Open AccessEvaluation of yield of currently available diagnostics by sample type to optimize detection of respiratory pathogens in patients with a community‐acquired pneumonia
Author(s) -
Huijskens Elisabeth G. W.,
Rossen John W. A.,
Kluytmans Jan A. J. W.,
Zanden Adri G. M.,
Koopmans Marion
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
influenza and other respiratory viruses
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.743
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1750-2659
pISSN - 1750-2640
DOI - 10.1111/irv.12153
Subject(s) - sputum , pneumonia , sputum culture , pathogen , microbiology and biotechnology , respiratory tract , virology , respiratory system , medicine , respiratory tract infections , biology , immunology , tuberculosis , pathology
Background For the detection of respiratory pathogens, the sampling strategy may influence the diagnostic yield. Ideally, samples from the lower respiratory tract are collected, but they are difficult to obtain. Objectives In this study, we compared the diagnostic yield in sputum and oropharyngeal samples ( OPS ) for the detection of respiratory pathogens in patients with community‐acquired pneumonia ( CAP ), with the objective to optimize our diagnostic testing algorithm. Methods Matched sputum samples, OPS , blood cultures, serum, and urine samples were taken from patients (>18 years) with CAP and tested for the presence of possible respiratory pathogens using bacterial cultures, PCR for 17 viruses and five bacteria and urinary antigen testing. Results When using only conventional methods, that is, blood cultures, sputum culture, urinary antigen tests, a pathogen was detected in 49·6% of patients ( n = 57). Adding molecular detection assays increased the yield to 80%. A pathogen was detected in 77 of the 115 patients in OPS or sputum samples by PCR . The sensitivity of the OPS was lower than that of the sputum samples (57% versus 74%). In particular, bacterial pathogens were more often detected in sputum samples. The sensitivity of OPS for the detection of most viruses was higher than in sputum samples (72% versus 66%), except for human rhinovirus and respiratory syncytial virus. Conclusion Addition of PCR on both OPS and sputum samples significantly increased the diagnostic yield. For molecular detection of bacterial pathogens, a sputum sample is imperative, but for detection of most viral pathogens, an OPS is sufficient.