Impact of metagenomics next-generation sequencing on etiological diagnosis and early outcomes in sepsis.

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Feixiang Xu, Chen Chen, Su Lu, Mingming Xue, Hailin Ding, Yanli Song, Yun Zhang, Keyu Sun, Lunxian Tang, Wei Wang, Meitang Wang, Yan Tang, Dingyu Tan, Chenling Yao, Dongwei Shi, Enqiang Mao, Mian Shao, Youguo Ying, Chunmei Zhou, Lihong Huang, Hu Peng, Zhongshu Kuang, Sanqiang Wang, Qingbian Ma, Si Sun, Dongfeng Guo, Tianwen Gu, Bin Yang, Linhao Ma, Chengjin Gao, Xiaoye Lu, Hong Zhang, Ruilan Wang, Chaoyang Tong, Zhenju Song
{"title":"Impact of metagenomics next-generation sequencing on etiological diagnosis and early outcomes in sepsis.","authors":"Feixiang Xu, Chen Chen, Su Lu, Mingming Xue, Hailin Ding, Yanli Song, Yun Zhang, Keyu Sun, Lunxian Tang, Wei Wang, Meitang Wang, Yan Tang, Dingyu Tan, Chenling Yao, Dongwei Shi, Enqiang Mao, Mian Shao, Youguo Ying, Chunmei Zhou, Lihong Huang, Hu Peng, Zhongshu Kuang, Sanqiang Wang, Qingbian Ma, Si Sun, Dongfeng Guo, Tianwen Gu, Bin Yang, Linhao Ma, Chengjin Gao, Xiaoye Lu, Hong Zhang, Ruilan Wang, Chaoyang Tong, Zhenju Song","doi":"10.1186/s12967-025-06332-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical implications of metagenomics next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in sepsis have not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic impacts of mNGS in sepsis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter prospective study was conducted at 19 sites in China from 2020 to 2021, and 859 adult patients hospitalized with sepsis were enrolled. The advantages, challenges, knowledge gaps and privacy risks of mNGS were carefully introduced to all participants, and participants chose on their own to either receive conventional microbiological test (CMT) alone (conventional-test-only group, n = 394) or receive mNGS test along with CMT (combined test group, n = 465). For prognostic analysis, the primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included 7-day mortality and average per-day hospital cost. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance covariates between groups. Concurrent CMT and mNGS results from patients in the combined test group were used for diagnostic analyses. Therapeutic impact of mNGS was evaluated based on subsequent antibiotic adjustment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with composite reference standard, the positive percent agreement of mNGS among infected site samples was significantly higher than that of CMT (92.0% [95% CI, 88.7 to 94.5] vs. 51.1% [95% CI, 45.9 to 56.2], p < 0.001), while the negative percent agreement of mNGS was inferior to that of CMT (39.6% [95% CI, 29.5 to 50.4] vs. 69.2% [95% CI, 58.7 to 78.5], p < 0.001). The mNGS test identified causal microbes in 344 (74.0%) patients, and concomitant antibiotic changes occurred in 136 patients (29.2%). Death by day 7 occurred in 24 of 465 (5.2%) patients in the combined test group and in 34 of 394 (8.6%) patients in the conventional-test-only group (hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.77], p = 0.004). However, no significant difference in 28-day mortality was observed between two study groups (hazard ratio, 0.82 [0.56 to 1.20], p = 0.300).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The mNGS test of infected site samples exhibited 40% higher pathogen detection rate than CMT in patients with sepsis, which led to improved etiological diagnosis and tailored antibiotic therapy. Additional use of mNGS halved the risk of early death in 7 days, but did not improve 28-day survival in patients with sepsis.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>chictr.org.cn Identifier: ChiCTR2000031113. Registered 22 March 2020.</p>","PeriodicalId":17458,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Translational Medicine","volume":"23 1","pages":"394"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11969879/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Translational Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-025-06332-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical implications of metagenomics next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in sepsis have not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic impacts of mNGS in sepsis.

Methods: This multicenter prospective study was conducted at 19 sites in China from 2020 to 2021, and 859 adult patients hospitalized with sepsis were enrolled. The advantages, challenges, knowledge gaps and privacy risks of mNGS were carefully introduced to all participants, and participants chose on their own to either receive conventional microbiological test (CMT) alone (conventional-test-only group, n = 394) or receive mNGS test along with CMT (combined test group, n = 465). For prognostic analysis, the primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included 7-day mortality and average per-day hospital cost. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance covariates between groups. Concurrent CMT and mNGS results from patients in the combined test group were used for diagnostic analyses. Therapeutic impact of mNGS was evaluated based on subsequent antibiotic adjustment.

Results: Compared with composite reference standard, the positive percent agreement of mNGS among infected site samples was significantly higher than that of CMT (92.0% [95% CI, 88.7 to 94.5] vs. 51.1% [95% CI, 45.9 to 56.2], p < 0.001), while the negative percent agreement of mNGS was inferior to that of CMT (39.6% [95% CI, 29.5 to 50.4] vs. 69.2% [95% CI, 58.7 to 78.5], p < 0.001). The mNGS test identified causal microbes in 344 (74.0%) patients, and concomitant antibiotic changes occurred in 136 patients (29.2%). Death by day 7 occurred in 24 of 465 (5.2%) patients in the combined test group and in 34 of 394 (8.6%) patients in the conventional-test-only group (hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.77], p = 0.004). However, no significant difference in 28-day mortality was observed between two study groups (hazard ratio, 0.82 [0.56 to 1.20], p = 0.300).

Conclusions: The mNGS test of infected site samples exhibited 40% higher pathogen detection rate than CMT in patients with sepsis, which led to improved etiological diagnosis and tailored antibiotic therapy. Additional use of mNGS halved the risk of early death in 7 days, but did not improve 28-day survival in patients with sepsis.

Trial registration: chictr.org.cn Identifier: ChiCTR2000031113. Registered 22 March 2020.

背景:元基因组学新一代测序(mNGS)对败血症的临床影响尚未得到充分评估。本研究旨在确定 mNGS 对败血症的诊断、治疗和预后的影响:这项多中心前瞻性研究于 2020 年至 2021 年在中国的 19 个地点进行,共纳入 859 名脓毒症住院成人患者。研究人员向所有参与者仔细介绍了 mNGS 的优势、挑战、知识缺口和隐私风险,参与者自行选择单独接受常规微生物学检测(CMT)(常规检测组,n = 394)或在接受常规微生物学检测的同时接受 mNGS 检测(联合检测组,n = 465)。预后分析的主要终点是 28 天死亡率。次要终点包括 7 天死亡率和平均每天住院费用。采用逆概率治疗加权法平衡各组间的协变量。联合检测组患者的同期 CMT 和 mNGS 结果用于诊断分析。根据随后的抗生素调整评估了 mNGS 的治疗效果:结果:与复合参考标准相比,感染部位样本的 mNGS 阳性一致率显著高于 CMT(92.0% [95% CI, 88.7 to 94.5] vs. 51.1% [95% CI, 45.9 to 56.2],p 结论:感染部位样本的 mNGS 检测结果与 CMT 的结果一致:在败血症患者中,对感染部位样本进行 mNGS 检测的病原体检出率比 CMT 高出 40%,从而提高了病因诊断和针对性抗生素治疗的效果。额外使用 mNGS 可将脓毒症患者 7 天内的早期死亡风险降低一半,但并不能提高患者 28 天的存活率:ChiCTR2000031113。注册日期:2020 年 3 月 22 日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Translational Medicine
Journal of Translational Medicine 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
1.40%
发文量
537
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Translational Medicine is an open-access journal that publishes articles focusing on information derived from human experimentation to enhance communication between basic and clinical science. It covers all areas of translational medicine.
×
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