1887

Abstract

. (melioidosis) is an important cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the tropics. Selective medium is recommended for laboratory diagnosis with non-sterile respiratory samples, while PCR is not routinely used due to variable reported performance. The effectiveness of these diagnostic modalities varies by site.

. To compare selective media and real-time PCR (qPCR) with routine media in detecting in CAP respiratory samples in a low-incidence setting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

. Respiratory samples were routinely cultured on blood, chocolate and MacConkey agar (RESP-ROUTINE), and compared to culture on selective Ashdown medium (RESP-SELECTIVE) and qPCR. The gold standard was routine culture of from any site (ALL-ROUTINE).

was detected in 8/204 (3.9 %) samples. Overall sensitivity rates differed (=0.03) for qPCR (100%), RESP-SELECTIVE (87.5%) and RESP-ROUTINE (50%). There was a trend towards lower median days to positive culture for RESP-SELECTIVE (1 day) compared to RESP-ROUTINE (2 days, =0.08) and ALL-ROUTINE (2 days, =0.06). Reagent costs for each additional detection were USD59 for RESP-SELECTIVE and USD354 for PCR.

. In a low-incidence setting, selective culture of respiratory samples on Ashdown was more sensitive and allowed quicker identification than routine media, at reasonable cost. Blood cultures are critical, confirming four cases missed by routine respiratory culture. Selective medium is useful in early pneumonia (pre-sepsis) and resource-limited settings where blood cultures are infrequently done. Real-time PCR is costly, but highly sensitive and useful for high-risk patients with diabetes, cancer or immunosuppressants, or requiring ventilation or intensive care.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001108
2019-11-21
2019-12-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Hoffmaster AR, AuCoin D, Baccam P, Baggett HC, Baird R et al. Melioidosis diagnostic workshop, 2013. Emerg Infect Dis 2015;21: [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Dance DAB, Sihalath S, Rith K, Sengdouangphachanh A, Luangraj M et al. The cost-effectiveness of the use of selective media for the diagnosis of melioidosis in different settings. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2019;13: e0007598 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Mohd Roslani A, Tay ST, Puthucheary SD, Rukumani DV, Sam IC. Short report: predictors of severe disease in melioidosis patients in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2014;91: 1176– 1178 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Novak RT, Glass MB, Gee JE, Gal D, Mayo MJ et al. Development and evaluation of a real-time PCR assay targeting the type III secretion system of Burkholderia pseudomallei. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44: 85– 90 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Wuthiekanun V, Dance DA, Wattanagoon Y, Supputtamongkol Y, Chaowagul W et al. The use of selective media for the isolation of Pseudomonas pseudomallei in clinical practice. J Med Microbiol 1990;33: 121– 126 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Winstanley C, Hart CA. Presence of type III secretion genes in Burkholderia pseudomallei correlates with Ara(-) phenotypes. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38: 883– 885
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lim C, Wannapinij P, White L, Day NP, Cooper BS et al. Using a web-based application to define the accuracy of diagnostic tests when the gold standard is imperfect. PLoS One 2013;8: e79489 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Roesnita B, Tay ST, Puthucheary SD, Sam IC. Diagnostic use of Burkholderia pseudomallei selective media in a low prevalence setting. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2012;106: 131– 133 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Tellapragada C, Shaw T, D'Souza A, Eshwara VK, Mukhopadhyay C. Improved detection of Burkholderia pseudomallei from non-blood clinical specimens using enrichment culture and PCR: narrowing diagnostic gap in resource-constrained settings. Trop Med Int Health 2017;22: 866– 870 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Walsh AL, Wuthiekanun V, Smith MD, Suputtamongkol Y, White NJ. Selective broths for the isolation of Pseudomonas pseudomallei from clinical samples. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1995;89: 124 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Wongsuvan G, Limmathurotsakul D, Wannapasni S, Chierakul W, Teerawattanasook N et al. Lack of correlation of Burkholderia pseudomallei quantities in blood, urine, sputum and pus. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 2009;40: 781– 784
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chantratita N, Wuthiekanun V, Limmathurotsakul D, Thanwisai A, Chantratita W et al. Prospective clinical evaluation of the accuracy of 16S rRNA real-time PCR assay for the diagnosis of melioidosis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2007;77: 814– 817 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chantratita N, Meumann E, Thanwisai A, Limmathurotsakul D, Wuthiekanun V et al. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification method targeting the TTS1 gene cluster for detection of Burkholderia pseudomallei and diagnosis of melioidosis. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46: 568– 573 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Meumann EM, Novak RT, Gal D, Kaestli ME, Mayo M et al. Clinical evaluation of a type III secretion system real-time PCR assay for diagnosing melioidosis. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44: 3028– 3030 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Howard K, Inglis TJ. Novel selective medium for isolation of Burkholderia pseudomallei. J Clin Microbiol 2003;41: 3312– 3316 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Peacock SJ, Chieng G, Cheng AC, Dance DAB, Amornchai P et al. Comparison of Ashdown's medium, Burkholderia cepacia medium, and Burkholderia pseudomallei selective agar for clinical isolation of Burkholderia pseudomallei. J Clin Microbiol 2005;43: 5359– 5361 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001108
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001108
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error