Comparative evaluation of the detection rate, workflow and associated costs of a multiplex PCR panel versus

J Ambrosius-Eichner1,2, M Hogardt1,2, A Berger2,3

  • 1Institute of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany.

PubMed

Insights

Multiplex PCR panels significantly increase infectious gastroenteritis pathogen detection rates and speed up results compared to conventional methods. While more expensive upfront, these panels offer improved efficiency and patient management, though they don't replace culture for antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

Area of Science:

  • Clinical Microbiology
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Molecular Diagnostics

Background:

  • Infectious gastroenteritis is a common clinical concern, often requiring stool specimen analysis for pathogen identification, especially in severe cases or for epidemiological surveillance.
  • Conventional stool analysis is labor-intensive and employs diverse methods for detecting a wide range of pathogens.
  • Multiplex PCR panels, such as the BioFire GI Panel, offer rapid detection of numerous pathogens simultaneously.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the BioFire GI Panel's performance against conventional methods in terms of pathogen detection rate, workflow efficiency, and cost.
  • To assess the impact of multiplex PCR on laboratory diagnostics for infectious gastroenteritis.

Main Methods:

  • Prospective evaluation of stool specimens during routine laboratory operations.
  • Comparison of pathogen detection rates, hands-on time, time-to-result, and costs between the BioFire GI Panel and conventional diagnostic methods (excluding viral testing).
  • Analysis of 333 specimens collected between 2019 and 2020.

Main Results:

  • The multiplex PCR panel achieved a significantly higher enteropathogen detection rate (39.9%) compared to conventional methods (15.0%).
  • The BioFire GI Panel yielded results in a median of 2.2 hours, drastically faster than conventional methods (culture: 77.5 hours; antigen testing: 22.1 hours).
  • Despite a higher cost per test (nine times more expensive based on list prices), the BioFire GI Panel significantly reduced hands-on time.

Conclusions:

  • Multiplex PCR panels are valuable for identifying infectious diarrhea agents, offering higher detection rates and faster results.
  • The increased cost of multiplex PCR may be offset by improved workflow, efficiency, and potential for better patient management.
  • Conventional culture methods remain essential for antimicrobial susceptibility testing and outbreak surveillance when required.