BioFire Diagnostics (United States)

Assess the outcomes of various therapeutic regimens to treat initial endoscopic postoperative recurrence despite biologic prophylaxis. Postoperative biologic prophylaxis reduces postoperative Crohn's disease (CD) recurrence rates. Optimal treatment strategies for endoscopic recurrence have not been elucidated. Retrospective cohort study of adult CD patients who underwent ileocolonic resection between 2009 and 2020. Patients with endoscopic postoperative recurrence despite prophylactic biologic therapy and ≥1 subsequent colonoscopy were included. Treatment changes after recurrence were categorized as (1) therapy optimization or continuation or (2) new biologic class. The primary outcome was composite endoscopic or surgical recurrence at the time of or prior to subsequent follow-up colonoscopy. Eighty-one CD patients with endoscopic recurrence (54.3% i2b, 22.2% i3, and 23.5% i4) despite biologic prophylaxis (86.4% anti-tumor necrosis factor, 8.6% vedolizumab, 4.9% ustekinumab) were included. Most patients received therapy optimization or continuation (76.3%, n=61) following recurrence compared to being started on a new biologic class. Sixty patients (N=48 therapy optimization; N=12 new biologic class) experienced composite recurrence (78.3% endoscopic, 21.7% surgical). On multivariable modeling, initiation of a new biologic class was associated with reduced risk for composite recurrence compared to therapy optimization or continuation (aOR: 0.26; P =0.04). Additionally, initiation of a new biologic class was associated with endoscopic improvement when adjusting for endoscopic severity at the time of recurrence (aOR: 3.4; P =0.05). On sensitivity analysis, a new biologic class was associated or trended with improved rates of endoscopic healing and composite recurrence when directly compared to therapy optimization or continuation. In patients with CD who experience endoscopic recurrence despite biologic prophylaxis, changing the mechanism of biologic action may promote endoscopic improvement.

Acute gastrointestinal infection (AGI) represents a significant public health concern. To control and treat AGI, it is critical to quickly and accurately identify its causes. The use of novel multiplex molecular assays for pathogen detection and identification provides a unique opportunity to improve pathogen detection, and better understand risk factors and burden associated with AGI in the community. In this study, de-identified results from BioFire® FilmArray® Gastrointestinal (GI) Panel were obtained from January 01, 2016 to October 31, 2018 through BioFire® Syndromic Trends (Trend), a cloud database. Data was analyzed to describe the occurrence of pathogens causing AGI across United States sites and the relative rankings of pathogens monitored by FoodNet, a CDC surveillance system were compared. During the period of the study, the number of tests performed increased 10-fold and overall, 42.6% were positive for one or more pathogens. Seventy percent of the detections were bacteria, 25% viruses, and 4% parasites. Clostridium difficile, enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) and norovirus were the most frequently detected pathogens. Seasonality was observed for several pathogens including astrovirus, rotavirus, and norovirus, EPEC, and Campylobacter. The co-detection rate was 10.2%. Enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), Plesiomonas shigelloides, enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC), and Entamoeba histolytica were detected with another pathogen over 60% of the time, while less than 30% of C. difficile and Cyclospora cayetanensis were detected with another pathogen. Positive correlations among co-detections were found between Shigella/Enteroinvasive E. coli with E. histolytica, and ETEC with EAEC. Overall, the relative ranking of detections for the eight GI pathogens monitored by FoodNet and BioFire Trend were similar for five of them. AGI data from BioFire Trend is available in near real-time and represents a rich data source for the study of disease burden and GI pathogen circulation in the community, especially for those pathogens not often targeted by surveillance.

Host gene expression signatures discriminate bacterial and viral infection but have not been translated to a clinical test platform. This study enrolled an independent cohort of patients to describe and validate a first-in-class host response bacterial/viral test. Subjects were recruited from 2006 to 2016. Enrollment blood samples were collected in an RNA preservative and banked for later testing. The reference standard was an expert panel clinical adjudication, which was blinded to gene expression and procalcitonin results. Four U.S. emergency departments. Six-hundred twenty-three subjects with acute respiratory illness or suspected sepsis. Forty-five-transcript signature measured on the BioFire FilmArray System (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT) in ~45 minutes. Host response bacterial/viral test performance characteristics were evaluated in 623 participants (mean age 46 yr; 45% male) with bacterial infection, viral infection, coinfection, or noninfectious illness. Performance of the host response bacterial/viral test was compared with procalcitonin. The test provided independent probabilities of bacterial and viral infection in ~45 minutes. In the 213-subject training cohort, the host response bacterial/viral test had an area under the curve for bacterial infection of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95) for viral infection. Independent validation in 209 subjects revealed similar performance with an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90) for bacterial infection and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94) for viral infection. The test had 80.1% (95% CI, 73.7-85.4%) average weighted accuracy for bacterial infection and 86.8% (95% CI, 81.8-90.8%) for viral infection in this validation cohort. This was significantly better than 68.7% (95% CI, 62.4-75.4%) observed for procalcitonin (p < 0.001). An additional cohort of 201 subjects with indeterminate phenotypes (coinfection or microbiology-negative infections) revealed similar performance. The host response bacterial/viral measured using the BioFire System rapidly and accurately discriminated bacterial and viral infection better than procalcitonin, which can help support more appropriate antibiotic use.

Abstract Background. Rapid and sensitive diagnostics are critical tools for clinical case management and public health control efforts. Both capillary and venous blood are currently used for malaria detection and while diagnostic technologies may not be equally sensitive with both materials, the published data on this subject are scarce and not conclusive.Methods. Paired clinical samples of venous and capillary blood from 141 febrile individuals in Bo, Sierra Leone, were obtained between January and May 2019 and tested for the presence of Plasmodium parasites using two multiplexed PCR assays: the FilmArray-based Global Fever Panel (GFP) and the TaqMan-based Malaria Multiplex Sample Ready (MMSR) assay.Results. We observed no significant differences in Plasmodium parasite detection between capillary and venous blood for both assays. The GFP assay was more sensitive than MMSR for all markers that could be compared (Plasmodium spp. and P. falciparum) in both venous and capillary blood.Conclusions. No difference was found in malaria detection between venous and capillary blood using two different PCR-based detection assays. This data gives support for use of capillary blood, a material which can be obtained easier by less invasive methods, for PCR-based malaria diagnostics, independent of the platform.

The lack of active surveillance for enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) in the US has hampered the ability to assess the relationship with predominantly biennial epidemics of acute flaccid myelitis (AFM), a rare but serious neurological condition. Using novel surveillance data from the BioFire® Syndromic Trends (Trend) epidemiology network, we characterize the epidemiological dynamics of EV-D68 and demonstrate strong spatiotemporal association with AFM. Although the recent dominant biennial cycles of EV-D68 dynamics may not be stable, we show that a major EV-D68 epidemic, and hence an AFM outbreak, would still be possible in 2020 under normal epidemiological conditions. Significant social distancing due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic could reduce the size of an EV-D68 epidemic in 2020, illustrating the potential broader epidemiological impact of the pandemic.

The essential role of boronic esters in controlling both the direction and selectivity of chemical reactions as well as their significant function in catalytic activity have been demonstrated for industrially important processes. The specific interaction analyses of the monosaccharide GlcNH2 with boric acid are of interest since monosaccharides serve as model systems for the more sophisticated carbohydrate molecules. The interaction of GlcNH2 with boric acid was systematically investigated by numerous NMR techniques. A 1 : 1 chelate boron complex coordinated at the cis-1,2 position of GlcNH2 was identified as the major species in DMSO-d6 solution via1H and 13C INEPT DOSY NMR spectroscopy. This specific boron nitrogen coordination mechanism was further supported by the 1H-15N HSQC spectra. Variations in the spin-lattice relaxation times (T1) of the 13C1 nucleus also provided quantitative data regarding this non-covalent interactions. This is an application of 1H, 13C INEPT DOSY, 1H-15N HSQC, and relaxation methods to study such aggregations in solutions. These methods have potential applications in the characterization of reactive intermediates in biomass conversions.

BackgroundThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for multiple PCR-based tests to aid in the diagnosis and containment of COVID-19. A vast majority of these tests detect only SARS-CoV-2 which causes symptoms similar to those caused by other respiratory pathogens. Hence, other etiologies or co-infections requiring a different therapy may be missed. The prototype BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1) continues the syndromic approach of the FDA-cleared BioFire® Respiratory Panel 2 (RP2), to provide the ability to simultaneously detect 22 common respiratory pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens. The goal of this study was to rapidly develop a RP2.1 prototype that contains high-performing SARS-CoV-2 assays and maintains the performance of assays retained from RP2.MethodsTwelve assays designed for four SARS-CoV-2 genes were tested for compatibility with the RP2 assays and conditions. All retained RP2 assays were evaluated to verify established RP2 performance. The sensitivity of novel SARS-CoV-2 assays was estimated with nucleic acids at BioFire and contrived live virus NPS samples at MRIGlobal. Primer homology of SARS-CoV-2 assays to > 15,000 SARS-CoV-2 genomes from accessible databases was assessed for in silico inclusivityResultsA prototype multiplexed PCR panel containing assays for 22 pathogens was developed in a 5-week period. Of the 12 SARS-CoV-2 assays, 7 were compatible with the RP2 conditions; 2 were selected for the prototype. No false positive results due to cross-reactivity with unintended analytes or non-specific amplification in negative samples were observed for any assays. All retained RP2 assays were detected at or near their established LoD. The SARS-CoV-2 LoD was estimated at 103 -102 genomes/mL with both nucleic acid and live virus spiked into NPS. Together, the assays are 100% inclusive for all 15,370 complete SARS-CoV-2 genomes assessed in silico for reactivity.ConclusionThe results of this study indicate a strong potential for RP2.1 to serve as a sensitive comprehensive syndromic option to aid in the diagnosis of COVID-19 as well as respiratory syndromes caused by other pathogens, including co-infections.This study was performed with a test not cleared for diagnostic use.DisclosuresAll Authors: No reported disclosures

BackgroundStudies show a rising annual incidence of severe sepsis, with bloodstream infections continuing to impact children. Rapid identification of causative agents and timely administration of targeted therapy can positively impact patient outcomes and improve antibiotic stewardship.The BioFire® Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) Panel (BioFire Diagnostics, LLC), an updated version of the FDA-cleared BioFire® FilmArray® Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel, designed for use on positive blood cultures (PBCs), assesses 43 analytes, including 17 novel analytes (8 bacterial, 2 fungal, and 7 antimicrobial resistance genes), with a similar turnaround time.MethodsDe-identified residual PBCs for which clinician-ordered testing per standard of care (SoC) had been performed were enrolled and tested with an Investigation-Use-Only version of the BCID2 Panel. Only one positive bottle per patient was enrolled. Results of BCID2 and BCID were compared.Results116 PBCs (48 aerobic and 68 anaerobic) were evaluated using the BioFire BCID2 Panel and results were compared to the BioFire BCID Panel. Of the 116 cases, 103 were positive on both the BioFire BCID2 Panel and the BioFire BCID Panel. Ten cases were negative on both tests. While the two panels showed 97% agreement, three cases were discrepant. Using culture (SoC) as the tiebreaker, two cases were false positive and one case was false negative on the BioFire BCID Panel. In all three cases, results from culture and the BioFire BCID2 Panel were in agreement. As expected, no organisms were detected on the BioFire BCID2 Panel in PBCs from 10% (12/116) of PBC bottles where culture identified only organisms that are not part of the panel menu. With the BioFire BCID2 Panel’s expanded platform, two cases identified as Enterobacteriaceae on the BioFire BCID Panel were identified to the genus level on the BioFire BCID2 Panel; 31 cases detected to the genus level on the BioFire BCID Panel were identified to the species level on the BioFire BCID2 Panel.ConclusionOverall, the BioFire BCID2 Panel performed well against the BioFire BCID Panel for identification of bloodstream pathogens and provided additional discrimination of some pathogens to the genus or species level.Data presented are from assays that have not been cleared or approved for diagnostic use.DisclosuresAll Authors: No reported disclosures

Lower respiratory tract infections, including hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia, are common in hospitalized patient populations. Standard methods frequently fail to identify the infectious etiology due to the polymicrobial nature of respiratory specimens and the necessity of ordering specific tests to identify viral agents. The potential severity of these infections combined with a failure to clearly identify the causative pathogen results in administration of empirical antibiotic agents based on clinical presentation and other risk factors. We examined the impact of the multiplexed, semiquantitative BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia panel (PN panel) test on laboratory reporting for 259 adult inpatients submitting bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens for laboratory analysis. The PN panel demonstrated a combined 96.2% positive percent agreement (PPA) and 98.1% negative percent agreement (NPA) for the qualitative identification of 15 bacterial targets compared to routine bacterial culture. Semiquantitative values reported by the PN panel were frequently higher than values reported by culture, resulting in semiquantitative agreement (within the same log10 value) of 43.6% between the PN panel and culture; however, all bacterial targets reported as >105 CFU/ml in culture were reported as ≥105 genomic copies/ml by the PN panel. Viral targets were identified by the PN panel in 17.7% of specimens tested, of which 39.1% were detected in conjunction with a bacterial target. A review of patient medical records, including clinically prescribed antibiotics, revealed the potential for antibiotic adjustment in 70.7% of patients based on the PN panel result, including discontinuation or de-escalation in 48.2% of patients, resulting in an average savings of 6.2 antibiotic days/patient.