Erin H Graf, Andrew Bryan, Michael Bowers, Thomas E Grys
{"title":"One Size Fits Small: The Narrow Utility for Plasma Metagenomics.","authors":"Erin H Graf, Andrew Bryan, Michael Bowers, Thomas E Grys","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfae122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Metagenomic sequencing of plasma has been advertised by Karius, Inc. as a way to diagnose a variety of infectious syndromes. Due to the lack of robust evidence of clinical utility, our laboratory began actively stewarding Karius testing. Microbiology Directors recommended cancelation of Karius orders when certain criteria were identified. We set out to review Karius test requests in a 52-month period of stewardship, during which we recommended cancellation on 21 of 57 orders (37%). Of Karius tests sent on samples with negative conventional testing, only 3 (7%) had positive results for Karius with plausible explanatory etiologies. Of these three cases, two were empirically covered for the positive finding without improvement and one case was never treated. Twelve (29%) had positive results that were noted by infectious diseases (ID) to reflect insignificant detections. Given the 4-fold higher detection of insignificant Karius results, we set out to systematically analyze the literature for the experience of insignificant detections at other centers. When we compared studies that included healthy controls or had clinical adjudication of positive Karius findings by ID physicians, we found a median of 17.5% of individual patients that had positive insignificant detections of potential pathogenic bacteria or fungi. The most frequently detected species were as likely to be clinically adjudicated to be insignificant as they were to be significant within the same studies. Overall, these findings highlight limited utility of Karius testing and a need for careful stewardship, not only to ensure it is sent on patients who may benefit, but also to ensure results of potential pathogens are interpreted cautiously.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":"10 1","pages":"171-183"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Metagenomic sequencing of plasma has been advertised by Karius, Inc. as a way to diagnose a variety of infectious syndromes. Due to the lack of robust evidence of clinical utility, our laboratory began actively stewarding Karius testing. Microbiology Directors recommended cancelation of Karius orders when certain criteria were identified. We set out to review Karius test requests in a 52-month period of stewardship, during which we recommended cancellation on 21 of 57 orders (37%). Of Karius tests sent on samples with negative conventional testing, only 3 (7%) had positive results for Karius with plausible explanatory etiologies. Of these three cases, two were empirically covered for the positive finding without improvement and one case was never treated. Twelve (29%) had positive results that were noted by infectious diseases (ID) to reflect insignificant detections. Given the 4-fold higher detection of insignificant Karius results, we set out to systematically analyze the literature for the experience of insignificant detections at other centers. When we compared studies that included healthy controls or had clinical adjudication of positive Karius findings by ID physicians, we found a median of 17.5% of individual patients that had positive insignificant detections of potential pathogenic bacteria or fungi. The most frequently detected species were as likely to be clinically adjudicated to be insignificant as they were to be significant within the same studies. Overall, these findings highlight limited utility of Karius testing and a need for careful stewardship, not only to ensure it is sent on patients who may benefit, but also to ensure results of potential pathogens are interpreted cautiously.