Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 February 22; Volume 11 (Issue 2); DOI:10.3390/diagnostics11020373
Mateos Gonzalez M, de Casasola Sanchez G, Munoz FJ, Proud K, Lourdo D, et al.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 February 22; Volume 11 (Issue 2); DOI:10.3390/diagnostics11020373
Point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) is an attractive alternative to chest X-ray (CXR), but its diagnostic accuracy compared to CXR has not been well studied in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. We conducted a prospective observational study to assess the correlation between LUS and CXR findings in COVID-19 patients. Ninety-six patients with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 underwent an LUS exam and CXR upon presentation. Physicians blinded to the CXR findings performed all LUS exams. Detection of pulmonary infiltrates by CXR versus LUS was compared between patients categorized as suspected or confirmed COVID-19 based on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Sensitivities and correlation by Kappa statistic were calculated between LUS and CXR. LUS detected pulmonary infiltrates more often than CXR in both suspected and confirmed COVID-19 subjects. The most common LUS abnormalities were discrete B-lines, confluent B-lines, and small subpleural consolidations. Most important, LUS detected unilateral or bilateral pulmonary infiltrates in 55% of subjects with a normal CXR. Substantial agreement was demonstrated between LUS and CXR for normal, unilateral or bilateral findings (Κ = 0.48 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.63)). In patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, LUS detected pulmonary infiltrates more often than CXR, including more than half of the patients with a normal CXR.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 August 30; Volume 12 (Issue 9); 2106.; DOI:10.3390/diagnostics12092106
Ronat JB, Oueslati S, Natale A, Kesteman T, Elamin W, et al.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 August 30; Volume 12 (Issue 9); 2106.; DOI:10.3390/diagnostics12092106
Easy and robust antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) methods are essential in clinical bacteriology laboratories (CBL) in low-resource settings (LRS). We evaluated the Beckman Coulter MicroScan lyophilized broth microdilution panel designed to support Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) CBL activity in difficult settings, in particular with the Mini-Lab. We evaluated the custom-designed MSF MicroScan Gram-pos microplate (MICPOS1) for Staphylococcus and Enterococcus species, MSF MicroScan Gram-neg microplate (MICNEG1) for Gram-negative bacilli, and MSF MicroScan Fastidious microplate (MICFAST1) for Streptococci and Haemophilus species using 387 isolates from routine CBLs from LRS against the reference methods. Results showed that, for all selected antibiotics on the three panels, the proportion of the category agreement was above 90% and the proportion of major and very major errors was below 3%, as per ISO standards. The use of the Prompt inoculation system was found to increase the MIC and the major error rate for some antibiotics when testing Staphylococci. The readability of the manufacturer’s user manual was considered challenging for low-skilled staff. The inoculations and readings of the panels were estimated as easy to use. In conclusion, the three MSF MicroScan MIC panels performed well against clinical isolates from LRS and provided a convenient, robust, and standardized AST method for use in CBL in LRS.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 January 31; Volume 13 (Issue 3); 523.; DOI:10.3390/diagnostics13030523
Natale A, Oueslati S, Rochard A, Lopez-Baez D, Ombelet S, et al.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 January 31; Volume 13 (Issue 3); 523.; DOI:10.3390/diagnostics13030523
Culture media is fundamental in clinical bacteriology for the detection and isolation of bacterial pathogens. However, in-house media preparation could be challenging in low-resource settings. InTray® cassettes (Biomed Diagnostics) could be a valid alternative as they are compact, ready-to-use media preparations. In this study, we evaluate the use of two InTray media as a subculture alternative for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: the InTray® Müller-Hinton (MH) chocolate and the InTray® Colorex™ Screen. The InTray MH chocolate was evaluated in 2 steps: firstly, using simulated positive blood cultures (reference evaluation study), and secondly, using positive blood cultures from a routine clinical laboratory (clinical evaluation study). The Colorex Screen was tested using simulated poly-microbial blood cultures. The sensitivity and specificity of the InTray MH chocolate were respectively 99.2% and 90% in the reference evaluation study and 97.1% and 88.2% in the clinical evaluation study. The time to detection (TTD) was ≤20 h in most positive blood cultures (99.8% and 97% in the two studies, respectively). The InTray® MH Chocolate agar showed good performance when used directly from clinical blood cultures for single bacterial infections. However, mixed flora is more challenging to interpret on this media than on Colorex™ Screen, even for an experienced microbiologist.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 February 19; Volume 11 (Issue 2); 349.; DOI:10.3390/diagnostics11020349
Ombelet S, Natale A, Ronat JB, Vandenberg O, Hardy L, et al.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 February 19; Volume 11 (Issue 2); 349.; DOI:10.3390/diagnostics11020349
Bacterial identification is challenging in low-resource settings (LRS). We evaluated the MicroScan identification panels (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) as part of Médecins Sans Frontières' Mini-lab Project. The MicroScan Dried Overnight Positive ID Type 3 (PID3) panels for Gram-positive organisms and Dried Overnight Negative ID Type 2 (NID2) panels for Gram-negative organisms were assessed with 367 clinical isolates from LRS. Robustness was studied by inoculating Gram-negative species on the Gram-positive panel and vice versa. The ease of use of the panels and readability of the instructions for use (IFU) were evaluated. Of species represented in the MicroScan database, 94.6% (185/195) of Gram-negative and 85.9% (110/128) of Gram-positive isolates were correctly identified up to species level. Of species not represented in the database (e.g., Streptococcus suis and Bacillus spp.), 53.1% out of 49 isolates were incorrectly identified as non-related bacterial species. Testing of Gram-positive isolates on Gram-negative panels and vice versa (n = 144) resulted in incorrect identifications for 38.2% of tested isolates. The readability level of the IFU was considered too high for LRS. Inoculation of the panels was favorably evaluated, whereas the visual reading of the panels was considered error-prone. In conclusion, the accuracy of the MicroScan identification panels was excellent for Gram-negative species and good for Gram-positive species. Improvements in stability, robustness, and ease of use have been identified to assure adaptation to LRS constraints.