rata, and C. parapsilosis. The blood culture specimens were promptly processed in accordance with routine institutional practice for a period of 5–7 days, using one of the following FDA-cleared methods: BacT/Alert 3D system (bioMérieux, Durham, North Carolina), BacTec FX system (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, Maryland), and Versatrek system (TREK Diagnostic Systems, Cleveland, Ohio). Statistical Analysis The sensitivity and specificity of the T2MR technology, both per patient and per assay, were examined by comparing the T2Can- dida results to the blood culture results and the known Candida state of the contrived specimens. For the calculation of the sen- sitivity and specificity per patient, each patient was considered positive or negative based on all 3 results of the T2Candida panel, whereas for the per-assay estimations, the 3 results of each patient were considered separately. The sensitivity and spe- cificity along with the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the exact Clopper–Pearson method. Con- tinuous variables were presented as means and standard devia- tions, and categorical data as relative frequencies. Time to result of T2MR technology and automated blood cultures was com- pared using the Student t test. Statistical significance was set at P = .05. RESULTS Study Patients Overall, 2264 patients were enrolled and 463 were excluded from the final analysis. In 245 of 463 cases, T2MR yielded an indeterminate result due to either a technical error (90 cases) or an invalid result (155 cases) (Figure 1). Therefore, 1801 re- sults were included in the final analysis. Specifically, 1501 pa- tients had blood cultures drawn concurrently and from the same anatomical sites as the T2MR specimens, 250 gave sam- ples that were spiked with known and clinically relevant con- centrations of different Candida species, and 50 provided Candida-negative control samples for the contrived arm of the study. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of patients. Sensitivity and Specificity Results of the primary analysis are shown in Table 2. Among the 250 specimens spiked at concentrations from <1 CFU/mL to 100 CFU/mL for the 5 different Candida species and the 6 pro- spectively collected specimens that had positive blood culture results for Candida species, the T2MR technology had an over- all sensitivity per assay of 91.1% (95% CI, 86.9%–94.2%) and per patient of 91.0% (95% CI, 86.8%–94.2%). The subgroup analysis showed a sensitivity of 92.3% (95% CI, 85.4%–96.6%) for C. albicans/C. tropicalis, 94.2% (95% CI, 84.1%–98.8%) for C. parapsilosis, and 88.1% (95% CI, 80.2%–93.7%) for C. krusei/ C. glabrata. The LOD was found to be 1 CFU/mL for C. tropi- calis and C. krusei, 2 CFU/mL for C. albicans and C. glabrata, and 3 CFU/mL for C. parapsilosis (Supplementary Table 2). The overall specificity was found to be 99.4% (95% CI, 99.1%–99.6%) per assay and 98.1% (95% CI, 97.3%–98.7%) per patient. Subanalysis on different Candida species showed a specificity of 98.9% (95% CI, 98.3%–99.4%) for C. albicans/ C. tropicalis, 99.3% (95% CI, 98.7%–99.6%) for C. parapsilosis, and 99.9% (95% CI, 99.7%–100.0%) for C. krusei/C. glabrata. The mean time to negative result, among the prospectively col- lected samples, was 4.2 ± 0.9 hours compared with ≥120 hours for blood cultures per institutional protocols. With an overall sensitivity of 91.0% and specificity of 98.1% per patient, the pos- itive predictive value of T2MR technology is estimated to range from 71.6% to 84.2% in a study population with 5% and 10% prevalence of candidemia, respectively. The corresponding fig- ures for the negative predictive value (NPV) are 99.5% and 99.0% in respective settings (Table 3). Among the prospectively collected samples, there were 4 patients characterized as candidemic with the same Candida species both from T2MR and the companion blood cultures. The mean time to species identification was 4.4 ± 1.0 hours for T2MR and 129.9 ± 26.3 hours for the blood cultures (P < .001). One patient presented with a coinfection of C. albi- cans and C. parapsilosis in blood culture, and both species were detected by T2MR technology in a single test. There were 31 discordant cases (1.7%) between the T2MR and blood cultures. In 2 cases, the blood cultures identified the patients as candidemic and the T2Dx instrument did not; T2MR for Diagnosis of Candidemia • CID • 3 atMcMasterUniversityLibraryonJanuary27,2015http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
  4. in 29 cases Candida was detected by the T2Dx instrument but not by routine blood cultures. Both cases of discordant T2MR- negative blood culture–positive results were in oncology pa- tients with central lines who were on antifungal agents prior to blood draw. In both cases, the identified species was C. albicans. In the 29 discordant T2MR-positive, blood culture–negative samples, 18 C. albicans/C. tropicalis, 12 C. parapsilosis, and 1 C. krusei/C. glabrata were identified. Among these cases, there was 1 with proven candidiasis based on the European Organi- zation for the Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria [23]. More specifically, the patient had intra-abdominal C. albicans infec- tion, which was detected by the T2MR technology and was proven later with culture of tissue obtained during surgery after >12 negative blood cultures. Finally, in 4 of 29 cases, Can- dida species was isolated from other clinical samples (respirato- ry secretions [3 patients] and urine [1 patient]), but these patients did not meet established criteria for invasive candidia- sis. Another 6 patients were receiving systemically antifungal therapy but had no other evidence of fungal infection. Among the remaining 18 patients, 5 had a central line, 4 had undergone stem cell or solid organ transplant (1 patient also had a central line), and 3 were oncology patients (1 was also a transplant recipient). The individual characteristics of the pa- tients with T2MR-positive, blood culture–negative results are presented in Supplementary Table 3. Reproducibility of T2MR Two individual samples spiked with each one of C. albicans, C. parapsilosis, and C. glabrata, one at a concentration of 1–2 times the LOD and one at 3–4 times the LOD, as well as 1 neg- ative sample, were tested in triplicate, twice daily for a total of 6 days across 3 different sites. Overall, T2MR was found to be 98.5% reproducible (Table 4). DISCUSSION Candida species infections are increasing [24], currently ac- counting for 6% of all hospital-acquired infections [1]. The T2MR technology was able to correctly characterize 98.1% of patients as noncandidemic, with a mean time to negative result Figure 1. Enrollment and outcomes for the prospective and the contrived arm of the study. *Subjects are counted only once within each main protocol deviation category, but may be counted multiple times across protocol deviation categories. **Contrived samples delayed by weather or delivery service, personnel not available to run the specimens, T2Dx instrument not available due to a performance issue, contrived specimen did not load into the sample inlet due to a clot, or T2 enrollment closed. † Indeterminate results were due to invalid internal controls (149), instrument malfunction (82), invalid T2 channel (6), failure of external control (3), sample inlet failure (4), and T2Dx drawer error (1). Abbreviation: CFUs, colony-forming units. 4 • CID • Mylonakis et al atMcMasterUniversityLibraryonJanuary27,2015http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
  5. of 4.2 hours. In a patient population with 6% prevalence of Candida infections [1], this estimation would correspond to an NPV of 99.4%. The ability to rapidly and accurately exclude the possibility of candidemia can have significant implications in clinical practice, by decreasing the number of patients who need to be on empiric antifungal therapy [7, 12], and thus de- creasing the incidence of resistant strains [15–17], the potential of side effects of antifungal treatment [13], and substantial healthcare costs [14, 20]. In 29 cases, T2Candida panel results were in discordance with negative blood cultures. This discordance can represent ei- ther false-positive T2MR, or false-negative blood culture results. Blood culture methods, although currently the gold standard for candidemia diagnosis, are known to have poor sensitivity in clinical samples and are shown to be positive in only 38% of proven and probable cases of invasive candidiasis [10], as de- fined by the EORTC criteria [23]. These discordant results Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of Study Participants Characteristic Prospective Cohort (n = 1501) Contrived Cohort (n = 300) Demographic characteristics Male sex 840 (56.0%) 180 (60.0%) Female sex 661 (44.0%) 120 (40.0%) Age, y, mean ± SD 55.4 ± 15.7 56.9 ± 17.0 Race/ethnicity White 1170 (77.9%) 251 (83.7%) Black 302 (20.1%) 26 (8.7%) Other 29 (1.9%) 23 (7.7%) Medical history Immunocompromised subjects 720 (48.0%) 102 (34.0%) Cancer 379 (52.6%) 62 (60.8%) Transplant 302a (41.9%) 20 (19.6%) Stem cell 130 (43.0%) 2 (10.0%) Solid organ 171 (56.7%) 17 (85.0%) Otherb 2 (0.7%) 1 (5.0%) HIV/AIDS 51 (7.1%) 12 (11.8%) On steroid therapy 306 (42.5%) 36 (35.3%) Other IC states 41 (5.7%) 2 (2.0%) Nonimmunocompromised subjects 781 (52.0%) 198 (66.0%) Diabetes mellitus 270 (34.6%) 66 (33.3%) Abdominal surgeryc 129 (16.6%) 8 (4.0%) Renal failurec 100 (12.8%) 32 (16.2%) Cardiovascular 490 (62.7%) 124 (62.6%) Burnsc 6 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) Data are presented as No. (%) unless otherwise indicated. Abbreviations: HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; IC, immunocompromised; SD, standard deviation. a 1 patient had both solid organ and bone marrow transplant. b 2 patients with islet cell transplant (prospective cohort), 1 patient with right iliac crest bone graft (contrived cohort). c During current hospitalization. Table 2. Overall Sensitivity and Specificity of the T2 Magnetic Resonance Method Sensitivity No. % 95% CI Overall per patienta 233/256 91.0 86.8–94.2 Overall per assaya 234/257 91.1 86.9–94.2 Per Candida speciesa C. albicans/tropicalis 96/104 92.3 85.4–96.6 C. parapsilosis 49/52 94.2 84.1–98.8 C. krusei/glabrata 89/101 88.1 80.2–93.7 Per Candida species and per CFU/mLb C. albicans <1 CFU/mL 8/10 80.0 44.4–97.5 1–10 CFU/mL 18/18 100.0 81.5–100.0 11–30 CFU/mL 17/17 100.0 80.5–100.0 31–100 CFU/mL 5/5 100.0 47.8–100.0 Overall 48/50 96.0 86.3–99.5 C. tropicalis <1 CFU/mL 8/10 80.0 44.4–97.5 1–10 CFU/mL 16/18 88.9 65.3–98.6 11–30 CFU/mL 17/17 100.0 80.5–100.0 31–100 CFU/mL 5/5 100.0 47.8–100.0 Overall 46/50 92.0 80.8–97.8 C. parapsilosis <1 CFU/mL 8/10 80.0 44.4–97.5 1–10 CFU/mL 17/18 94.4 72.7–99.9 11–30 CFU/mL 17/17 100.0 80.5–100.0 31–100 CFU/mL 5/5 100.0 47.8–100.0 Overall 47/50 94.0 83.5–98.7 C. krusei <1 CFU/mL 6/10 60.0 26.2–87.8 1–10 CFU/mL 18/18 100.0 81.5–100.0 11–30 CFU/mL 17/17 100.0 80.5–100.0 31–100 CFU/mL 5/5 100.0 47.8–100.0 Overall 46/50 92.0 80.8–97.8 C. glabrata <1 CFU/mL 5/10 50.0 18.7–81.3 1–10 CFU/mL 16/18 88.9 65.3–98.6 11–30 CFU/mL 16/17 94.1 71.3–99.8 31–100 CFU/mL 5/5 100.0 47.8–100.0 Overall 42/50 84.0 70.9–92.8 Specificity Overall per patienta 1516/1545 98.1 97.3–98.7 Overall per assaya 5114/5146 99.4 99.1–99.6 Per speciesa C. albicans/tropicalis 1679/1697 98.9 98.3–99.4 C. parapsilosis 1736/1749 99.3 98.7–99.6 C. krusei/glabrata 1699/1700 99.9 99.7–100.0 Abbreviations: CFU, colony-forming unit; CI, confidence interval. a Based on the prospective and the contrived arm of the study. b Based only on the results of the spiked samples. T2MR for Diagnosis of Candidemia • CID • 5 atMcMasterUniversityLibraryonJanuary27,2015http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
  6. motivated a post hoc analysis of the individual patients’ notes. This analysis showed that there was 1 case with later proven in- vasive candidiasis, and 4 cases with Candida species isolation from other clinical samples, but these patients did not meet es- tablished criteria for invasive candidiasis. The above findings indicate that at least some of these discordant results may rep- resent cases of Candida species infections that were missed by the blood culture. Importantly, cultures can be inhibited by an- tifungal agents, and some Candida species may need more than the typical 5-day culture time to grow [25, 26]. In contrast, T2MR technology performance has not been shown to be al- tered by antifungal agents [22]. A significant percentage of the cohort had high-risk host factors for invasive Candida infections, such as current cancer or neutropenia, steroid therapy, solid or stem cell transplant, or current abdominal surgery (Table 1) [23, 27]. Of note, there were no clinical or mycological inclusion criteria, other than a blood culture order per routine standard of care. There- fore, the anticipated prevalence of Candida infections in our population was low. This allowed the evaluation of NPV of the new technology to be done with high precision among a population with high-risk characteristics. The low Table 3. Positive and Negative Predictive Values of T2 Magnetic Resonance Method for a Range of Prevalence of Candidemia Prevalence of Disease 91.0% Sensitivity/98.1% Specificity PPV NPV 1% 32.6% 99.9% 2% 49.4% 99.8% 5% 71.6% 99.5% 10% 84.2% 99.0% 20% 92.3% 97.8% 35% 96.3% 95.3% 50% 98.0% 91.6% Abbreviations: NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value. Table 4. Results of the Reproducibility Study Candida Species Concentration Test Site No. Detected No. Not Detected % Agreement With Expected C. parapsilosis 1–2× LOD Site 1 36 0 108/108 (100%) Site 2 36 0 Site 3 36 0 All sites 108 0 3–4× LOD Site 1 36 0 108/108 (100%) Site 2 36 0 Site 3 36 0 All sites 108 0 C. glabrata 1–2× LOD Site 1 35 1 105/108 (97.2%) Site 2 34 2 Site 3 36 0 Total 105 3 3–4× LOD Site 1 36 0 106/108 (98.1%) Site 2 35 1 Site 3 35 1 Total 106 2 C. albicans 1–2× LOD Site 1 35 1 103/108 (95.4%) Site2 35 1 Site 3 33 3 Total 103 5 3–4× LOD Site 1 35 1 107/108 (99.1%) Site 2 36 0 Site 3 36 0 Total 107 1 Negative NA Site 1 0 36 108/108 (100%) Site 2 0 36 Site 3 0 36 Total 0 108 Abbreviations: LOD, limit of detection; NA, not defined. 6 • CID • Mylonakis et al atMcMasterUniversityLibraryonJanuary27,2015http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
  7. anticipated prevalence and the limitations of blood culture as a gold standard comparator created the need to investigate con- trived samples for determining the sensitivity of the T2MR technology. The T2MR technology was found to have an overall sensitiv- ity per patient of 91.0%, with a mean time to species identifi- cation of only 4.4 hours, compared to the 2–5 days typically needed by the automated blood culture systems [8]. This differ- ence in time of identification could impact the mortality of can- didemic patients [5, 6]. Another important aspect of the rapid speciation is the potential for appropriate choice of antifungal therapy, as the 5 target Candida species of the T2MR technol- ogy account for >95% of cases of candidemia [28],and have dis- tinct antifungal susceptibility profiles [29, 30]. Notably, T2MR technology was found to have an LOD as low as 1 CFU/mL for 2 Candida species. This may prove specifically useful in the diagnosis of candidemia coming from the gastrointestinal tract, where the burden of organisms is low, especially among patients on antifungals [31]. Also, T2MR has the potential of simultaneously identifying >1 species, a unique characteristic, and particularly interesting in the light of 2%–5% prevalence of mixed candidemia [32]. However, this high yield needs to be verified in prospective samples and in comparison with a combination of clinical, imaging, and autopsy results [23]. Importantly, this new technology has a high sensitivity in identifying non-albicans Candida species. During recent years, there has been a shift in the Candida epidemiology, with non-albicans species representing >50% of clinical isolates [29]. Among them, C. glabrata is reported to be isolated in as many as 26% of candidemic patients [33, 34]. Although culture methods are shown to identify some Candida species in spiked blood samples with an adequate sensitivity [35–38],this has not been the case for C. glabrata, with reported sensitivities as low as 60% in samples spiked with 100 CFU/mL [35–37, 39]. This might be explained by its slow growth in the blood/broth mix- ture, which results in a long time to culture positivity, frequently beyond the typical 5-day culture period [25, 26]. The T2MR technology was shown to be able to detect C. glabrata at an un- precedented LOD of 2 CFU/mL with an overall sensitivity of 84.0%. As a limitation of this study, it should be noted that in 245 cases the T2MR result was indeterminate. We can assume that rerunning the sample could be a reasonable fix in the 36.7% (90/245) of cases that were due to a technical error. How- ever, further studies are needed to clarify if this will also happen in the cases where the T2MR result was invalid. Also, due to the limited number of candidemic patients who were enrolled in our study, the clinical sensitivity of T2MR should be assessed in future studies. This study presents the results of the first extensive clinical trial using the T2MR technology. This technology represents an example of the emerging era of molecular diagnostics, where rapid, accurate, and species-specific diagnosis directly on the clinical sample is feasible. A key advantage of T2MR over other biosensors is that it does not require culture and sam- ple purification or preparation, making T2MR a promising can- didate for point-of-care diagnostics of infectious pathogens and certain noninfectious diseases [9]. T2MR managed to identify 91% of Candida-positive samples and >98% of noncandidemic patients. Because mortality due to invasive candidiasis has re- mained high and unchanged for the past 2 decades [29], and early initiation of appropriate antifungal therapy has been re- ported to reduce mortality by at least two-thirds [5], the rapid and accurate diagnostic capability offered by this novel technol- ogy has the potential to change the management and prognosis of the disease. Supplementary Data Supplementary materials are available at Clinical Infectious Diseases online (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org). Supplementary materials consist of data pro- vided by the author that are published to benefit the reader. The posted ma- terials are not copyedited. The contents of all supplementary data are the sole responsibility of the authors. Questions or messages regarding errors should be addressed to the author. Notes Acknowledgments. The authors acknowledge Drs Robert Langer and Tom Lowery for helpful discussions. Financial support. This work was supported by T2 Biosystems. Potential conflicts of interest. E. M. has received grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, T2 Biosystems, and Astellas and has served on an ad- visory board for Astellas. C. J. C. has received investigator-initiated research funding from Merck, Pfizer, and CSL-Behring. L. O.-Z. has received research grants, consulting, and speaking honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, and Astellas, and research grants from Associates of Cape Cod and T2 Biosystems. K. W. G. has received grant support from T2 Biosystems. J. A. V. has served on the speakers’ bureaus for Astellas and Pfizer, as a consultant for Astellas and Miravista, and on the advisory board of Astellas, and has received honoraria from Astellas and research grants from Merck. J. S. G. is on the clinical advisory board of T2 Biosystems. M. A. J. is a consultant for Celgene, Novartis, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Questcor, and Janssen and has received royal- ties from Springer and UpToDate. D. P. K. is on the advisory board of Merck and has received research support from Merck, Pfizer, and Astellas and honoraria from Merck, Astellas, Gilead, and Pfizer. P. G. P has received grants/research support from T2 Biosystems, Astellas, Gilead, and Merck and is on an ad hoc scientific advisory committee for T2 Biosystems, Merck, Astellas, and Gilead. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the con- tent of the manuscript have been disclosed. References 1. Magill SS, Edwards JR, Bamberg W, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:1198–208. 2. Andes DR, Safdar N, Baddley JW, et al. Impact of treatment strategy on outcomes in patients with candidemia and other forms of invasive can- didiasis: a patient-level quantitative review of randomized trials. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54:1110–22. T2MR for Diagnosis of Candidemia • CID • 7 atMcMasterUniversityLibraryonJanuary27,2015http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
  8. 3. Wisplinghoff H, Bischoff T, Tallent SM, Seifert H, Wenzel RP, Edmond MB. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:309–17. 4. Kollef M, Micek S, Hampton N, Doherty JA, Kumar A. Septic shock attributed to Candida infection: importance of empiric therapy and source control. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54:1739–46. 5. Morrell M, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Delaying the empiric treatment of Candida bloodstream infection until positive blood culture results are obtained: a potential risk factor for hospital mortality. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49:3640–5. 6. Garey KW, Rege M, Pai MP, et al. Time to initiation of fluconazole ther- apy impacts mortality in patients with candidemia: a multi-institutional study. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43:25–31. 7. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes D, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:503–35. 8. Arvanitis M, Anagnostou T, Fuchs BB, Caliendo AM, Mylonakis E. Mo- lecular and nonmolecular diagnostic methods for invasive fungal infec- tions. Clin Microbiol Rev 2014; 27:490–526. 9. Marklein G, Josten M, Klanke U, et al. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry for fast and reliable identi- fication of clinical yeast isolates. J Clin Microbiol 2009; 47:2912–7. 10. Avni T, Leibovici L, Paul M. PCR diagnosis of invasive candidiasis: sys- tematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Microbiol 2011; 49:665–70. 11. Clancy CJ, Nguyen MH. Finding the “missing 50%” of invasive candi- diasis: how nonculture diagnostics will improve understanding of dis- ease spectrum and transform patient care. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56: 1284–92. 12. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: in- ternational guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:580–637. 13. Walsh TJ, Teppler H, Donowitz GR, et al. Caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persis- tent fever and neutropenia. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:1391–402. 14. Arnold HM, Micek ST, Shorr AF, et al. Hospital resource utilization and costs of inappropriate treatment of candidemia. Pharmacotherapy 2010; 30:361–8. 15. Garnacho-Montero J, Diaz-Martin A, Garcia-Cabrera E, et al. Risk fac- tors for fluconazole-resistant candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemo- ther 2010; 54:3149–54. 16. Beyda ND, Lewis RE, Garey KW. Echinocandin resistance in Candida species: mechanisms of reduced susceptibility and therapeutic ap- proaches. Ann Pharmacother 2012; 46:1086–96. 17. Alexander BD, Johnson MD, Pfeiffer CD, et al. Increasing echinocandin resistance in Candida glabrata: clinical failure correlates with presence of FKS mutations and elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56:1724–32. 18. Kontoyiannis DP. Invasive mycoses: strategies for effective manage- ment. Am J Med 2012; 125(1 suppl):S25–38. 19. Pappas PG. Opportunistic fungi: a view to the future. Am J Med Sci 2010; 340:253–7. 20. Aitken SL, Beyda ND, Shah DN, et al. Clinical practice patterns in hos- pitalized patients at risk for invasive candidiasis: role of antifungal stew- ardship programs in an era of rapid diagnostics. Ann Pharmacother 2014; 48:683–90. 21. Leon C, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Schuster M. What’s new in the clinical and diagnostic management of invasive candidiasis in critically ill pa- tients. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40:808–19. 22. 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; 5:182ra154. 23. De Pauw B, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP, et al. Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treat- ment 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; 46:1813–21. 24. Miceli MH, Diaz JA, Lee SA. Emerging opportunistic yeast infections. Lancet Infect Dis 2011; 11:142–51. 25. Huang L, Zhang YY, Sun LY. Time to positivity of blood culture can predict different Candida species instead of pathogen concentration in candidemia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2013; 32:917–22. 26. Lai CC, Wang CY, Liu WL, Huang YT, Hsueh PR. Time to positivity of blood cultures of different Candida species causing fungaemia. J Med Microbiol 2012; 61(pt 5):701–4. 27. Guinea J. Global trends in the distribution of Candida species causing candidemia. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014; 20(suppl 6):5–10. 28. Pfaller MA, Jones RN, Castanheira M. Regional data analysis of Candi- da non-albicans strains collected in United States medical sites over a 6- year period, 2006–2011. Mycoses 2014; 57:602–11. 29. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persis- tent public health problem. Clin Microbiol Rev 2007; 20:133–63. 30. Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Woosley LN, Jones RN, Castanheira M. Echino- candin and triazole antifungal susceptibility profiles for clinical oppor- tunistic yeast and mold isolates collected from 2010 to 2011: application of new CLSI clinical breakpoints and epidemiological cutoff values for characterization of geographic and temporal trends of antifungal resis- tance. J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51:2571–81. 31. Kontoyiannis DP, Reddy BT, Hanna H, Bodey GP, Tarrand J, Raad II. Breakthrough candidemia in patients with cancer differs from de novo candidemia in host factors and Candida species but not intensity. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23:542–5. 32. Jensen J, Munoz P, Guinea J, Rodriguez-Creixems M, Pelaez T, Bouza E. Mixed fungemia: incidence, risk factors, and mortality in a general hos- pital. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:e109–14. 33. Horn DL, Neofytos D, Anaissie EJ, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of candidemia in 2019 patients: data from the prospective antifungal ther- apy alliance registry. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:1695–703. 34. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Gibbs DL, et al. Results from the ARTEMIS DISK Global Antifungal Surveillance study, 1997 to 2005: an 8.5-year analysis of susceptibilities of Candida species and other yeast species to fluconazole and voriconazole determined by CLSI standardized disk diffusion testing. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45:1735–45. 35. Horvath LL, Hospenthal DR, Murray CK, Dooley DP. Detection of simulated candidemia by the BACTEC 9240 system with plus aero- bic/F and anaerobic/F blood culture bottles. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41:4714–7. 36. Horvath LL, George BJ, Murray CK, Harrison LS, Hospenthal DR. Di- rect comparison of the BACTEC 9240 and BacT/ALERT 3D automated blood culture systems for Candida growth detection. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:115–8. 37. Riedel S, Eisinger SW, Dam L, Stamper PD, Carroll KC. Comparison of BD Bactec Plus Aerobic/F medium to VersaTREK Redox 1 blood cul- ture medium for detection of Candida spp. in seeded blood culture specimens containing therapeutic levels of antifungal agents. J Clin Mi- crobiol 2011; 49:1524–9. 38. Horvath LL, George BJ, Hospenthal DR. Detection of fifteen species of Candida in an automated blood culture system. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45:3062–4. 39. Beyda ND, Alam MJ, Garey KW. Comparison of the T2Dx instrument with T2 Candida assay and automated blood culture in the detection of Candida species using seeded blood samples. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2013; 77:324–6. 8 • CID • Mylonakis et al atMcMasterUniversityLibraryonJanuary27,2015http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
Anúncio