Clinical diagnostic value of throat swabs in pediatric acute lower respiratory tract infections using targeted next-generation sequencing.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Di Lian, Chenye Lin, ZhiNan Zhang, JianXing Wei, Dong Wang, QiuYu Tang
{"title":"Clinical diagnostic value of throat swabs in pediatric acute lower respiratory tract infections using targeted next-generation sequencing.","authors":"Di Lian, Chenye Lin, ZhiNan Zhang, JianXing Wei, Dong Wang, QiuYu Tang","doi":"10.1186/s12887-024-05380-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To evaluate the clinical utility of targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) for pathogen detection of pediatric acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRTIs), with a particular focus on the use of throat swab samples.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this diagnostic accuracy study involving 132 children, throat swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples were collected and analyzed by tNGS, and the results were compared with those obtained from conventional diagnostic methods. The impact of prior antibiotic use on the detection rate of tNGS was evaluated, the consistency between throat swabs and BALF was assessed, and the economic cost and invasiveness of the sampling methods were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study enrolled 132 children, of whom 79 (60%) were boys and 53 (40%) were girls. Ninety-two (70%) of the patients had fever, and 128 (97%) had a cough. The detection rates of bacteria, viruses, and atypical pathogens in BALF samples by tNGS were 89.5% (n = 68), 98.2% (n = 108), and 77.8% (n = 63), respectively. Compared to traditional detection methods, tNGS showed significantly higher detection rates for bacteria and viruses (P < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference in the detection of atypical pathogens (P = 0.59). The use of antibiotics had no significant effect on bacterial detection by tNGS (P = 0.237). Using BALF-tNGS as the \"gold standard,\" the sensitivities of tNGS of throat swabs for detecting bacteria, viruses, and atypical pathogens were 95.83%, 88.16%, and 92.06%, respectively, with specificities of 55.95%, 83.93%, and 100%. In the analysis of economic costs and invasiveness, the cost of throat swab sampling was significantly lower than that of BALF sampling, and the associated pain score and complication rate were significantly lower (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>tNGS with throat swabs offers higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional methods for diagnosing pediatric ALRTIs. As such, it offers a less invasive, more cost-effective alternative to BALF sampling.</p>","PeriodicalId":9144,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pediatrics","volume":"25 1","pages":"224"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11927259/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-024-05380-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the clinical utility of targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) for pathogen detection of pediatric acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRTIs), with a particular focus on the use of throat swab samples.

Methods: In this diagnostic accuracy study involving 132 children, throat swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples were collected and analyzed by tNGS, and the results were compared with those obtained from conventional diagnostic methods. The impact of prior antibiotic use on the detection rate of tNGS was evaluated, the consistency between throat swabs and BALF was assessed, and the economic cost and invasiveness of the sampling methods were examined.

Results: This study enrolled 132 children, of whom 79 (60%) were boys and 53 (40%) were girls. Ninety-two (70%) of the patients had fever, and 128 (97%) had a cough. The detection rates of bacteria, viruses, and atypical pathogens in BALF samples by tNGS were 89.5% (n = 68), 98.2% (n = 108), and 77.8% (n = 63), respectively. Compared to traditional detection methods, tNGS showed significantly higher detection rates for bacteria and viruses (P < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference in the detection of atypical pathogens (P = 0.59). The use of antibiotics had no significant effect on bacterial detection by tNGS (P = 0.237). Using BALF-tNGS as the "gold standard," the sensitivities of tNGS of throat swabs for detecting bacteria, viruses, and atypical pathogens were 95.83%, 88.16%, and 92.06%, respectively, with specificities of 55.95%, 83.93%, and 100%. In the analysis of economic costs and invasiveness, the cost of throat swab sampling was significantly lower than that of BALF sampling, and the associated pain score and complication rate were significantly lower (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: tNGS with throat swabs offers higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional methods for diagnosing pediatric ALRTIs. As such, it offers a less invasive, more cost-effective alternative to BALF sampling.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Pediatrics
BMC Pediatrics PEDIATRICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.20%
发文量
683
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pediatrics is an open access journal publishing peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of health care in neonates, children and adolescents, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信