宏基因组二代测序技术在血液病合并粒细胞缺乏伴发热病原学检测中的应用及评价

Application of mNGS in etiological test for hemotological disease patients complicated with agranulocytosis and fever

  • 摘要:
    目的 探讨宏基因组二代测序技术(mNGS)在血液病合并粒细胞缺乏(粒缺)伴发热患者中检出致病菌特征及对治疗和预后的影响。
    方法 回顾性分析2019年4月-2023年12月在解放军总医院第一医学中心血液科就诊的血液病粒缺伴发热且经验性抗感染治疗无效的患者, 170例患者同时送检了血培养和血mNGS, 对比分析mNGS和血培养在病原体检出率、病原体分布、检测结果一致性、根据病原学调整治疗比例以及全因死亡率等方面的差异。
    结果 血培养的病原菌检出率为12.94%, 污染率为4.12%。mNGS的病原菌检出率为25.88%, 污染率为0.59%。mNGS的病原菌检出率、革兰阴性菌检出率和真菌检出率高于血培养(均P<0.05), 而mNGS的阳性菌检出率略低于血培养, 但无统计学差异(P=0.455)。血培养检出的首位致病菌是凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌, 其次是大肠埃希菌。mNGS检出的最常见致病菌是鲍曼不动杆菌, 其次是肺炎克雷伯菌。血培养和mNGS两种方法检测革兰阴性菌的阳性符合率和阴性符合率分别为72.70%和88.10%, 而革兰阳性菌的阳性符合率和阴性符合率分别为10.00%和96.30%, 血培养和mNGS无检测结果一致的真菌。mNGS的病毒检出率为68.82%, 血培养未检测出病毒阳性。170例患者的30 d全因死亡率为22.35%。根据mNGS调整治疗后好转率为48.00%, 高于根据血培养调整治疗后好转率20.00%(P=0.007)。
    结论 血液病粒缺伴发热且经验性抗感染治疗无效的患者中, 在革兰阴性菌、真菌、病毒检测及指导治疗方面mNGS优于血培养, 在革兰阳性菌感染方面, mNGS与血培养各有优势, 两种方法结合应用具有更大临床价值。

     

    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE To investigate the pathogenic characteristics detected by metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) and its impact on treatment and prognosis in hematological disease patients with febrile neutropenia.
    METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted on 170 hematological disease patients with febrile neutropenia and were ineffective to empirical anti-infective treatment at the Hematology Department of the First Medical Center of the Chinese PLA General Hospital from Apr. 2019 to Dec. 2023. Both blood culture and blood mNGS were simultaneously performed on these patients, and the effects of mNGS and blood culture on pathogen detection rates, pathogen distribution, consistency of test results, the proportion of treatment adjustments based on etiology, and all-cause mortality were compared and analyzed.
    RESULTS The detection rate of pathogens of blood culture was 12.94%, with a contamination rate of 4.12%. The pathogen detection rate of mNGS was 25.88%, with a contamination rate of 0.59%. mNGS showed higher detection rates for pathogens, gram-negative bacteria and fungi than blood culture (all P < 0.05). However, the detection rate for gram-positive bacteria by mNGS was slightly lower than that by blood culture, but there was no significant statistical difference (P=0.455). The most common pathogenic bacteria detected by blood culture was coagulase negative Staphylococcus aureus, followed by Escherichia coli. The most common pathogenic bacteria detected by mNGS are Acinetobacter baumannii, followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae. The positive and negative agreement rates for detecting gram-negative bacteria by blood culture and mNGS methods were 72.70% and 88.10%, respectively. The positive and negative agreement rates for detecting gram-positive bacteria were 10.00% and 96.30%, respectively. No fungi were detected consistently by both methods. The viral detection rate by mNGS was 68.82%, while no virus were detected by blood culture. The 30-day all-cause mortality rate of the 170 patients was 22.35%. The improvement rate after treatment adjusted according to mNGS was significantly higher than that after treatment adjusted according to blood culture (48.00% vs. 20.00%, P= 0.007).
    CONCLUSIONS For patients with hematological disease accompanied by febrile neutropenia and are ineffective to empirical treatment, mNGS is significantly superior to blood culture in detecting pathogen (gram-negative bacteria, fungi, and viruses) and guiding treatment. In terms of gram-positive bacterial infections, mNGS and blood culture have their own advantages, and the combination of the two methods has greater clinical value.

     

/

返回文章
返回