A multicentre evaluation and expert recommendations of use of the newly developed BioFire Joint Infection polymerase chain reaction panel

Septic arthritis is a serious condition with significant morbidity and mortality, routinely diagnosed using culture. The FDA has recently approved the rapid molecular BioFire® Joint Infection Panel (BJIP) for synovial fluid. We aimed to evaluate the BJIP compared to culture and its potential use in patient management. A multicentre retrospective evaluation of BJIP was conducted in the UK and Ireland. Positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) were calculated between the BJIP and routine culture. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion addressing the optimal or potential case use of the assay practice was facilitated. Three hundred ninety-nine surplus synovial fluid samples (~ 70% from native joints) from eight centres were processed using BJIP in addition to routine culture. An increased yield of positive results was detected using BJIP compared to routine culture (98 vs 83), giving an overall PPA of 91.6% and overall NPA of 93% for the BJIP compared to culture results. The BJIP detected resistant markers and additional organisms that could influence antibiotic choices including Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Kingella kingae. The MDT agreed that the assay could be used, in addition to standard methods, in adult and children patients with specialist advice use based on local needs. Rapid results from BJIP were assessed as having potential clinical impact on patient management. Organisms not included in the panel may be clinically significant and may limit the value of this test for PJI

Potential value of a rapid syndromic multiplex PCR for the diagnosis of native and prosthetic joint infections: a real-world evidence study.

Introduction: The BIOFIRE Joint Infection (JI) Panel is a diagnostic tool that uses multiplex-PCR testing to detect microorganisms in synovial fluid specimens from patients suspected of having septic arthritis (SA) on native joints or prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Methods: A study was conducted across 34 clinical sites in 19 European and Middle Eastern countries from March 2021 to June 2022 to assess the effectiveness of the BIOFIRE JI Panel. Results: A total of 1527 samples were collected from patients suspected of SA or PJI, with an overall agreement of 88.4 % and 85 % respectively between the JI Panel and synovial fluid cultures (SFCs). The JI Panel detected more positive samples and microorganisms than SFC, with a notable difference on Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus species, Enterococcus faecalis, Kingella kingae, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and anaerobic bacteria. The study found that the BIOFIRE JI Panel has a high utility in the real-world clinical setting for suspected SA and PJI, providing diagnostic results in approximately 1 h. The user experience was positive, implying a potential benefit of rapidity of results\u27 turnover in optimising patient management strategies. Conclusion: The study suggests that the BIOFIRE JI Panel could potentially optimise patient management and antimicrobial therapy, thus highlighting its importance in the clinical setting

A multicentre evaluation and expert recommendations of use of the newly developed BioFire Joint Infection polymerase chain reaction panel

Septic arthritis is a serious condition with significant morbidity and mortality, routinely diagnosed using culture. The FDA has recently approved the rapid molecular BioFire® Joint Infection Panel (BJIP) for synovial fluid. We aimed to evaluate the BJIP compared to culture and its potential use in patient management. A multicentre retrospective evaluation of BJIP was conducted in the UK and Ireland. Positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) were calculated between the BJIP and routine culture. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion addressing the optimal or potential case use of the assay practice was facilitated. Three hundred ninety-nine surplus synovial fluid samples (~ 70% from native joints) from eight centres were processed using BJIP in addition to routine culture. An increased yield of positive results was detected using BJIP compared to routine culture (98 vs 83), giving an overall PPA of 91.6% and overall NPA of 93% for the BJIP compared to culture results. The BJIP detected resistant markers and additional organisms that could influence antibiotic choices including Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Kingella kingae. The MDT agreed that the assay could be used, in addition to standard methods, in adult and children patients with specialist advice use based on local needs. Rapid results from BJIP were assessed as having potential clinical impact on patient management. Organisms not included in the panel may be clinically significant and may limit the value of this test for PJI

Potential value of a rapid syndromic multiplex PCR for the diagnosis of native and prosthetic joint infections: a real-world evidence study

Introduction: The BIOFIRE Joint Infection (JI) Panel is a diagnostic tool that uses multiplex-PCR testing to detect microorganisms in synovial fluid specimens from patients suspected of having septic arthritis (SA) on native joints or prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Methods: A study was conducted across 34 clinical sites in 19 European and Middle Eastern countries from March 2021 to June 2022 to assess the effectiveness of the BIOFIRE JI Panel. Results: A total of 1527 samples were collected from patients suspected of SA or PJI, with an overall agreement of 88.4 % and 85 % respectively between the JI Panel and synovial fluid cultures (SFCs). The JI Panel detected more positive samples and microorganisms than SFC, with a notable difference on Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus species, Enterococcus faecalis, Kingella kingae, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and anaerobic bacteria. The study found that the BIOFIRE JI Panel has a high utility in the real-world clinical setting for suspected SA and PJI, providing diagnostic results in approximately 1 h. The user experience was positive, implying a potential benefit of rapidity of results' turnover in optimising patient management strategies. Conclusion: The study suggests that the BIOFIRE JI Panel could potentially optimise patient management and antimicrobial therapy, thus highlighting its importance in the clinical setting

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

A 3D View of Colorectal Cancer Models in Predicting Therapeutic Responses and Resistance

Although there have been many advances in recent years for the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC), it still remains the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Many patients with late stage CRC display resistance to multiple different therapeutics. An important aspect in developing effective therapeutics for CRC patients is understanding the interactions that take place in the tumor microenvironment (TME), as it has been shown to contribute to drug resistance in vivo. Much research over the past 100 years has focused on 2D monolayer cultures or in vivo studies, however, the efficacy in translating these to the clinic is very low. More recent studies are turning towards developing an effective 3D model of CRC that is clinically relevant, that can recapitulate the TME in vitro and bridge the gap between 2D cultures and in vivo studies, with the aim of reducing the use of animal models in the future. This review summarises the advantages and limitations of different 3D CRC models. It emphasizes how different 3D models may be optimised to study cellular and extracellular interactions that take place in the TME of CRC in an effort to allow the development of more translatable effective treatment options for patients