Comparative performance of biofire pneumonia panel and standard culture-based methods for diagnosing pneumonia in critically ill patients: Impact on antibiotic stewardship

Barnali Kakati; Rajender Singh; Garima Mittal; Nupur Koul

doi:10.1016/j.ijmmb.2024.100564

Comparative performance of biofire pneumonia panel and standard culture-based methods for diagnosing pneumonia in critically ill patients: Impact on antibiotic stewardship

Indian J Med Microbiol. 2024 Apr 22:49:100564. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmmb.2024.100564. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Barnali Kakati¹, Rajender Singh², Garima Mittal³, Nupur Koul⁴

Affiliations

¹ Dept. of Microbiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Jollygrant, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. Electronic address: drbarnali05@rediffmail.com.
² Dept. of Microbiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Jollygrant, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. Electronic address: panwar.rajendra@gmail.com.
³ Dept. of Microbiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Jollygrant, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. Electronic address: garimamittal80@gmail.com.
⁴ Dept. of Microbiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Jollygrant, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. Electronic address: nupurba88@gmail.com.

PMID: 38649113
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmmb.2024.100564

Abstract

Introduction: Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Accurate identification of the pathogens causing LRTIs is crucial for ensuring of diagnostic and antibiotic stewardship. The Biofire Pneumonia Panel (BFPP) is a molecular diagnostic test that allows rapid detection of various bacterial and viral pathogens. In this study, we compared the performance of BFPP with standard culture methods for the detection of pathogens.

Materials and methods: Respiratory samples from 70 patient with suspected LRTIs were tested using both BFPP and standard culture methods. The distribution of isolated bacterial pathogens was analyzed, and the sensitivity and specificity of BFPP were calculated. Additionally, the performance of BFPP in detecting antimicrobial resistance genes was evaluated. The results were compared with those obtained from VITEK-2 antimicrobial susceptibility testing and culture-based methods.

Results: Among the suspected LRTI cases, BFPP identified a single pathogen in 32.8% of cases and multiple pathogens in 40% of cases. The standard culture method detected a single pathogen in 47.1% of cases. BFPP showed a sensitivity of 93.9% and a specificity of 45.9% for the total sample. The performance of BFPP in detecting antimicrobial resistance genes varied for different pathogens with overall sensitivity of 40.1% and specificity of 95.9%.

Conclusion: The Biofire Pneumonia Panel (BFPP) demonstrated high sensitivity for several bacterial pathogens, indicating its potential as a rapid diagnostic tool. However, its performance varied for different microorganisms, and it had limitations in detecting certain pathogens and antimicrobial resistance genes for which still required more further studies to explore different resistance gene mechanism that can be incorporated in this panel in future. The BFPP can complement standard culture methods as a rapid tool in the diagnosis of LRTIs.

Keywords: Biofire peumonia panel; Diagnostic stewardship; Pneumonia; Standard culture methods.