Skip to content
1887

Abstract

Diagnosis of uveitis is challenging due to the multitude of possible pathogenies. Identifying infectious and non-infectious uveitis is of great clinical significance. Recently, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) was used to detect infectious and non-infectious uveitis, but its efficacy has not been widely evaluated.

Compared with routine diagnostic tests (RDTs), mNGS is more effective in identifying infectious and non-infectious uveitis.

To describe the microbiological diagnostic performance of mNGS in detecting infectious and non-infectious uveitis.

Patients with suspected infectious uveitis of uncertain pathogenesis were tested by mNGS and RDTs. Infectious and non-infectious uveitis were grouped according to the final diagnosis based on comprehensive analysis of the test results and the effect of therapy. The test results were used to assess the performance of mNGS in actual clinical practice.

Fifty-eight cases were enrolled in this project, including 32 cases of infectious uveitis and 26 cases of non-infectious uveitis. The sensitivity of mNGS was 96.88%, which was much higher than that of RDTs. The detected pathogenic micro-organisms included bacteria, fungi, viruses, and . Consequently, mNGS showed a high negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.74%, indicating that an mNGS negative should be a true negative result most of the time, but a low positive predictive value (PPV) of 79.49%.

mNGS showed extremely high sensitivity but low specificity, which increased the detection rate of infectious uveitis pathogens but might result in false positives. The excellent NPV suggested that the identification of non-infectious uveitis is of considerable clinical importance.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province (Award 2023AFB901)
    • Principal Award Recipient: YanJiang
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001879
2024-12-11
2025-12-09

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/73/12/jmm001879.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001879&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Tsirouki T, Dastiridou A, Symeonidis C, Tounakaki O, Brazitikou I et al. A focus on the epidemiology of uveitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2018; 26:2–16 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Saadoun D, Trad S, Bielfeld P, Sene D, Abad S et al. Uveitis: from diagnosis to treatment. Rev Med Interne 2018; 39:673–675 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Doan T, Acharya NR, Pinsky BA, Sahoo MK, Chow ED et al. Metagenomic DNA sequencing for the diagnosis of intraocular infections. Ophthalmology 2017; 124:1247–1248 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Wilson MR, Sample HA, Zorn KC, Arevalo S, Yu G et al. Clinical metagenomic sequencing for diagnosis of meningitis and encephalitis. N Engl J Med 2019; 380:2327–2340 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Miao Q, Ma Y, Wang Q, Pan J, Zhang Y et al. Microbiological diagnostic performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing when applied to clinical practice. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 67:S231–S240 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Schneeberger PHH, Becker SL, Pothier JF, Duffy B, N’Goran EK et al. Metagenomic diagnostics for the simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens in human stool specimens from Côte d’Ivoire: a proof-of-concept study. Infect Genet Evol 2016; 40:389–397 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cheng J, Hu H, Kang Y, Chen W, Fang W et al. Identification of pathogens in culture-negative infective endocarditis cases by metagenomic analysis. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2018; 17:43 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Long Y, Zhang Y, Gong Y, Sun R, Su L et al. Diagnosis of sepsis with cell-free DNA by next-generation sequencing technology in ICU patients. Arch Med Res 2016; 47:365–371 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Sandhu HS, Hajrasouliha A, Kaplan HJ, Wang W. Diagnostic utility of quantitative polymerase chain reaction versus culture in endophthalmitis and uveitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2019; 27:578–582 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Sugita S, Ogawa M, Shimizu N, Morio T, Ohguro N et al. Use of a comprehensive polymerase chain reaction system for diagnosis of ocular infectious diseases. Ophthalmology 2013; 120:1761–1768 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Rathinam SR, Tugal-Tutkun I, Agarwal M, Rajesh V, Egriparmak M et al. Immunological tests and their interpretation in uveitis. Indian J Ophthalmol 2020; 68:1737–1748 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhong Z, Su G, Zhou Q, Meguro A, Takeuchi M et al. Tuberculosis exposure with risk of Behçet disease among patients with uveitis. JAMA Ophthalmol 2021; 139:415–422 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:1754–1760 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Sugita S, Takase H, Nakano S. Practical use of multiplex and broad-range PCR in ophthalmology. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2021; 65:155–168 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001879
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001879
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

EXCEL
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