Seven-year performance of a clinical metagenomic next-generation sequencing test for diagnosis of central nervous system infections

Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is an agnostic method for broad-based diagnosis of central nervous system (CNS) infections. Here we analyzed the 7-year performance of clinical CSF mNGS testing of 4,828 samples from June 2016 to April 2023 performed by the U...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nature medicine 2024-12, Vol.30 (12), p.3522-3533
Hauptverfasser: Benoit, Patrick, Brazer, Noah, de Lorenzi-Tognon, Mikael, Kelly, Emily, Servellita, Venice, Oseguera, Miriam, Nguyen, Jenny, Tang, Jack, Omura, Charles, Streithorst, Jessica, Hillberg, Melissa, Ingebrigtsen, Danielle, Zorn, Kelsey, Wilson, Michael R., Blicharz, Tim, Wong, Amy P., O’Donovan, Brian, Murray, Brad, Miller, Steve, Chiu, Charles Y.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is an agnostic method for broad-based diagnosis of central nervous system (CNS) infections. Here we analyzed the 7-year performance of clinical CSF mNGS testing of 4,828 samples from June 2016 to April 2023 performed by the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) clinical microbiology laboratory. Overall, mNGS testing detected 797 organisms from 697 (14.4%) of 4,828 samples, consisting of 363 (45.5%) DNA viruses, 211 (26.4%) RNA viruses, 132 (16.6%) bacteria, 68 (8.5%) fungi and 23 (2.9%) parasites. We also extracted clinical and laboratory metadata from a subset of the samples ( n  = 1,164) from 1,053 UCSF patients. Among the 220 infectious diagnoses in this subset, 48 (21.8%) were identified by mNGS alone. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of mNGS testing for CNS infections were 63.1%, 99.6% and 92.9%, respectively. mNGS testing exhibited higher sensitivity (63.1%) than indirect serologic testing (28.8%) and direct detection testing from both CSF (45.9%) and non-CSF (15.0%) samples ( P  
ISSN:1078-8956
1546-170X
1546-170X
DOI:10.1038/s41591-024-03275-1