Introduction. The FilmArray blood culture identification panel (BCID) panel is a multiplex PCR assay with high sensitivity and specificity to identify the most common pathogens in bloodstream infections (BSIs).Hypothesis. We hypothesize that the BCID panel has good diagnostic performance for BSIs and can be popularized in clinical application.Aim: To provide summarized evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of the BCID panel for the identification of positive blood cultures.Methodology. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases through March 2021 and assessed the efficacy of the diagnostic test of the BCID panel. We performed a meta-analysis and calculated the summary sensitivity and specificity of the BCID panel. Systematic review protocols were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number CRD42021239176).Results. A total of 16 full-text articles were eligible for analysis. The overall sensitivities of the BCID panel on Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria and fungi were 97 % (95 % CI, 0.96-0.98), 100 % (95 % CI, 0.98-01.00) and 99 % (95 % CI, 0.87-1.00), respectively. The pooled diagnostic specificities were 99 % (95 % CI, 0.97-1.00), 100 % (95 % CI, 1.00-1.00) and 100 % (95 % CI, 1.00-1.00) for Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria and fungi, respectively.Conclusions. The BCID panel has high rule-in value for the early detection of BSI patients. The BCID panel can still provide valuable information for ruling out bacteremia or fungemia in populations with low pretest probability.

BACKGROUND: Accuracy and timing of antibiotic therapy remain a challenge for lower respiratory tract infections. New molecular techniques using Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction, including the FilmArray® Pneumonia Plus Panel [FAPP], have been developed to address this. The aim of this study is to evaluate the FAPP diagnostic performance for the detection of the 15 typical bacteria of the panel from respiratory samples in a meta-analysis from a systematic review.
METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2022, and selected any study on the FAPP diagnostic performance on respiratory samples compared to the reference standard, bacterial culture. The main outcome was the overall diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity and specificity. We calculated the log Diagnostic Odds Ratio and analyzed performance for separate bacteria, antimicrobial resistance genes, and according to the sample type. We also reported the FAPP turnaround time and the out-of-panel bacteria number and species. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021226280).
RESULTS: From 10 317 records, we identified 30 studies including 8 968 samples. Twenty-one were related to intensive care. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 94% [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 91-95] and 98% [95%CI 97-98], respectively. The log Diagnostic Odds Ratio was 6.35 [95%CI 6.05-6.65]. 9.3% [95%CI 9.2-9.5] of bacteria detected in culture were not included in the FAPP panel.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review reporting the FAPP evaluation revealed a high accuracy. This test may represent an adjunct tool for pulmonary bacterial infection diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship. Further evidence is needed to assess the impact on clinical outcome.

Bacterial infection can occur in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 in various conditions, resulting in poorer outcomes, such as a higher death rate. This current systematic review was conducted in order to assess the efficiency of multiplex PCR in detecting bacterial infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, as well as to analyze the most common bacterial pathogens and other factors that interfere with this diagnosis. The research was conducted using four electronic databases (PubMed, Taylor&Francis, Web of Science, and Wiley Online Library). Out of 290 studies, nine were included in the systematic review. The results supported the use of multiplex PCR in detecting bacteria, considering its high sensitivity and specificity rates. The most common bacterial pathogens found were Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae. The median age at admission was 61.5 years, and the majority of patients were men (70.3%), out of a total of 1553 patients. The proportion of ICU admission was very high, with a pooled proportion of 52.6% over the analyzed studies, and an average duration of hospitalization of 13 days. The mortality rate was proportionally high, as was the rate of ICU admission, with a pooled mortality of 24.9%. It was discovered that 65.2% of all patients used antibiotics before admission, with or without medical prescription. Antibiotic treatment should be considered consciously, considering the high risks of developing antibiotic resistance.

The clinical impact of rapid sample-to-answer \"syndromic\" multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for respiratory viruses is not clearly established. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate this impact for patients with possible acute respiratory tract infection in the hospital setting.
We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases from 2012 to present and conference proceedings from 2021 for studies comparing clinical impact outcomes between multiplex PCR testing and standard testing.
Twenty-seven studies with 17,321 patient encounters were included in this review. Rapid multiplex PCR testing was associated with a reduction of - 24.22 h (95% CI -28.70 to -19.74 h) in the time to results. Hospital length of stay was decreased by -0.82 days (95% CI -1.52 to -0.11 days). Among influenza positive patients, antivirals were more likely to be given (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06-1.48) and appropriate infection control facility use was more common with rapid multiplex PCR testing (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.16-2.07).
Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates a reduction in time to results and length of stay for patients overall along with improvements in appropriate antiviral and infection control management among influenza-positive patients. This evidence supports the routine use of rapid sample-to-answer multiplex PCR testing for respiratory viruses in the hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: The FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis(FA/ME) panel brings benefits in clinical practice, but its diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the DTA of FA/ME for the aetiological diagnostic in patients with suspected central nervous system(CNS) infection.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review with DTA meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42020139285). We searched Embase, Medline (Ovid), and Web of Science from inception until September 1st, 2021. We assessed the study-level risk of bias with the QUADAS-2 tool and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the synthesised evidence. We included studies that simultaneously measured the reference test (CSF/blood culture for bacteria, and specific polymerase chain reaction for viruses) and the FA/ME in patients with suspected CNS infection. We performed random-effects bivariate meta-analysis models of combined sensitivity and specificity using CSF/blood cultures(reference test 1) and a final diagnosis adjudication based on clinical/laboratory criteria (reference test 2).
RESULTS: We included 19 studies (11,351 participants). For all bacteria with reference test 1 (16 studies/6183 patients) sensitivity was estimated at 89·5% (95%CI 81·1-94·4), and specificity at 97·4% (95%CI 94-98·9). With reference test 2 (15 studies/5,524 patients), sensitivity was estimated at 92·1%(95%CI 86·8-95·3) and specificity at 99.2(95%CI 98·3-99·6) For herpes simplex virus-2(HSV-2), enteroviruses, and Varicella-Zoster virus (VZV), we obtained sensitivities between 75·5 and 93·8%, and specificities above 99% (reference test 1). Certainty of the evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS: FA/ME may have acceptable-to-high sensitivities and high specificities for identifying bacteria, especially for S.pneumoniae, and viruses, especially for HSV-2, and enteroviruses. Sensitivities for L.monocytogenes, H.influenzae, E.coli, and HSV-1 were suboptimal.
BACKGROUND: None.

Mammalian species identification is one of the important issues in forensic science. Determining the origins of non-human biological material found at crime scenes can increase the possibility of identifying the true culprit by narrowing down the range of suspects. Although many techniques based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have been developed, challenges remain to cost-effectively identify species from degraded samples containing a mixture of DNA from multiple species and to standardize procedures for mammalian species identification. This review evaluates the reliability and versatility of mtDNA-based techniques to reveal obstacles to the establishment of standard analytical methods, with a particular focus on DNA mixtures. When samples contain a mixture of DNA from multiple species, the interpretation of sequencing analysis results is difficult. Although DNA metabarcoding using next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies can overcome the DNA mixture problem, DNA metabarcoding is not suitable for the type of small-scale analysis routinely performed by local forensic laboratories, primarily because it is costly and time-consuming. By contrast, fluorescent multiplex PCR analysis enables cost-effective and simultaneous species identification from suboptimal samples, although the number of identifiable species is currently limited in comparison with sequencing techniques. The advantages and limitations of current techniques presented in this review indicate that multiplex PCR analysis will continue to be important for mammalian species identification in forensic casework analysis. Further developments in multiplex PCR analysis that enable the identification of an increased number of species will play a key step for standardization efforts among forensic laboratories.

BACKGROUND: The FilmArray® meningitis/encephalitis (ME) panel is a multiplex PCR assay which can detect the most commonly identified pathogens in central nervous system infections. It significantly decreases the time to diagnosis of ME and data has yielded several positive outcomes. However, in part, reports of both false positive and false negative detections have resulted in concerns about adoption.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the ME panel in a diagnostic test accuracy review.
METHODS: The PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched through May 2019.
METHODS: Eligible studies were those providing sensitivity and specificity data for the ME panel compared with a reference standard. Studies providing details on false positive and false negative results of the panel as well as further investigation (adjudication) of the discordant results between the panel and comparator assays were included and assessed separately.
METHODS: Patients with suspected ME for whom a panel was ordered were included.
METHODS: The ME panel was compared to reference standard methods for diagnosing community-acquired ME. We performed a meta-analysis and calculated the summary sensitivity and specificity of the ME panel. Moreover, we evaluated the false positive and false negative results of the panel.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies (3764 patients) were included in the review and 8 of them (3059 patients) were pooled in a meta-analysis. The summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was 90% (95% CI 86-93%) and 97% (95% CI 94-99%), respectively. When we looked specifically at studies that assessed further the false positive and false negative results, false positive detections were 11.4% and 4% before and after adjudication, respectively. The highest proportion of false positive was observed for Streptococcus pneumoniae followed by Streptococcus agalactiae. False negative isolates were 2.2% and 1.5% before and after adjudication, respectively. Herpes simplex virus 1 and 2, enterovirus and Cryptococcus neoformans/gattii had the highest proportions of false negative determinations. False negative C. neoformans/gattii were mostly patients with positive antigen titres, on treatment or cleared disease.
CONCLUSIONS: The currently available literature suggests that the ME panel has high diagnostic accuracy. However, the decision for implementation should be individualized based on the needs of the patient population, the capabilities of the laboratory, and the knowledge of the healthcare providers that will utilize the test.

Although Cyberlindnera fabinaii is a rare opportunist yeast species, its ability to cause septicemia, produce biofilm, and rapid acquisition of resistance to fluconazole and voriconazole, reinforced the urge for its identification from its closely related species. Widely used biochemical assays mainly identify Cyberlindnera fabinaii as Cyberlindnera jadinii and Wickerhamomyces anomalus, resulting in underestimation of this yeast in clinical settings. Moreover, the urge for a reliable molecular means of identification remains unsolved for 28 years. In order to unequivocally differentiate Cy. fabianii, Cy. mississipiensis, Cy. jadinii, and W. anomalus, we designed a dual-function multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Challenging our dual-function multiplex PCR assay with 30 most clinically important yeast species, proved its specificity. Although conventional PCR could differentiate four target species, the real-time PCR counterpart due to Tm overlap misidentified Cy. mississipiensis as Cy. jadinii. Alongside of presenting a comprehensive literature review of published cases of Cy. fabianii from 1990 to 2018, we collected various clinical isolates from Tehran, Shiraz, and Fasa (July 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017) to find a passive relative distribution of these closely-related species in Iran. Subjecting our Iranian collection of yeast isolates to matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) MS and LSU and ITS rDNA sequencing revealed six isolates of Cy. fabianii (central venous catheter n = 2 and vaginal swabs n = 4) and one isolate of Cy. jadinii (vaginal swabs). Due to the use of biochemical assays in global ARTEMIS study, we encourage reidentification of clinical isolates of Cy. jadinii and Cy. jadinii using MALDI-TOF or Sanger sequencing that might lead to correcting the distribution of this fungus.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a summary of evidence for the diagnostic accuracies of three multiplex PCR systems (mPCRs)-BioFire FilmArray RP (FilmArray), Nanosphere Verigene RV+ test (Verigene RV+) and Hologic Gen-Probe Prodesse assays-on the detection of viral respiratory infections.
METHODS: A comprehensive search up to 1 July 2017 was conducted on Medline and Embase for studies that utilized FilmArray, Verigene RV+ and Prodesse for diagnosis of viral respiratory infections. A summary of diagnostic accuracies for the following five viruses were calculated: influenza A virus (FluA), influenza B virus, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus and adenovirus. Hierarchical summary receiver operating curves were used for estimating the viral detection performance per assay.
RESULTS: Twenty studies of 5510 patient samples were eligible for analysis. Multiplex PCRs demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) equal to or more than 0.98 for all the above viruses except for adenovirus (AUROC 0.89). FilmArray, Verigene RV+ and ProFlu+ (the only Prodesse assay with enough data) demonstrated a summary sensitivity for FluA of 0.911 (95% confidence interval, 0.848-0.949), 0.949 (95% confidence interval, 0.882-0.979) and 0.954 (95% confidence interval, 0.871-0.985), respectively. The three mPCRs were comparable in terms of detection of FluA.
CONCLUSIONS: Point estimates calculated from eligible studies showed that the three mPCRs (FilmArray, Verigene RV+ and ProFlu+) are highly accurate and may provide important diagnostic information for early identification of respiratory virus infections. In patients with low pretest probability for FluA, these three mPCRs can predict a low possibility of infection and may justify withholding empirical antiviral treatments.