RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Microbiological Culture Versus 16S/18S Ribosomal RNA PCR-Sanger Sequencing for Infectious Keratitis: A Three-Arm, Diagnostic Cross-Sectional Study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.10.24.23297453
DO 10.1101/2023.10.24.23297453
A1 Hammoudeh, Yasmeen
A1 Suresh, Lakshmi
A1 Ong, Zun Zheng
A1 Lister, Michelle M.
A1 Mohammed, Imran
A1 Thomas, D. John I.
A1 Cottell, Jennifer L.
A1 Holden, Jennifer M.
A1 Said, Dalia G.
A1 Dua, Harminder S.
A1 Jeng Ting, Darren Shu
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/12/2023.10.24.23297453.abstract
AB Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of microbiological culture and 16S/18S polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-Sanger sequencing for infectious keratitis (IK) and to analyse the effect of clinical disease severity on test performance and inter-test concordance.Design A three-arm, diagnostic cross-sectional study.Subjects We included patients who presented with presumed bacterial/fungal keratitis to the Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK, between June 2021 and September 2022.Methods/interventions All patients underwent simultaneous culture (either direct or indirect culture, or both) and 16S (pan-bacterial) / 18S (pan-fungal) ribosomal RNA (rRNA) PCR-Sanger sequencing. The bacterial/fungal genus and species identified on culture were confirmed using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Relevant clinical data were also collected to analyze for any potential clinico-microbiological correlation.Main outcome measures Diagnostic yield, test accuracy (including sensitivity and specificity), and inter-test agreement [including percent agreement and Cohen’s kappa (k)].Results A total of 81 patients (86 episodes of IK) were included in this study. All organisms identified were of bacterial origin. Diagnostic yields were similar among direct culture (52.3%), indirect culture (50.8%), and PCR (43.1%; p=0.13). The addition of PCR enabled a positive diagnostic yield in 3 (9.7%) direct culture-negative cases. Based on composite reference standard, direct culture had the highest sensitivity (87.5%; 95% CI, 72.4-95.3%), followed by indirect culture (85.4%; 95% CI, 71.6-93.5%) and PCR (73.5%; 95% CI, 59.0- 84.6%), with 100% specificity noted in all tests. Pairwise comparisons showed substantial agreement among the three tests (percent agreement=81.8-86.2%, Cohen’s k=0.67-0.72). Clinico-microbiological correlation demonstrated higher culture-PCR concordance in cases with greater infection severity.Conclusions This study highlights a similar diagnostic performance of direct culture, indirect culture and 16S rRNA PCR for bacterial keratitis, with substantial inter-test concordance. PCR serves as a useful diagnostic adjuvant to culture, particularly in culture- negative cases or those with lesser disease severity (where culture-PCR concordance is lower).Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementD.S.J.T. acknowledges support from the Medical Research Council / Fight for Sight Clinical Research Fellowship (MR/T001674/1).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:The study was approved by the clinical governance team at the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust as a clinical quality improvement project (Ref: 21-135C). Ethical approval was not required as this study was a clinical quality improvement project and all the tests performed in this study formed part of the standard care of the patient.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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article (and its supplementary materials).