RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of a phenotypic, point-of-care solution for the detection and quantitative antibiotic susceptibility testing for lower Urinary Tract Infection
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.12.17.21267412
DO 10.1101/2021.12.17.21267412
A1 Turner, R.
A1 Kirkby, R.
A1 Meader, E.
A1 Wain, J.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/17/2021.12.17.21267412.abstract
AB Background Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common bacterial infections seen in primary care. The current standard for diagnosis is microbiological culture and antibiotic sensitivity testing of a mid-stream urine sample; however, this technique is costly, labour intensive and typically takes 2-3 days to yield a result.Study design and Objective This is a nonexperimental cross-sectional study. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of U-treat, a bioluminescent approach for rapid detection of bacteriuria and quantitative determination of the antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of uropathogens in clinical urine specimens - in under an hour.Method The evaluation was carried out in two UK-based Medical Centres using urine samples from patients presenting with symptoms of a UTI (n=249). The U-treat technology is a two test, two reagent process. Test 1 detects the presence of a bacterial UTI > 104 bacteria/mL (5-10 minutes). Test 2 produces quantitative antibiotic susceptibility (<50 minutes). Only urine samples testing positive for bacteria in Test 1 underwent Test 2 (n=82). U-treat results were compared retrospectively against reference laboratory culture and sensitivity findings. The influence of the technology on patient treatment outcomes was also analysed.Results Relative to reference laboratory analysis, Test 1 showed a sensitivity of 97.1% and specificity of 92.0%. (PPV: 89.3%; NPV: 97.8%). Test 2 produced an overall sensitivity (measurement of true susceptibility) of 94.1% (Predictive value: 96%) and an overall specificity (measurement of true resistance) of 90.5% (Predictive value 86.4%). Analysis of treatment data demonstrated that had the physicians had access to U-treat results at the point of care, the percentage of patients treated successfully would have risen from 68.3% to 92.7%.Conclusion U-treat represents the first technology, world-wide, capable of providing UTI treatment data to physicians at the point of care, in less than 60 minutes.Competing Interest StatementSome authors are directly associated with Test&Treat Ltd. Dr Ron Turner, a PhD student at UEA at the time of the evaluation, is the owner of the granted intellectual property (USA and UK) and founder of Test&Treat Ltd. Dr Rachel Kirkby was Bus Dev Director of Test&Treat when she contributed to the manuscript John Wain was, at the time of the study, a director of Test&Treat Ltd. Funding StatementThis research received no external funding, kits were provided free of charge by Test and Treat. JW was employed by the University of East Anglia/ Quadram Institute on grant BB/R012504/1, and EM by the NHS Trust. The study was part of the PhD programme of Dr. Ronald Turner - as a self funded student.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:An application was granted for Ethical Approval of a Health-Related Research Project by the University of East Anglia Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data collected for this study are available via the University of East Anglia Library. PhD thesis Ronald Turner.