Yang, Joshua

Abstract Background Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)/sequencing targeting the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene to detect bacteria in normally sterile tissues and fluids has become increasingly popular in clinical medicine. This culture-independent technique can detect bacteria that are nonviable or difficult to cultivate using conventional methods. The clinical value of this type of testing is not well defined. We aimed to assess the diagnostic value of 16S rRNA PCR/Sanger sequencing as a clinical diagnostic assay at Mayo Clinic. Methods This is an interim analysis of the first 173 of 478 patients who had 16S rRNA PCR/Sanger sequencing done on sterile tissues or fluids at our institution from April, 2017 to November, 2018 as part of routine clinical practice. Medical records are being retrospectively reviewed, with results compared with those of culture. Results We reviewed 207 specimens from 173 patients (musculoskeletal 79%, cardiovascular 7%, central nervous system 4%, other 9%) that underwent 16S rRNA PCR/Sanger sequencing by clinical request (Table 1). In 90% of these specimens, the test was pre-planned rather than added-on. Nine specimens were excluded from analysis, as cultures were not performed. Overall concordance of culture with PCR/sequencing was 81% (160/197; P < 0.0001). Of 44 culture-positive specimens, PCR detected the same bacterium in 21 (48%) (Table 2). 45% (20/44) of those with positive cultures and 46% of those with positive PCR/sequencing results had received prior antimicrobial therapy (Table 3). PCR was negative in 139/144 specimens that were culture-negative (97%). PCR/sequencing was helpful in detecting a putative bacterial pathogen in 4 patients with negative cultures (Table 4). Conclusion Overall, 16S rRNA PCR/Sanger sequencing improved diagnostic yield compared with culture in a minority of cases. The described assay is limited by its inability to detect polymicrobial infections, a technical limitation that could possibly be addressed using massive parallel sequencing. Careful selection of cases and a save and add-on approach may be more cost-effective than upfront testing, although this was requested in a minority of cases. Disclosures Robin Patel, MD, ASM and IDSA: Other Financial or Material Support, Travel reimbursement, editor’s stipends; CD Diagnostics, Merck, Hutchison Biofilm Medical Solutions, Accelerate Diagnostics, ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, Shionogi: Grant/Research Support; Curetis, Specific Technologies, NextGen Diagnostics, PathoQuest, Qvella: Consultant; NBME, Up-to-Date, the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course: Honorarium recipient, Other Financial or Material Support; Patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis PCR issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued: Other Financial or Material Support, Patents.

Standard methods for detecting and monitoring of IgA nephropathy (IgAN) have conventionally required kidney biopsies or suffer from poor sensitivity and specificity. The Kidney Injury Test (KIT) Assay of urinary biomarkers has previously been shown to distinguish between various kidney pathologies, including chronic kidney disease, nephrolithiasis, and transplant rejection. This validation study uses the KIT Assay to investigate the clinical utility of the non-invasive detection of IgAN and predicting the progression of renal damage over time. The study design benefits from longitudinally collected urine samples from an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective study, evaluating the efficacy of corticosteroids versus Rituximab for preventing progressive IgAN. A total of 131 urine samples were processed for this study; 64 urine samples were collected from 34 IgAN patients, and urine samples from 64 demographically matched healthy controls were also collected; multiple urinary biomarkers consisting of cell-free DNA, methylated cell-free DNA, DMAIMO, MAMIMO, total protein, clusterin, creatinine, and CXCL10 were measured by the microwell-based KIT Assay. An IgA risk score (KIT-IgA) was significantly higher in IgAN patients as compared to healthy control (87.76 vs. 14.03, p < 0.0001) and performed better than proteinuria in discriminating between the two groups. The KIT Assay biomarkers, measured on a spot random urine sample at study entry could distinguish patients likely to have progressive renal dysfunction a year later. These data support the pursuit of larger prospective studies to evaluate the predictive performance of the KIT-IgA score in both screening for non-invasive diagnosis of IgAN, and for predicting risk of progressive renal disease from IgA and utilizing the KIT score for potentially evaluating the efficacy of IgAN-targeted therapies.