Scientists from Belgium have surveyed to understand clinicians’ perspectives on the need for clinical application of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in microbiology laboratories. The study is published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine.
The survey finds that application of NGS is mostly expected for the diagnosis of neurological and respiratory infections.
The usage of next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasing firmly in clinical pathology, genetics, and cancer diagnosis. However, the widespread application of this valuable technology as a routine diagnostic tool in clinical microbiology laboratories is still facing major challenges.
In the field of microbiology, the application of NGS is mostly limited to academic or reference laboratories. The major obstacle against its implementation in clinical microbiology is the lack of standardized protocols or tools.
Major decision-making regarding technologies, operational models, infrastructure, human resources, and professional expertise is needed before the widespread clinical application of NGS.
To facilitate such decision-making, the current survey was conducted among clinicians involved in infectious diseases with the aim of understanding their expectations regarding the added value of NGS for routine clinical care. Another aim of the survey was to identify the factors in which prioritization is needed the most.
This online survey was conducted between January and August 2019 among clinicians practicing in hospitals located in Brussels, Belgium. The survey covered three major topics, including knowledge related to NGS, the expected diagnostic value of NGS, and the expected impact on antimicrobial prescription.
A total of 24 clinicians completed the survey. Of them, 65.5% were infectious disease specialists, 25% were intensive care specialists, and 12.5% were infectious disease pediatricians.
The clinician’s knowledge of NGS was analyzed using a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 referred to “none” and 4 referred to “very well.” About 25%, 54.2%, 8.3%, and 12.5% of clinicians rated 0, 1, 2, and 3 on the scale, respectively.
The analysis of answers provided by most of the clinicians in open fields indicated that a wide range of syndromes and samples often remain negative even if there is a strong suspicion of infection.
According to clinicians’ expectations, NGS can provide the highest diagnostic benefit for neurological and respiratory infections, followed by cardiologic and bone and joint infections.
Regarding acute infection sample types, NGS was expected to be beneficial for analyzing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), pericardial, pleural fluid, and prosthetic materials, as these samples often lack microbiological documentation. Regarding chronic infection sample types, NGS was expected to benefit the analysis of prosthetic materials and bone-derived samples.
About 83% of clinicians reported considering empirical treatment because of the lack of identification of the exact causative pathogen. Specifically, the survey findings indicated that antibiotics are prescribed blindly in most cases, followed by the prescription of corticoids and antivirals in 40% and 25% of cases, respectively.
All clinicians reported treating patients with low white blood cell counts (neutropenic patients) on a daily basis. About 83% of clinicians reported that identification of a causative pathogen is difficult in these patients. About 46% of clinicians reported that this lack of microbiological diagnosis is due to the lack of sensitivity of routine diagnostic tools.
The survey evaluates the potential utility of NGS as a routine diagnostic tool in clinical microbiology laboratories. A small group of infectious disease-related clinicians who participated in the survey expect that NGS can potentially improve the quality of microbiological diagnosis, especially for neurological and respiratory infections.
NGS-based identification of actual causative pathogens can prevent the widespread use of empirical treatments, which is a major driving factor for antibiotic resistance.
Notably, the survey finds a gap between clinicians’ expectations and the actual performance, technical limitations, and lack of interpretability of NGS in clinical microbiology. Thus, more efforts are needed to develop appropriate infrastructure, design routine diagnostic protocols, and involve professional experts for NGS-based microbiological diagnosis.