Application of Syndromic Panels for respiratory Tract Infections in Lung Transplantation: A Critical Review on Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.
Andrea Lombardi, Giulia Renisi, Arianna Liparoti, Chiara Bobbio, Alessandra Bandera
{"title":"Application of Syndromic Panels for respiratory Tract Infections in Lung Transplantation: A Critical Review on Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.","authors":"Andrea Lombardi, Giulia Renisi, Arianna Liparoti, Chiara Bobbio, Alessandra Bandera","doi":"10.1111/tid.14448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Infections are a common complication among lung transplant recipients (LuTR), particularly in the first year post-transplant, with respiratory tract infections (RTI) being predominant. Syndromic molecular panels have been suggested to reduce morbidity and mortality by providing a diagnosis quickly. However, integrating these panels into clinical practice remains debated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase to identify studies on applying syndromic panels for RTI diagnosis in LuTR. Three reviewers independently screened-extracted data from relevant studies, focusing on concordance between syndromic panels and standard microbiologic tests and reporting isolates not detected by syndromic panels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies met the inclusion criteria, including 308 patients. The BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel was the syndromic panel most frequently employed. In three studies, the syndromic panel was employed in LuTR with suspected RTI or during routine surveillance bronchoalveolar lavage; only in one case was the syndromic panel employed during the transplant procedure on samples from the donor. Agreement between syndromic panels and standard tests ranged from 0.56 to 0.98, with result turnaround times between 2.3 and 21.2 h. Sensitivity ranged from 58% to 94%, and specificity from 78% to 100%. Pathogens outside syndromic panels targets but identified by standard tests included Candida spp., unspecified gram-negative rods, and Aspergillus spp.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Syndromic panels offer a faster alternative to standard microbiologic tests. However, they miss numerous possible pathogens, highlighting the necessity for concurrent standard testing. Further research is needed to establish the most efficient integration of syndromic panels in LuTx infection diagnostic.</p>","PeriodicalId":23318,"journal":{"name":"Transplant Infectious Disease","volume":" ","pages":"e14448"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplant Infectious Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tid.14448","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Infections are a common complication among lung transplant recipients (LuTR), particularly in the first year post-transplant, with respiratory tract infections (RTI) being predominant. Syndromic molecular panels have been suggested to reduce morbidity and mortality by providing a diagnosis quickly. However, integrating these panels into clinical practice remains debated.
Methods: An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase to identify studies on applying syndromic panels for RTI diagnosis in LuTR. Three reviewers independently screened-extracted data from relevant studies, focusing on concordance between syndromic panels and standard microbiologic tests and reporting isolates not detected by syndromic panels.
Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria, including 308 patients. The BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel was the syndromic panel most frequently employed. In three studies, the syndromic panel was employed in LuTR with suspected RTI or during routine surveillance bronchoalveolar lavage; only in one case was the syndromic panel employed during the transplant procedure on samples from the donor. Agreement between syndromic panels and standard tests ranged from 0.56 to 0.98, with result turnaround times between 2.3 and 21.2 h. Sensitivity ranged from 58% to 94%, and specificity from 78% to 100%. Pathogens outside syndromic panels targets but identified by standard tests included Candida spp., unspecified gram-negative rods, and Aspergillus spp.
Conclusion: Syndromic panels offer a faster alternative to standard microbiologic tests. However, they miss numerous possible pathogens, highlighting the necessity for concurrent standard testing. Further research is needed to establish the most efficient integration of syndromic panels in LuTx infection diagnostic.
期刊介绍:
Transplant Infectious Disease has been established as a forum for presenting the most current information on the prevention and treatment of infection complicating organ and bone marrow transplantation. The point of view of the journal is that infection and allograft rejection (or graft-versus-host disease) are closely intertwined, and that advances in one area will have immediate consequences on the other. The interaction of the transplant recipient with potential microbial invaders, the impact of immunosuppressive strategies on this interaction, and the effects of cytokines, growth factors, and chemokines liberated during the course of infections, rejection, or graft-versus-host disease are central to the interests and mission of this journal.
Transplant Infectious Disease is aimed at disseminating the latest information relevant to the infectious disease complications of transplantation to clinicians and scientists involved in bone marrow, kidney, liver, heart, lung, intestinal, and pancreatic transplantation. The infectious disease consequences and concerns regarding innovative transplant strategies, from novel immunosuppressive agents to xenotransplantation, are very much a concern of this journal. In addition, this journal feels a particular responsibility to inform primary care practitioners in the community, who increasingly are sharing the responsibility for the care of these patients, of the special considerations regarding the prevention and treatment of infection in transplant recipients. As exemplified by the international editorial board, articles are sought throughout the world that address both general issues and those of a more restricted geographic import.