Application of Syndromic Panels for respiratory Tract Infections in Lung Transplantation: A Critical Review on Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 IMMUNOLOGY Transplant Infectious Disease Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-30 DOI:10.1111/tid.14448
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":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12892830/pdf/","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":"2025/1/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
呼吸道感染综合征组在肺移植中的应用:对当前证据和未来展望的重要回顾。
背景:感染是肺移植受者(LuTR)的常见并发症,特别是在移植后的第一年,呼吸道感染(RTI)占主导地位。已建议通过提供快速诊断来降低发病率和死亡率。然而,将这些小组整合到临床实践中仍然存在争议。方法:在PubMed、Scopus和Embase中进行电子检索,以确定在lur中应用综合征组诊断RTI的研究。三位审稿人独立筛选从相关研究中提取的数据,重点关注综合征组与标准微生物学测试之间的一致性,并报告未被综合征组检测到的分离株。结果:4项研究符合纳入标准,共纳入308例患者。BioFire FilmArray肺炎组是最常用的综合征组。在三项研究中,综合征组应用于疑似呼吸道感染的LuTR或常规监测支气管肺泡灌洗;只有一个病例在移植过程中对来自供体的样本使用了综合征面板。综合征组与标准试验之间的一致性范围为0.56至0.98,结果周转时间为2.3至21.2小时。敏感性范围为58%至94%,特异性范围为78%至100%。在综合征面板目标外,但通过标准测试确定的病原体包括念珠菌,未指明的革兰氏阴性杆状菌和曲霉。结论:综合征面板提供了比标准微生物学测试更快的选择。然而,他们错过了许多可能的病原体,强调了同步标准测试的必要性。在LuTx感染诊断中建立最有效的综合征组整合需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Transplant Infectious Disease
Transplant Infectious Disease 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
210
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Cytomegalovirus "Blips" and Rates of Progression to Clinically Significant CMV in Cardiothoracic Transplant Recipients. Opportunistic Fungal Infection by Mucorales in Liver Transplantation: Case Report. Frailty Status Predicts Urinary Tract Infection Risk Following Kidney Transplant. Mechanistic Insights to Advance Infectious Diseases Practice. Comparative 3-Year Allograft Outcomes for Recipients of Kidneys From SARS-CoV-2 NAT-Positive Donors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1