Clinical and Cost Analysis of an Ultra-Rapid Metagenomic Sequencing Test for Pathogen Detection in Adult Patients with Sepsis.
Yuyao Yin,Jiawei Shen,Zhenshan Du,Bin Wang,Guangjie Wang,Hongbin Chen,Jun Wang,Youzhong An,Chao Liu,Hui Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/cm9.0000000000003175
IF: 6.133
2024-01-01
Chinese Medical Journal
Abstract:To the Editor: Sepsis is a clinical syndrome characterized by life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Early intervention with antibiotics, intravenous fluids, and other supportive measures can significantly improve the chances of recovery. For every hour of delay in diagnosing and treating patients with septic shock, there is a 7.6% increase in the mortality rate.[1] Despite advances in diagnostic technology, clinicians are still unable to detect the origin of sepsis in approximately one-quarter (28%) of patients with septic shock by the end of their intensive care unit (ICU) stay.[2] Therefore, a more rapid test to detect a broad spectrum of pathogens is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis. Although metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is a novel solution for pathogen detection, it is labor-intensive and time-consuming. A typical mNGS experiment takes ~24 h, which is significantly longer than that of serological and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based tests. Rapid mNGS is required by clinicians to obtain accurate results within a rapid timeframe. A user-friendly and rapid procedure would aid clinicians in decision-making, which may eventually benefit patients. Therefore, we designed an mNGS workflow based on the Illumina platform with a theoretical turnaround time (TAT) of 7 h. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Peking University People's Hospital (No. 2021PHB410-001). Informed consent was obtained from all patients that were enrolled in the study. To expedite a standard mNGS procedure with a ~24 h turnaround [Figure 1A], we modified a previously validated experimental protocol[3] and designed an ultra-rapid mNGS workflow according to the following: (1) automation in nucleic acid extraction and library preparation through the use of a cartridge-based point-of-care device.[3] The device comprised four chambers, each of which was equipped with liquid handling, temperature control, and magnetic separator modules to facilitate DNA extraction, enzymatic fragmentation, end repair, dA-tailing, adaptor ligation, and library purification; (2) PCR-free library preparation in which only one nucleic acid purification step was needed[3]; (3) Miniseq rapid reagent kit was used (~25 million reads, 3 pmol/L of pooled library input) and 50 base pairs were sequenced instead of 100; (4) one plasma and one negative control (NC) were sequenced in each run, simplifying the pooling processes; and (5) the bioinformatics pipeline was optimized to reduce runtime. The theoretical TAT for the ultra-rapid mNGS was 7 h, representing one of the fastest mNGS tests performed on the Illumina platform [Figure 1B]. Microbial reads identified from a library were reported if: (1) the sequencing data passed quality control filters (library concentration >50 pmol/L, Q20 >85%, Q30 >80%); (2) the NC in the same sequencing run does not contain the species or reads per million (RPM) (sample)/RPM (NC) is ≥5.Figure 1: Experimental steps for ultra-rapid (A) and standard mNGS (B). Contingency tables for the ultra-rapid mNGS results compared to the initial culture, CMTs, and clinical adjudications (C). Sankey diagram showing the clinical actions in response to mNGS results and patient outcomes (D). CMTs: Conventional microbiological tests; mNGS: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing; PPA: Positive percentage agreement. PPV: Positive percentage; QC: Quality control; qPCR: Quantitative polymerase chain reactionTo explore whether the ultra-rapid mNGS using blood samples has real-world benefits, particularly in the ICU where patients with sepsis have exhibited an increase in mortality with a delay in effective antimicrobial initiation, 36 patients were enrolled from the ICU department at Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China according to the following criteria: (1) 18 years and older, suspected of sepsis (body temperature >38°C or <36°C with elevated serum C-reactive protein [CRP] or procalcitonin [PCT] levels); (2) sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score of +2 or higher; (3) expected survival time of ≥8 h; and (4) providing informed consent [Supplementary Figure 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C38]. Bilateral double bottles (aerobic and anaerobic) were collected for blood cultures. In some cases, specimens other than peripheral blood were sent for culture. Positive culture results were recorded within 3 days before or after mNGS for analytical performance evaluation. Additional microbiological tests were ordered by clinicians when deemed necessary, including the interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA), acid-fast stain, Gram stain, cytomegalovirus (CMV)/Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR), β-D-glucan test (G test), galactomannan test (GM test), cryptococcal capsular antigen (CrAg) test, and influenza A/B antigen test. Moreover, an in-house standard mNGS test that utilized Nextseq 550Dx (Illumina, California, San Diego, USA) with a 24-h TAT was performed in five cases (designated as routine mNGS in the manuscript). The details and results of these tests are presented in Supplementary Table 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C38. The clinical characteristics of the enrolled patients are summarized in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C38. All patients were administered empirical antibiotics prior to microbiological testing. Three different reference standards were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the ultra-rapid mNGS: (1) blood cultures resulted in a positive percentage agreement (PPA) and negative percentage agreement (NPA) of 72.73% and 12.00%, respectively; (2) a composite standard that included all conventional microbiological tests (CMTs) that generated a PPA and NPA of 44.83% and 0%, respectively; and (3) clinical adjudications based on the examination of medical records, imaging scans, microbiological findings, and responses to antibiotics (whether symptoms improved or exacerbated), which resulted in a PPA and NPA of 82.86% and 100.00%, respectively [Figure 1C]. Combined with laboratory and clinical data, the pathogen results were classified as clinically relevant (definite, probable, and possible) or clinically irrelevant (unlikely) according to the composite microbiological and clinical criteria outlined in the Karius test.[4] The microorganisms detected using different methods in each patient are shown in Supplementary Figure 2A, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C38. Compared with a routine mNGS, the ultra-rapid mNGS exhibited the same results in 3/5 cases and detected more bacteria in blood or sputum by culture in 2/5 cases. The time from sample collection to the results of all microbiological tests was recorded [Supplementary Figures 1 and 2B and Supplementary Table 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C38]. The average TAT for the ultra-rapid mNGS was 10.53 h (minimum 7.4 h), which was ostensibly faster than other microbiological methods, especially culture (average TAT 97.72 h). In a real clinical setting, qPCR is performed no quicker than a G-test (average TAT 26.66 h vs. 19.87 h). The delay in TAT is caused by experimental scheduling; upon sample arrival in a clinical laboratory, technicians need to wait for more samples to arrive to start batch processing, which is also the case for routine mNGS in which 10–20 samples are handled simultaneously (average TAT, 55.4 h). We also investigated whether faster mNGS reporting could lead to better antibiotic management. To this end, we analyzed all cases and categorized the clinicians' actions into (1) escalation of antibiotics, (2) de-escalation of antibiotics, (3) increase in the types of antibiotics, (4) reduction in the types of antibiotics (in cases of combination antibiotic therapy), (5) validation/confirmation of the empirical therapy and no change in antibiotics, and (6) irrelevant results and no change in antibiotics. As shown in Supplementary Figure 3A, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C38, the impact of mNGS was the validation of empirical therapy (n = 14), followed by additional antibiotics (n = 10), and fewer antibiotics (n = 9), antibiotic escalation (n = 2), and no change (n = 1). Next, we evaluated whether these clinical managements affected patient outcomes. Among the 36 mNGS reports, 30 (83%) were deemed clinically relevant based on a retrospective review of medical records. On day 30 following the mNGS test, 17 of the 30 patients survived and 13 (43%) died, compared to four and two (33%) of six patients whose mNGS results were considered irrelevant, respectively [Figure 1D and Supplementary Figure 3B, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C38]. However, 9/10 of the patients whose empirical antibiotics were validated by mNGS survived, which was higher than that of other types of clinical actions [Figure 1D]. Lastly, we analyzed the monetary expenditure associated with antibiotic use during the 24-h time window before and after ultra-rapid mNGS testing. A change in antibiotic costs occurred in 20 of the 36 patients. A total reduction of 10,909.52 Chinese Yuan (~1558.5 US dollars) was observed in 15 cases [Supplementary Figure 4, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C38]. In five cases, an increase in antibiotic charge was seen (1413.12 Chinese Yuan, ~201.9 US dollars), largely due to the use of additional antibiotics targeting pathogens identified by mNGS that were not covered by empirical treatment [Supplementary Table 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C38]. To date, the fastest TAT of mNGS was 6 h, which was performed on a Nanopore sequencer.[4] The cost of Nanopore-based mNGS was approximately $300/sample, as compared to $100/sample for the Illumina platform.[5] Moreover, the sequencing output of the Nanopore was lower than that of the Illumina with a higher error rate in base calling. Therefore, it would be cost-effective if an Illumina-based mNGS could be expedited to a level comparable to that of the Nanopore. Our work demonstrated that 7 h-mNGS was plausible using an Illumina sequencer. The clinical implementation of this workflow yielded an average sample-to-result time of 10.6 h, with a minimum of 7.4 h [Supplementary Table 3, https://links.lww.com/CM9/C38]. We employed three different standards to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultra-rapid mNGS [Figure 1C] and observed high PPA and NPA when using clinical adjudication as a reference, in which clinicians reached a definitive microbiological diagnosis based on a more systematic, thorough, albeit subjective review of clinical cases, which reflected a more accurate account of clinical situations. Our study has several limitations. First, no control group was included. Second, the sample size was small and biased towards elderly Han Chinese males, which prevented a more comprehensive evaluation of the technique in broader ethnic and age groups. Third, the study was conducted in the ICU of a single tertiary hospital; therefore, we could not fully assess the cost-benefit from a wider perspective, especially in low-resource settings. The ultra-rapid mNGS workflow can be easily implemented in a clinical setting with the help of a point-of-care automation device; thus, only one person is required to complete the procedure. Currently, the protocol can only handle one plasma sample using the MiniSeq sequencer owing to the limited data output. Other platforms with higher throughputs and faster sequencing time can accommodate more samples in a single run. Acknowledgement The Miniseq rapid reagent kits in this study were provided by Illumina (China) Scientific Co., Ltd. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82241048) and Beijing Major Epidemic Prevention and Control Key Specialty Project-Medical Laboratory Excellence Project (2022). Conflicts of interest Z. Du, J. Wang, and C. Liu are employees of Hangzhou Matridx Biotechnology Co., Ltd. The rest of the authors declare no conflict of interest.