Molecular Diagnostic Methods Versus Conventional Urine Culture for Diagnosis and Treatment of Urinary Tract Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Alec Szlachta-McGinn; K Marie Douglass; Un Young Rebecca Chung; Nicholas James Jackson; J Curtis Nickel; A Lenore Ackerman

doi:10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.009

Molecular Diagnostic Methods Versus Conventional Urine Culture for Diagnosis and Treatment of Urinary Tract Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022 Sep 2:44:113-124. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.009. eCollection 2022 Oct.

Authors

Alec Szlachta-McGinn¹, K Marie Douglass¹, Un Young Rebecca Chung², Nicholas James Jackson², J Curtis Nickel³, A Lenore Ackerman^{1

4}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
² Department of Medicine Statistics Core, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
³ Department of Urology, Queens University, Kingston, Canada.
⁴ Department of Urology, Division of Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Abstract

Context: Urine culture has low sensitivity in the diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are culture-independent molecular methods available for commercial use to diagnose UTI.

Objective: To systematically evaluate the evidence comparing the diagnostic and therapeutic values of molecular diagnostic methods to urine culture in the management of UTI in adults.

Evidence acquisition: We performed a critical review of Embase, Ovid, and PubMed in February 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses statement. Studies involving pregnant women, ureteral stones, ureteral stents, and percutaneous nephrostomy tubes were excluded. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Fifteen publications were selected for inclusion.

Evidence synthesis: Included reports compared NGS (nine studies) and PCR (six studies) to urine culture. A meta-analysis of seven similar studies utilizing NGS demonstrates that NGS is more sensitive in the identification of urinary bacteria and detects greater species diversity per urine sample than culture. PCR protocols designed to detect a diverse range of microbes had increased sensitivity and species diversity compared with culture. Phenotypic and genotypic resistomes are concordant in approximately 85% of cases. There is insufficient evidence to compare patient symptomatic responses to antibiotic therapy guided by molecular testing versus standard susceptibility testing.

Conclusions: Moderately strong evidence exists that molecular diagnostics demonstrate increased sensitivity in detecting urinary bacteria at the expense of poor specificity in controls. Additional data comparing patient symptoms and cure rates following antibiotic selection directed by molecular methods compared with culture are needed to elucidate their place in UTI care.

Patient summary: We compare culture-independent molecular methods with urine culture in the management of urinary tract infection. We found good evidence that molecular methods detect more bacteria than culture; however, the clinical implications to support their routine use are unclear.

Keywords: Next-generation sequencing; Polymerase chain reaction; Urinary tract infection; Urine culture.

Publication types

Review