RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 EVALUATION OF A METAGENOMIC NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING ASSAY WITH A NOVEL HOST DEPLETION METHOD FOR PATHOGEN IDENTIFICATION IN SEPTIC PATIENTS
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.03.28.23287867
DO 10.1101/2023.03.28.23287867
A1 Chen, Yen-Chia
A1 Liao, Po-Hsiang
A1 Chen, Yen-Wen
A1 Chang, Chia-Ming
A1 Chan, Maurice
A1 Chao, Deng Fong
A1 Lin, Yizhen
A1 Chang, Jiahao
A1 Hung, Hau
A1 Wu, Mengchu
A1 Yen, David Hung-Tsang
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/29/2023.03.28.23287867.abstract
AB Background The traditional diagnosis of sepsis has always been based on microbial blood culture (BC). However, BC suffers from (1) long culture cycle, leading to delay in results, and (2) low diagnostic yields. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has been proposed as an efficient and agnostic option that potentially overcomes these issues. In this study, a mNGS workflow utilizing a novel filter to specifically capture white blood cells and deplete host DNA background, was evaluated against BC results, as well as mNGS without host depletion, for pathogen identification.Materials and Methods Patients admitted to Taipei Veterans General Hospital (TVGH) with suspected sepsis were recruited to the study approved by the IRB. Blood sample was taken for BC (designated as BC1) before any antibiotic exposure. Upon patient enrolment, blood was taken again and divided in 3 portions with one used for the 2nd BC (BC2). The other two were used for mNGS with one processed with the filter and the other without filtering, to assess the effectiveness of host-depletion by the filter.Results A total of 50 patients were recruited among which 45 had results for all 4 tests. mNGS with filter had the highest positive rate of 74.4%, followed by mNGS without filter and BC1 (51.1% and 50.0% respectively), while the 2nd BC had the lowest positive rate of 22.0%. Further, mNGS was less sensitive to antibiotics exposure as compared to BC. The overall correlation between samples with vs without filtration (R2=0.96) confirmed that filtration does not affect microbial composition in a sample. For the BC positive samples, the effect of host depletion by filtration increased microbial target reads/million QC reads from 46 reads to 243 reads on average. Microbial reads enrichment by the filter appeared to be more effective for the samples with lower microbial concentration, thus increasing the test sensitivity over mNGS without filter. Using the 2nd BC results as reference, mNGS with filter and mNGS without filter exhibited sensitivities of 81.8% and 63.6%.Conclusion The mNGS with filter was able to recover most of the pathogens identified by clinical BC and achieved the highest diagnostic yield. With the clinical implementation to complete the workflow within 24 hours, it has the potential to overcome slow turnaround and low diagnostic yield issues of traditional BC.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor 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:The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (Ethics Committee) of TVGH (IRB number, 2021-03-013AC, approval date: March 22, 2021).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).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript