Evaluation of the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia plus Panel for Detecting Bacterial Etiological Agents of Lower Respiratory Tract Infections in an Oncologic Hospital. Comparison with Conventional Culture Method

Abstract

Conventional methods used to determine pneumonia pathogens are characterized by low sensitivity and long turnaround times. Introducing new tests with better parameters in patients at higher risk of infections is highly anticipated. The results of the conventional quantitative culture method (CM) in determining the bacterial etiology of pneumonia were compared with the results of the Pneumonia plus Panel test (PNP; BioFire® Diagnostics, USA) in 79 samples of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). Materials were collected from 79 patients with suspected pneumonia treated in an oncologic hospital due to solid tumors. Only 16/79 BAL samples (20.3%) were true positive (TP) for bacterial etiology in CM vs. 27/79 samples (34.2%) true positive in the PNP test. The total agreement between methods of interpreting the result (positive or negative) was 84.8%. The most prevalent pathogens in both methods were Staphylococcus aureus, followed by Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Haemophilus influenzae. The PNP test identified several respiratory pathogens that were not grown in culture. The semiquantitative value reported by the PNP test was higher than that reported by culture. The PNP test vs. combined test (PNP test and CM methods) demonstrated positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) values of 100.0% and 98.1%, and the sensitivity and specificity were 96.4% and 100.0%. The PNP test is a good tool for determining the etiology of bacterial pneumonia and may support the care of an oncologic patient. However, further large-sample studies are needed to research in strictly defined groups of oncologic patients.

Keywords

• biofire®
• filmarray®
• pneumonia plus panel
• pneumonia
• methods comparison