Review

*Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: drmartinloeches@gmail.com

Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization (MICRO), St James' Hospital, D08 NHY1, Dublin, Ireland

Hospital Clinic, Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Universidad de Barcelona, Ciberes, 08036 Barcelona, Spain

Search for more papers by this author

João Gonçalves Pereira

Hospital Vila Franca de Xira, Portugal

Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa

Search for more papers by this author

Tee Keat Teoh

Department of Clinical Microbiology, St James' Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

Search for more papers by this author

Gavin Barlow

York Biomedical Research Institute, University of York and Hull York Medical School, UK

Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Laurent Dortet

Department of Bacteriology-Hygiene, Bicêtre Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

INSERM UMR 1184, RESIST Unit, Paris-Saclay University, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

French National Reference Center for Antimicrobial Resistance, France

Search for more papers by this author

Enitan D Carrol

University of Liverpool, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, Liverpool, UK

Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases, Liverpool, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Ulrike Olgemöller

Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

Sara E Boyd

St George's University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Antimicrobial Pharmacodynamics and Therapeutics, Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

National Institute for Health Research, Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Julien Textoris

Medical Affairs, bioMérieux SA, Marcy l'Etoile, France

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:5 Jan 2024https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb-2023-0128

View article

Abstract

Rapidly detecting and identifying pathogens is crucial for appropriate antimicrobial therapy in patients with sepsis. Conventional diagnostic methods have been a great asset to medicine, though they are time consuming and labor intensive. This work will enable healthcare professionals to understand the bacterial community better and enhance their diagnostic capacity by using novel molecular methods that make obtaining quicker, more precise results possible. The authors discuss and critically assess the merits and drawbacks of molecular testing and the added value of these tests, including the shift turnaround time, the implication for clinicians' decisions, gaps in knowledge, future research directions and novel insights or innovations. The field of antimicrobial molecular testing has seen several novel insights and innovations to improve the diagnosis and management of infectious diseases.

Plain language summary

Sepsis is a life-threatening reaction to an infection. This infection is normally caused by a bacteria. Identifying the bacteria that has caused the infection is very important to choosing the best treatment. This is usually done using molecular testing. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of molecular testing, which tests are available and the value of these tests in clinical practice, the implication of molecular tests for clinicians' decisions and the gaps in our knowledge. It also discusses future innovations in molecular testing.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Nunnally ME, Ferrer R, Martin GS et al. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis. Intensive Care Med. Exp. 9(1), 34 (2021). •• Excellent paper with priorities for sepsis.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. De Waele JJ, Girardis M, Martin-Loeches I. Source control in the management of sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 48(12), 1799–1802 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L et al. Incidence and trends of sepsis in US hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009–2014. JAMA 318(13), 1241–1249 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Rhee C, Jones TM, Hamad Y et al. Prevalence, underlying causes, and preventability of sepsis-associated mortality in US acute care hospitals. JAMA Netw. Open 2(2), e187571–e187571 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Fleischmann-Struzek C, Goldfarb DM, Schlattmann P, Schlapbach LJ, Reinhart K, Kissoon N. The global burden of paediatric and neonatal sepsis: a systematic review. Lancet Respir. Med. 6(3), 223–230 (2018). •• Landmark paper that systematically reviews sepsis worldwide.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Kerrigan SW, Martin-Loeches I. Public awareness of sepsis is still poor: we need to do more. Intensive Care Med. 44(10), 1771–1773 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study. Lancet 395(10219), 200–211 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Garduno A, Martinez GS, Ostadgavahi AT, Kelvin D, Cusack R, Martin-Loeches I. Parallel dysregulated immune response in severe forms of COVID-19 and bacterial sepsis via single-cell transcriptome sequencing. Biomedicines 11(3), 778 (2023).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Martin-Loeches I, Levy MM, Artigas A. Management of severe sepsis: advances, challenges, and current status. Drug Des. Devel. Ther. 9, 2079–2088 (2015). • Review paper about challenges in current sepsis management.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Rubio I, Osuchowski MF, Shankar-Hari M et al. Current gaps in sepsis immunology: new opportunities for translational research. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19(12), e422–e436 (2019). •• Excellent review and position paper on current concepts of immunoparalysis.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 315(8), 801–810 (2016). •• Key paper with new sepsis ongoing definition.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Vallés J, Palomar M, Alvárez-Lerma F et al. Evolution over a 15-year period of clinical characteristics and outcomes of critically ill patients with community-acquired bacteremia. Crit. Care Med. 41(1), 76–83 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Zilahi G, Artigas A, Martin-Loeches I. What's new in multidrug-resistant pathogens in the ICU? Ann. Intensive Care 6(1), 96 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Perez KK, Olsen RJ, Musick WL et al. Integrating rapid pathogen identification and antimicrobial stewardship significantly decreases hospital costs. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 137(9), 1247–1254 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Martin-Loeches I, Timsit JF, Leone M et al. Clinical controversies in abdominal sepsis. Insights for critical care settings. J. Crit. Care 53, 53–58 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Montravers P, Martin-Loeches I. Source control and intra-abdominal infections: still many questions and only limited answers. J. Crit. Care 52, 265–266 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Tjandra KC, Ram-Mohan N, Abe R et al. Diagnosis of bloodstream infections: an evolution of technologies towards accurate and rapid identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing. Antibiotics (Basel) 11(4), 511 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Phua J, Ngerng WJ, See KC et al. Characteristics and outcomes of culture-negative versus culture-positive severe sepsis. Crit. Care 17(5), R202 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Nannan Panday RS, Lammers EMJ, Alam N, Nanayakkara PWB. An overview of positive cultures and clinical outcomes in septic patients: a sub-analysis of the Prehospital Antibiotics Against Sepsis (PHANTASi) trial. Crit. Care 23(1), 182 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. El-Bouri K, Johnston S, Rees E et al. Comparison of bacterial identification by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry and conventional diagnostic microbiology methods: agreement, speed and cost implications. Br. J. Biomed. Sci. 69(2), 47–55 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Elbehiry A, Marzouk E, Abalkhail A et al. The development of technology to prevent, diagnose, and manage antimicrobial resistance in healthcare-associated infections. Vaccines (Basel) 10(12), 2100 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Angeletti S. Matrix-assisted laser desorption time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) in clinical microbiology. J. Microbiol. Methods 138, 20–29 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Sinha M, Jupe J, Mack H, Coleman TP, Lawrence SM, Fraley SI. Emerging technologies for molecular diagnosis of sepsis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 31(2), e00089-17 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Weis C, Cuénod A, Rieck B et al. Direct antimicrobial resistance prediction from clinical MALDI-TOF mass spectra using machine learning. Nat. Med. 28(1), 164–174 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Legba BB, Dougnon V, Koudokpon H et al. Assessment of blood cultures and antibiotic susceptibility testing for bacterial sepsis diagnosis and utilization of results by clinicians in Benin: a qualitative study. Front. Public Health 10, 1088590 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Reuter CH, Palac HL, Kociolek LK et al. Ideal and actual impact of rapid diagnostic testing and antibiotic stewardship on antibiotic prescribing and clinical outcomes in children with positive blood cultures. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 38(2), 131–137 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. Ohnuma T, Chihara S, Costin B et al. Association of appropriate empirical antimicrobial therapy with in-hospital mortality in patients with bloodstream infections in the US. JAMA Netw. Open 6(1), e2249353 (2023).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Usman OA, Usman AA, Ward MA. Comparison of SIRS, qSOFA, and NEWS for the early identification of sepsis in the emergency department. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 37(8), 1490–1497 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Mizrahi A, Jaureguy F, Petit H et al. Early empirical antibiotic therapy modification in sepsis using beta-lacta test directly on blood cultures. Int. J. Transl. Med. 2(3), 448–455 (2022).
Google Scholar
30. Klein Klouwenberg PMC, Cremer OL, van Vught LA et al. Likelihood of infection in patients with presumed sepsis at the time of intensive care unit admission: a cohort study. Crit. Care 19(1), 319 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Arulkumaran N, Routledge M, Schlebusch S, Lipman J, Conway Morris A. Antimicrobial-associated harm in critical care: a narrative review. Intensive Care Med. 46(2), 225–235 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 47(11), 1181–1247 (2021). •• Current guidelines for sepsis management under two major scientific societies, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Cassini A, Hogberg LD, Plachouras D et al. Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the EU and the European Economic Area in 2015: a population-level modelling analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19(1), 56–66 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Rhee C, Yu T, Wang R et al. Association between implementation of the severe sepsis and septic shock early management bundle performance measure and outcomes in patients with suspected sepsis in US hospitals. JAMA Netw. Open 4(12), e2138596–e2138596 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Liang SY, Kumar A. Empiric antimicrobial therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: optimizing pathogen clearance. Curr. Infect. Dis. Rep. 17(7), 493 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Zaragoza R, Vidal-Cortés P, Aguilar G et al. Update of the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU. Crit. Care 24(1), 383 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Briggs N, Campbell S, Gupta S. Advances in rapid diagnostics for bloodstream infections. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 99(1), 115219 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Castro Méndez C, Carmen Serrano M, Valverde A, Pemán J, Almeida C, Martín-Mazuelos E. Comparison of E-Test^®, disk diffusion and a modified CLSI broth microdilution (M 38-A) method for in vitro testing of itraconazole, fluconazole and voriconazole against dermatophytes. Med. Mycol. 46(2), 119–123 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Smith KP, Kirby JE. Rapid susceptibility testing methods. Clin. Lab. Med. 39(3), 333–344 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Katsanis SH, Katsanis N. Molecular genetic testing and the future of clinical genomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14(6), 415–426 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41. Vasala A, Hytönen VP, Laitinen OH. Modern tools for rapid diagnostics of antimicrobial resistance. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.00308 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
42. Banerjee R, Humphries R. Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for blood cultures and their clinical impact. Front. Med. (Lausanne) 8, 635831 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Khan ZA, Siddiqui MF, Park S. Current and emerging methods of antibiotic susceptibility testing. Diagnostics (Basel) 9(2), 49 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Dadgostar P. Antimicrobial resistance: implications and costs. Infect. Drug Resist. 12, 3903–3910 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Rayman G, Akpan A, Cowie M et al. Managing patients with comorbidities: future models of care. Future Healthc. J. 9(2), 101–105 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
46. Sakagianni A, Koufopoulou C, Feretzakis G et al. Using machine learning to predict antimicrobial resistance–a literature review. Antibiotics 12(3), 452 (2023).
CASGoogle Scholar
47. Avershina E, Khezri A, Ahmad R. Clinical diagnostics of bacterial infections and their resistance to antibiotics–current state and whole genome sequencing implementation perspectives. Antibiotics 12(4), 781 (2023).
CASGoogle Scholar
48. Seymour CW, Kahn JM, Martin-Gill C et al. Delays from first medical contact to antibiotic administration for sepsis. Crit. Care Med. 45(5), 759–765 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
49. Martin-Loeches I, Garduno A, Povoa P, Nseir S. Choosing antibiotic therapy for severe community-acquired pneumonia. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis 35(2), 133–139 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. Gutiérrez-Pizarraya A, Leone M, Garnacho-Montero J, Martin C, Martin-Loeches I. Collaborative approach of individual participant data of prospective studies of de-escalation in non-immunosuppressed critically ill patients with sepsis. Expert Rev. Clin. Pharmacol. 10(4), 457–465 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Rhee C, Kadri SS, Dekker JP et al. Prevalence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in culture-proven sepsis and outcomes associated with inadequate and broad-spectrum empiric antibiotic use. JAMA Netw. Open 3(4), e202899–e202899 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
52. Bouza E, Sousa D, Muñoz P, Rodríguez-Créixems M, Fron C, Lechuz JG. Bloodstream infections: a trial of the impact of different methods of reporting positive blood culture results. Clin. Infect. Dis. 39(8), 1161–1169 (2004).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
53. Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 18(3), 268–281 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54. Martin-Loeches I, Torres A, Rinaudo M et al. Resistance patterns and outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired pneumonia. Validation of European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) classification of multidrug resistant organisms. J. Infect. 70(3), 213–222 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
55. Majumder MAA, Rahman S, Cohall D et al. Antimicrobial stewardship: fighting antimicrobial resistance and protecting global public health. Infect. Drug Resist. 13, 4713–4738 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
56. Russell L, Pène F, Martin-Loeches I. Multidrug-resistant bacteria in the grey shades of immunosuppression. Intensive Care Med. 49(2), 216–218 (2023).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
57. Nassar H, Abu-Farha R, Barakat M, Alefishat E. Antimicrobial stewardship from health professionals' perspective: awareness, barriers, and level of implementation of the program. Antibiotics 11(1), 99 (2022).
Google Scholar
58. Llor C, Bjerrum L. Antimicrobial resistance: risk associated with antibiotic overuse and initiatives to reduce the problem. Ther. Adv. Drug Saf. 5(6), 229–241 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
59. Chung GW, Wu JE, Yeo CL, Chan D, Hsu LY. Antimicrobial stewardship: a review of prospective audit and feedback systems and an objective evaluation of outcomes. Virulence 4(2), 151–157 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
60. Timbrook TT, Morton JB, McConeghy KW, Caffrey AR, Mylonakis E, LaPlante KL. The effect of molecular rapid diagnostic testing on clinical outcomes in bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 64(1), 15–23 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
61. Estimates of the global, regional, and national morbidity, mortality, and aetiologies of lower respiratory tract infections in 195 countries: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet Infect. Dis. 17(11), 1133–1161 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
62. Abdul-Aziz MH, Alffenaar JC, Bassetti M et al. Antimicrobial therapeutic drug monitoring in critically ill adult patients: a position paper. Intensive Care Med. 46(6), 1127–1153 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
63. Ulldemolins M, Vaquer S, Llauradó-Serra M et al. Beta-lactam dosing in critically ill patients with septic shock and continuous renal replacement therapy. Crit. Care 18(3), 227 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
64. Pandolfi F, Brun-Buisson C, Guillemot D, Watier L. One-year hospital readmission for recurrent sepsis: associated risk factors and impact on 1-year mortality–a French nationwide study. Crit. Care 26(1), 371 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
65. Peri AM, Bauer MJ, Bergh H, Butkiewicz D, Paterson DL, Harris PNA. Performance of the BioFire Blood Culture Identification 2 panel for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections. Heliyon 8(7), e09983 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
66. Martin-Loeches I. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in real-time: a need for the present future. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 20(10), 1245–1247 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 19, No. 1

Metrics

Downloaded 101 times

History

Received 30 May 2023

Accepted 1 September 2023

Published online 5 January 2024

Published in print January 2024

Information

Keywords

Financial disclosure

The authors have no financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Competing interests disclosure

The authors of this paper have received grants, consulting fees or honoraria from or served on the scientific advisory boards of Grifols, Pfizer, Mundipharma, Gilead, Biomerieux, MSD, AOP pharmaceuticals, Abionic, Advanz Pharma, UCB Pharma, Menarini, Shionogi, Biofire, Danaher Diagnostics, Vital Aire, Orion Pharma, Berlin Chemie, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, CSL Behring, Sumitovant, Shionogi and the UK Clinical Pharmacy Association. G Barlow is co-Chief Investigator on two UK NIHR-funded clinical trials (BioDriveAFS and MANTRA). J Textoris has also served as a speaker in congress for MSD, Menarini, Advanz, Shionogi and Thermo Fisher. SE Boyd was funded by an RCUK Innovation Fellowship through the NorthWest MRC Scheme in Clinical Pharmacology and has received research support from Roche Pharma. J Textoris is an employee of Biomerieux. The authors have no other competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization or entity with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Writing disclosure

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

Molecular antimicrobial susceptibility testing in sepsis

Abstract

Plain language summary

References