Diagnosis of infectious diseases in immunocompromised hosts using metagenomic next generation sequencing-based diagnostics

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Invasive fungal diseases are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Clarity and uniformity in defining these infections are important factors in improving the quality of clinical studies. A standard set of definitions strengthens the consistency and reproducibility of such studies. After the introduction of the original European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group definitions, advances in diagnostic technology and the recognition of areas in need of improvement led to a revision of this document. The revision process started with a meeting of participants in 2003, to decide on the process and to draft the proposal. This was followed by several rounds of consultation until a final draft was approved in 2005. This was made available for 6 months to allow public comment, and then the manuscript was prepared and approved. The revised definitions retain the original classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" invasive fungal disease, but the definition of "probable" has been expanded, whereas the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven invasive fungal disease can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised, whereas the probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only. These revised definitions of invasive fungal disease are intended to advance clinical and epidemiological research and may serve as a useful model for defining other infections in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (NGS) of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has the potential to identify a broad range of pathogens in a single test. METHODS In a 1-year, multicenter, prospective study, we investigated the usefulness of metagenomic NGS of CSF for the diagnosis of infectious meningitis and encephalitis in hospitalized patients. All positive tests for pathogens on metagenomic NGS were confirmed by orthogonal laboratory testing. Physician feedback was elicited by teleconferences with a clinical microbial sequencing board and by surveys. Clinical effect was evaluated by retrospective chart review. RESULTS We enrolled 204 pediatric and adult patients at eight hospitals. Patients were severely ill: 48.5% had been admitted to the intensive care unit, and the 30-day mortality among all study patients was 11.3%. A total of 58 infections of the nervous system were diagnosed in 57 patients (27.9%). Among these 58 infections, metagenomic NGS identified 13 (22%) that were not identified by clinical testing at the source hospital. Among the remaining 45 infections (78%), metagenomic NGS made concurrent diagnoses in 19. Of the 26 infections not identified by metagenomic NGS, 11 were diagnosed by serologic testing only, 7 were diagnosed from tissue samples other than CSF, and 8 were negative on metagenomic NGS owing to low titers of pathogens in CSF. A total of 8 of 13 diagnoses made solely by metagenomic NGS had a likely clinical effect, with 7 of 13 guiding treatment. CONCLUSIONS Routine microbiologic testing is often insufficient to detect all neuroinvasive pathogens. In this study, metagenomic NGS of CSF obtained from patients with meningitis or encephalitis improved diagnosis of neurologic infections and provided actionable information in some cases. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; PDAID ClinicalTrials.gov number, [Related object:] .)