The Impact of a Positive Biofire® FilmArray® Gastrointestinal Panel Result on Clinical Management and Outcomes

Carmon, David; Rohana, Hanan; Azrad, Maya; Peretz, Avi

doi:10.3390/diagnostics13061094

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12 Another Indian study also detected one or the other targets by FilmArray GIP in 50.9% of the samples in contrast to 17.6% by stool culture. 13 In line with previously conducted studies, 12,14 in the present study, FilmArray detected bacterial pathogens that were difficult to cultivate or difficult to identify using conventional methods, for example, Campylobacter, EPEC, ETEC, EAEC, EIEC, and C. difficile. Additionally, parasitic targets were detected in 31.7% of the clinical samples by FilmArray including Cryptosporidium spp.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Utility of BioFire FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel in the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Infections

Gupta,

Sood

et al. 2024

Journal of Gastrointestinal Infections

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Conventional diagnostic methods like culture and microscopy are time-consuming and have low diagnostic yield for gastrointestinal infections. New rapid molecular methods such as multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) have recently been introduced for etiological diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of the FilmArray gastrointestinal panel (GIP) in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal infections. Materials and Methods This is a retrospective study performed in the microbiology department of a tertiary care hospital. Stool samples were received and processed according to the manufacturer's instructions by FilmArray GIP. Stool culture and routine microscopy were also performed. Results The mean age of the 32 patients was 46 ± 24.2 years and with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1. Out of 32 stool samples received for testing by BioFire GIP, 23 samples (71.9%) were found to be positive for one or the other target. A total of 41 targets were detected from 23 positive patients, with predominant bacterial etiology (65.9%) followed by parasitic (31.7%) and viral (4.9%). Giardia lamblia was the most common (26.8%) target detected in all age groups. Additionally, in 56.5% of patients, more than one target was detected. The stool culture was positive in 2 of the 16 patients (12.5%). Conclusion The FilmArray GIP showed very good diagnostic performance compared with culture for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal infections. Further studies are needed to determine whether multiplex PCR improves patient outcomes and reduces costs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Utility of BioFire FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel in the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Infections

Gupta,

Sood

et al. 2024

Journal of Gastrointestinal Infections

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we did not test each specimen equally for each pathogen, and no discrepancy analysis was performed, we could not calculate sensitivity or specificity. Nevertheless, we were able to demonstrate a similar detection rate by the BioFire GI Panel (39.9 %) compared with previous studies, which ranged from 29.5 to 67 % positive specimens [23, 28–32].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

Comparative evaluation of the detection rate, workflow and associated costs of a multiplex PCR panel versus conventional methods in diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis

Ambrosius-Eichner,

Hogardt,

Berger

et al. 2024

Journal of Medical Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. Infectious gastroenteritis is a common reason for consulting a physician. Although most cases of gastrointestinal illness are self-limiting, the identification of the etiologic pathogen by stool specimen analysis is important in cases of more severe illness and for epidemiological reasons. Due to the broad range of causative pathogens, the conventional examination of a stool specimen is labour-intensive and usually requires different diagnostic methods. Multiplex PCR tests [e.g. BioFire Gastrointestinal (GI) Panel] allow the rapid detecting of up to 22 pathogens in one test. Hypothesis. Using a multiplex PCR panel to test stool specimens for infectious gastroenteritis pathogens can improve the detection rate, reduce the time-to-result and hands-on time and lower the costs of a microbiology laboratory. Aim. This study was aimed at evaluating the detection rate, the workflow and associated costs of stool specimen management using the BioFire GI Panel versus conventional methods. Methodology. Stool specimens were evaluated prospectively during the routine operation. Pathogen detection rate, hands-on time, time-to-result and material and personnel costs were determined for the BioFire GI Panel and conventional methods—the latter based on physician request and excluding viral testing. Results. Analysing 333 specimens collected between 2019 and 2020, the detection rate of enteropathogens was significantly higher with a positivity rate of 39.9 % using the multiplex PCR panel compared with 15.0 % using the conventional methods. The BioFire GI Panel presented results in a median time of 2.2 h compared with 77.5 h for culture and 22.1 h for antigen testing, noting that no tests were performed at weekends except for toxinogenic Clostridioides difficile. Based on list prices, the BioFire GI Panel was nine times more expensive compared with conventional methods, whereas hands-on-time was significantly lower using the BioFire GI Panel. Conclusion. Multiplex PCR panels are valuable tools for laboratory identification of infectious agents causing diarrhoea. The higher costs of such a multiplex PCR panel might be outweighed by the higher detection rate, ease of handling, rapid results and most likely improved patient management. However, these panels do not provide information on antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Therefore, if this is necessary for targeted therapy or if outbreak monitoring and control is required, specimens must still be cultured.

show abstract

QIAstat-Dx gastrointestinal panel and Luminex xTAG gastrointestinal pathogen panel comparative evaluation

Giffen,

Sadler,

Miller

2023

J Clin Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis is an ongoing clinical challenge in terms of identification of the etiologic agent, time to results, and appropriate treatment. Rapid detection of gastrointestinal pathogens is needed to improve patient care. This study evaluates the performance of the QIAstat-Dx gastrointestinal panel (Q-GP; Investigational Use Only) compared to the Luminex xTAG gastrointestinal pathogen panel (L-GPP; US-IVD). Using 245 stool specimens, we evaluated 10 different targets including rotavirus, norovirus, Salmonella , Shigella , Campylobacter , Giardia , Cryptosporidium , Escherichia coli O157, enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC). For the viral targets, the percent positive agreement (PPA) for rotavirus was 100% ( n = 19) and that for norovirus was 91% (20/22). For the parasitic targets, the PPA was 100% for Giardia and Cryptosporidium ( n = 18 and n = 23, respectively). The PPA was 96% for Salmonella (22/23) and Campylobacter (22/23), and the PPA for Shigella was 100% ( n = 23). For the E. coli targets, a PPA of 94% was achieved for STEC (32/34) and 96% for ETEC (24/25). We did not assess PPA for the E. coli O157 target as the Q-GP O157 call is stx dependent. The negative percent agreement across all targets was 99.1%. Our study suggests that QIAstat-Dx GP provides comparable results to Luminex GPP based on the analysis of targets found on both panels.

show abstract

The Impact of a Positive Biofire® FilmArray® Gastrointestinal Panel Result on Clinical Management and Outcomes

Cited by 4 publications

References 38 publications

Utility of BioFire FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel in the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Infections

Utility of BioFire FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel in the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Infections

Comparative evaluation of the detection rate, workflow and associated costs of a multiplex PCR panel versus conventional methods in diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis

QIAstat-Dx gastrointestinal panel and Luminex xTAG gastrointestinal pathogen panel comparative evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About