Comparison Shows that Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Identifies Infection-associated Urinary Biomarker-positive Urinary Tract Infections That Are Missed by Standard Urine Culture

Emery Haley; Natalie Luke; Mohit Mathur; Richard A Festa; Jimin Wang; Yan Jiang; Lori Anderson; David Baunoch

doi:10.1016/j.euros.2023.10.008

Comparison Shows that Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Identifies Infection-associated Urinary Biomarker-positive Urinary Tract Infections That Are Missed by Standard Urine Culture

Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023 Nov 9:58:73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.10.008. eCollection 2023 Dec.

Authors

Emery Haley¹, Natalie Luke¹, Mohit Mathur², Richard A Festa³, Jimin Wang⁴, Yan Jiang⁴, Lori Anderson⁵, David Baunoch³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Clinical Research, Pathnostics, Irvine, CA, USA.
² Department of Medical Affairs, Pathnostics, Irvine, CA, USA.
³ Department of Research and Development, Pathnostics, Irvine, CA, USA.
⁴ Department of Statistical Analysis, Stat4Ward, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
⁵ L. Anderson Diagnostic Market Access Consulting, San Diego, CA, USA.

Abstract

Background: Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (M-PCR) has increased sensitivity for microbial detection compared with standard urine culture (SUC) in cases diagnosed as urinary tract infections (UTIs), leading to questions whether detected microbes are likely causative of UTIs or are incidental findings.

Objective: To compare infection-associated biomarker levels against M-PCR and SUC results in symptomatic cases with a presumptive diagnosis of a UTI by a urologist.

Design setting and participants: Participants were ≥60 yr old and presented to urology clinics between January and April 2023 with symptoms of UTIs (n = 583). Urine microbial detection was by M-PCR and SUC. Three infection-associated biomarkers (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, interleukin-8, and interleukin-1β) were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Symptomatic cases with elevated biomarkers, detection of uropathogens, and a specialist clinical diagnosis of a UTI were considered definitive UTI cases.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Distributions were compared using two-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test, with two-tailed p values of <0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results and limitations: In cases with M-PCR-positive/SUC-negative results (n = 80), all median biomarker levels were significantly higher (p < 0.0001) than in cases with M-PCR-negative/SUC-negative results (n = 107). Two or more biomarkers were positive in 76% of M-PCR-positive/SUC-negative specimens. Limitation was an inability to examine associations between each individual organism and inflammation.

Conclusions: A significant number of M-PCR-positive/SUC-negative cases had elevated levels of infection-related urinary biomarkers, especially when infection was caused by organisms other than Escherichia coli. This is a strong indication that microbes detected by M-PCR, which would be missed by SUC, are associated with UTIs.

Patient summary: We compared infection-associated biomarkers in patients diagnosed with urinary tract infections (UTIs) against the detection of microorganisms by standard urine culture (SUC) and multiplex polymerase chain reaction (M-PCR). We found that most patients with microorganisms detected by M-PCR, which were missed by SUC, had elevated markers of inflammation, indicating that these organisms were likely causative of UTIs.

Keywords: Diagnostic testing; False negative urine culture; Multiplex polymerase chain reaction; Standard urine culture; Urinary tract infection; Urine biomarkers.