(200 days)
The GenMark ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative (BCID-GN) Panel is a qualitative nucleic acid multiplex in vitro diagnostic test intended for use on GenMark's ePlex Instrument for simultaneous qualitative detection and identification of multiple potentially pathogenic gram-negative bacterial organisms and select determinants associated with antimicrobial resistance in positive blood culture. In addition, the ePlex BCID-GN Panel is capable of detecting several gram-positive bacteria (Pan Gram-Positive assay) and several Candida species (Pan Candida assay). The ePlex BCID-GN Panel is performed directly on blood culture samples identified as positive by a continuous monitoring blood culture system and which contain gram-negative organism.
The following bacterial organisms and genes associated with antibiotic resistance are identified using the ePlex BCID-GN Panel: Acinetobacter baumannii, Bacteroides fragilis, Citrobacter, Cronobacter sakazakii. Enterobacter cloacae complex, Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex), Escherichia coli, Fusobacterium necrophorum, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Haemophilus influenzae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Klebsiella pneumoniae group, Morganella morganii, Neisseria meningitidis, Proteus, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella, Serratia, Serratia marcescens, Stenotrophomas maltophilia, СТХ-М (blactх-м), IMP (blамм) , КРС (blakec) , NDM (bland), OXA (blaoxa) (OXA-23 and OXA-48 groups only), and VIM (blaviм).
The ePlex BCID-GN Panel contains assays for the detection of genetic determinants associated with resistance to antimicrobial agents including CTX-M(blactx.M), which is associated with resistance to extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-mediated resistance to penicillins, cephalosporins and monobactams, as well as OXA (blaoxA) (OXA-23 and OXA-48 groups only), KPC (blakpc), and metallo-beta-lactamases IMP (blavM), VIM (blavM), and NDM (blaNDM), which is associated with carbapenemase-mediated resistance. The antimicrobial resistance gene detected may or may not be associated with the agent responsible for disease. Negative results for these select antimicrobial resistance assays do not indicate susceptibility, as there are multiple mechanisms of resistance in gram-negative bacteria.
The ePlex BCID-GN Panel also contains targets designed to detect a broad range of organisms with a potentially misleading Gram stain result or organisms that may be missed by Gram staining altogether, for example in the case of co-infections. These include a broad Pan Gram-Positive assay (which is designed to detect Bacillus cereus group, Bacillus subtilis group, Enterococcus, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus), as well as a Pan Candida assay, which is designed to detect four Candida species: Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida krusei, and Candida parapsilosis.
The detection and identification of specific bacterial and fungal nucleic acids from individuals exhibiting signs and/or symptoms of bloodstream infection aids in the diagnosis of bloodstream infection when used in conjunction with other clinical information. The results from the ePlex BCID-GN Panel are intended to be interpreted in conjunction with Gram stain results and should not be used as the sole basis for diagnosis, treatment, or other patient management decisions.
Negative results in the setting of a suspected bloodstream infection may be due to infection with pathogens that are not detected by this test. Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other organisms; the organism(s) detected by the ePlex BCID-GN Panel may not be the definite cause of disease. Additional laboratory testing (e.g. sub-culturing of positive blood cultures for identification of organisms not detected by ePlex BCID-GN Panel and for susceptibility testing, differentiation of mixed growth, and association of antimicrobial resistance marker genes to a specific organism) and clinical presentation must be taken into consideration in the final diagnosis of bloodstream infection.
The ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative (BCID-GN) Panel is based on the principles of competitive nucleic acid hybridization using a sandwich assay format, wherein a single-stranded target binds concurrently to a sequence-specific solution-phase signal probe and a solid-phase electrode-bound capture probe. The test employs nucleic acid extraction, target amplification via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) and hybridization of target DNA. In the process, the double-stranded PCR amplicons are digested with exonuclease to generate single-stranded DNA suitable for hybridization.
Nucleic acid extraction from biological samples occurs within the cartridge via cell lysis, nucleic acid capture onto magnetic beads, and release for amplification. The nucleic acid extraction is processed through microfluidic liquid handling. Once the nucleic acid targets are captured and inhibitors are washed away, the magnetic particles are delivered to the electrowetting environment on the printed circuit board (PCB) and the targets are eluted from the particles and amplified.
During hybridization, the single-stranded target DNA binds to a complementary, single-stranded capture probe immobilized on the working gold electrode surface. Single-stranded signal probes (labeled with electrochemically active ferrocenes) bind to specific target sequence / region adjacent to the capture probe. Simultaneous hybridization of target to signal probes and capture probe is detected by alternating current voltammetry (ACV). Each working electrode on the array contains specific capture probes, and sequential analysis of each electrode allows detection of multiple analyte targets.
Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study information for the ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram Negative (BCID-GN) Panel, extracted from the provided text:
Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram Negative (BCID-GN) Panel
The ePlex BCID-GN Panel is a qualitative nucleic acid multiplex in vitro diagnostic test for the simultaneous qualitative detection and identification of multiple potentially pathogenic gram-negative bacterial organisms and select determinants associated with antimicrobial resistance in positive blood cultures. Performance characteristics were evaluated through clinical and analytical studies.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The acceptance criteria are generally implied by the achieved performance metrics, which show high Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) for sensitivity and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) for specificity. While explicit numerical acceptance thresholds are not directly stated as "acceptance criteria" in a dedicated section, the provided tables demonstrate the device's performance against its intended use. For brevity, the "Overall" performance (combining prospective, retrospective, and contrived samples where applicable) is used here to represent the device's reported performance against implied high accuracy criteria.
| Target (Organism/Resistance Gene) | Implied Acceptance Criteria (High Accuracy) | Reported Device Performance (Overall PPA % (95% CI)) | Reported Device Performance (Overall NPA % (95% CI)) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 100 (95.1-100) | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
| Bacteroides fragilis | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 95.6 (87.8-98.5) | 99.9 (99.6-100) |
| Citrobacter | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 98.6 (92.2-99.7) | 99.8 (99.4-99.9) |
| Cronobacter sakazakii | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 100 (92.3-100) | 100 (99.8-100) |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 95.3 (89.4-98.0) | 99.6 (99.2-99.8) |
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 96.6 (88.3-99.0) | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
| Escherichia coli | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 96.9 (94.4-98.3) | 99.8 (99.4-99.9) |
| Fusobacterium necrophorum | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 98.0 (89.3-99.6) | 100 (99.8-100) |
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 100 (93.1-100) | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
| Haemophilus influenzae | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 100 (93.5-100) | 100 (99.8-100) |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 89.6 (80.0-94.8) | 99.8 (99.5-99.9) |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 97.9 (95.2-99.1) | 99.7 (99.3-99.9) |
| Morganella morganii | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 100 (94.2-100) | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
| Neisseria meningitidis | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 100 (92.0-100) | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
| Proteus | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 97.7 (92.0-99.4) | 100 (99.8-100) |
| Proteus mirabilis | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 97.6 (91.6-99.3) | 100 (99.8-100) |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 95.8 (90.6-98.2) | 99.7 (99.4-99.9) |
| Salmonella | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 96.4 (87.9-99.0) | 100 (99.8-100) |
| Serratia | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 100 (95.4-100) | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
| Serratia marcescens | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 100 (94.2-100) | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 94.0 (83.8-97.9) | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
| Pan Candida | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 62.5 (30.6-86.3) | 99.7 (98.4-99.9) (Prospective All) |
| Pan Gram-Positive | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 78.2 (67.8-85.9) | 97.9 (95.6-99.0) (Prospective All) |
| CTX-M (Overall) | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 93.1 (88.1-96.1) | 100 (99.7-100) |
| IMP (Overall) | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 100 (91.2-100) | 100 (99.7-100) |
| KPC (Overall) | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 98.1 (89.9-99.7) | 99.9 (99.6-100) |
| NDM (Overall) | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 100 (93.4-100) | 100 (99.7-100) |
| OXA (Overall) | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 94.0 (83.8-97.9) | 99.8 (99.4-100) |
| VIM (Overall) | High Sensitivity & Specificity | 100 (91.6-100) | 100 (99.7-100) |
2. Sample Sizes Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
The test set comprised a combination of clinical and contrived samples:
- Prospective Clinical Samples: 349 evaluable samples (167 fresh, 182 frozen). Patients were of all ages and genders. Collected at 7 clinical sites.
- Retrospective Clinical Samples: 577 evaluable samples. Collected at 10 clinical sites.
- Contrived Samples: 777 samples.
Data Provenance: The clinical samples (prospective and retrospective) were collected at multiple clinical sites, suggesting data from different countries/regions, but specific countries of origin are not detailed. Both prospective and retrospective collection methods were used.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience) used to establish the ground truth. It refers to "standard laboratory procedures for identification of blood culture isolates, including traditional and automated identification methods, MALDI-TOF IVD, and microbiological and biochemical techniques" as the comparator method. For Acinetobacter baumannii and Candida parapsilosis, as well as antibiotic resistance genes, PCR assays followed by bi-directional sequencing were used for confirmation. This implies a reliance on established laboratory protocols and potentially expert interpretation within those processes, but specific expert count or detailed qualifications are not provided.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). The "Comparator Method" served as the reference standard and was used to determine true positive (TP), false negative (FN), true negative (TN), and false positive (FP) results. Discrepancies were investigated using PCR/sequencing (as noted in footnotes for various tables), suggesting a re-evaluation process for conflicting results but not a formal multi-reader adjudication scheme for the initial ground truth establishment.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done
No MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance was performed or described in the provided text. The study focuses on the standalone performance of the ePlex BCID-GN Panel against laboratory reference methods.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done
Yes, the study described is a standalone performance study of the ePlex BCID-GN Panel. The performance metrics (PPA and NPA) are calculated by comparing the device's output directly against the "Comparator Method" without human interpretation influencing the device's result.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
The ground truth was established using expert consensus methods based on standard laboratory procedures for organism identification and analytically validated molecular assays (qPCR followed by bi-directional sequencing) for confirming specific organisms and resistance genes. This includes:
- Traditional and automated identification methods
- MALDI-TOF IVD
- Microbiological and biochemical techniques
- PCR/sequencing for specific organisms and resistance markers.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
The document does not mention a distinct "training set" in the context of the clinical performance evaluation. The clinical studies (prospective, retrospective, and contrived samples) are described as evaluation/test sets. However, the "Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity)" and "Limit of Detection (LoD)" studies (Tables 56 and 57) describe testing of various strains and isolates to establish the device's analytical performance and broad reactivity. These analytical studies are crucial for the development and "training" (in a broader sense of assay design and validation) of such molecular diagnostic panels.
Specifically:
- Limit of Detection (LoD): At least 20 replicates per target were tested for each condition using quantified reference strains (Table 56 lists 38 organisms/targets with specific strains).
- Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity): A panel of 336 strains/isolates was evaluated (Table 57 provides a partial list of these validated strains).
- Predicted (in silico) Reactivity: Bioinformatic analysis covered many additional variants for genus/group assays and resistance markers (Tables 58-76).
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
For the analytical "training" aspects:
- LoD: The ground truth for LoD was established by using quantified reference strains with known concentrations in simulated blood culture sample matrix. The lowest concentration detected in ≥95% of tested replicates was defined as the LoD.
- Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity): The ground truth was established by testing well-characterized strains/isolates with known identities at specified concentrations, confirming their detection by the panel.
- Predicted (in silico) Reactivity: This involved bioinformatic analysis of existing sequence data for various organisms and resistance gene variants to predict the panel's ability to detect them. This is a computational method for establishing theoretical ground truth based on genetic sequences.
{0}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/0/Picture/0 description: The image contains the logos of the Department of Health & Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Department of Health & Human Services logo is on the left, and the FDA logo is on the right. The FDA logo includes the letters "FDA" in a blue square, followed by the words "U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION" in blue text.
April 12, 2019
GenMark Diagnostics, Incorporated Alan Maderazo VP, Ouality, Regulatory & Clinical Affairs 5964 La Place Court Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: K182619
Trade/Device Name: ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram Negative (BCID-GN) Panel Regulation Number: 21 CFR 866.3365 Regulation Name: Multiplex nucleic acid assay for identification of microorganisms and resistance markers from positive blood cultures Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: PEN PAM PEO Dated: September 21, 2018 Received: September 24, 2018
Dear Alan Maderazo:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. Although this letter refers to your product as a device, please be aware that some cleared products may instead be combination products. The 510(k) Premarket Notification Database located at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm identifies combination product submissions. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration. Please note: CDRH does not evaluate information related to contract liability warranties. We remind you, however, that device labeling must be truthful and not misleading.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.
Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must comply with all the Act's
{1}------------------------------------------------
requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Part 801 and Part 809); medical device reporting of medical device-related adverse events) (21 CFR 803) for devices or postmarketing safety reporting (21 CFR 4, Subpart B) for combination products (see https://www.fda.gov/CombinationProducts/GuidanceRegulatoryInformation/ucm597488.htm); good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (OS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820) for devices or current good manufacturing practices (21 CFR 4, Subpart A) for combination products; and, if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR 1000-1050.
Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR Part 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ReportaProblem/default.htm.
For comprehensive regulatory information about medical devices and radiation-emitting products, including information about labeling regulations, please see Device Advice (https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/) and CDRH Learn (http://www.fda.gov/Training/CDRHLearn). Additionally, you may contact the Division of Industry and Consumer Education (DICE) to ask a question about a specific regulatory topic. See the DICE website (http://www.fda.gov/DICE) for more information or contact DICE by email (DICE@fda.hhs.gov) or phone (1-800-638-2041 or 301-796-7100).
Sincerely.
for
Uwe Scherf, Ph.D. Director Division of Microbiology Devices Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{2}------------------------------------------------
5.0 510(k) Summary
Summary of Safety and Effectiveness
Submitter Information
- GenMark Diagnostics, Incorporated Submitter: 5964 La Place Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
- Manufacturer: GenMark Diagnostics, Incorporated 5964 La Place Court Carlsbad, CA 92008
Establishment Registration Number: 3008632402
| Contact: | Alan Maderazo, Ph.D., RACVice President, Quality, Regulatory and Clinical Affairs |
|---|---|
| Phone: | 760-448-4308 |
| Fax: | 760-683-6961 |
| E-mail: | Al.Maderazo@genmarkdx.com |
| Alternate Contact: | Beth StofkaSr. Regulatory Affairs Specialist |
| Phone: | 760-579-4778 |
| Fax: | 760-683-6961 |
| E-mail: | Beth.Stofka@genmarkdx.com |
| Date Prepared: | September 21, 2018 |
Name of Device and Classification
ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative (BCID-GN) Panel Product Name: Device Classification: 866.3980, Multiplex nucleic acid assay for identification of microorganisms and resistance markers from positive blood cultures, Class II PEN, PAM, PEO Product Code(s):
{3}------------------------------------------------
Predicate Device
Predicate:
FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel: BioFire Diagnostics; K130914
Device Description
The ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative (BCID-GN) Panel is based on the principles of competitive nucleic acid hybridization using a sandwich assay format, wherein a single-stranded target binds concurrently to a sequence-specific solution-phase signal probe and a solid-phase electrode-bound capture probe. The test employs nucleic acid extraction, target amplification via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) and hybridization of target DNA. In the process, the double-stranded PCR amplicons are digested with exonuclease to generate single-stranded DNA suitable for hybridization.
Nucleic acid extraction from biological samples occurs within the cartridge via cell lysis, nucleic acid capture onto magnetic beads, and release for amplification. The nucleic acid extraction is processed through microfluidic liquid handling. Once the nucleic acid targets are captured and inhibitors are washed away, the magnetic particles are delivered to the electrowetting environment on the printed circuit board (PCB) and the targets are eluted from the particles and amplified.
During hybridization, the single-stranded target DNA binds to a complementary, single-stranded capture probe immobilized on the working gold electrode surface. Single-stranded signal probes (labeled with electrochemically active ferrocenes) bind to specific target sequence / region adjacent to the capture probe. Simultaneous hybridization of target to signal probes and capture probe is detected by alternating current voltammetry (ACV). Each working electrode on the array contains specific capture probes, and sequential analysis of each electrode allows detection of multiple analyte targets.
{4}------------------------------------------------
Intended Use/Indications for Use
The GenMark ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative (BCID-GN) Panel is a qualitative nucleic acid multiplex in vitro diagnostic test intended for use on GenMark's ePlex Instrument for simultaneous qualitative detection and identification of multiple potentially pathogenic gram-negative bacterial organisms and select determinants associated with antimicrobial resistance in positive blood culture. In addition, the ePlex BCID-GN Panel is capable of detecting several gram-positive bacteria (Pan Gram-Positive assay) and several Candida species (Pan Candida assay). The ePlex BCID-GN Panel is performed directly on blood culture samples identified as positive by a continuous monitoring blood culture system and which contain gram-negative organism.
The following bacterial organisms and genes associated with antibiotic resistance are identified using the ePlex BCID-GN Panel: Acinetobacter baumannii, Bacteroides fragilis, Citrobacter, Cronobacter sakazakii. Enterobacter cloacae complex, Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex), Escherichia coli, Fusobacterium necrophorum, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Haemophilus influenzae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Klebsiella pneumoniae group, Morganella morganii, Neisseria meningitidis, Proteus, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella, Serratia, Serratia marcescens, Stenotrophomas maltophilia, СТХ-М (blactх-м), IMP (blамм) , КРС (blakec) , NDM (bland), OXA (blaoxa) (OXA-23 and OXA-48 groups only), and VIM (blaviм).
The ePlex BCID-GN Panel contains assays for the detection of genetic determinants associated with resistance to antimicrobial agents including CTX-M(blactx.M), which is associated with resistance to extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-mediated resistance to penicillins, cephalosporins and monobactams, as well as OXA (blaoxA) (OXA-23 and OXA-48 groups only), KPC (blakpc), and metallo-beta-lactamases IMP (blavM), VIM (blavM), and NDM (blaNDM), which is associated with carbapenemase-mediated resistance. The antimicrobial resistance gene detected may or may not be associated with the agent responsible for disease. Negative results for these select antimicrobial resistance assays do not indicate susceptibility, as there are multiple mechanisms of resistance in gram-negative bacteria.
{5}------------------------------------------------
The ePlex BCID-GN Panel also contains targets designed to detect a broad range of organisms with a potentially misleading Gram stain result or organisms that may be missed by Gram staining altogether, for example in the case of co-infections. These include a broad Pan Gram-Positive assay (which is designed to detect Bacillus cereus group, Bacillus subtilis group, Enterococcus, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus), as well as a Pan Candida assay, which is designed to detect four Candida species: Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida krusei, and Candida parapsilosis.
The detection and identification of specific bacterial and fungal nucleic acids from individuals exhibiting signs and/or symptoms of bloodstream infection aids in the diagnosis of bloodstream infection when used in conjunction with other clinical information. The results from the ePlex BCID-GN Panel are intended to be interpreted in conjunction with Gram stain results and should not be used as the sole basis for diagnosis, treatment, or other patient management decisions.
Negative results in the setting of a suspected bloodstream infection may be due to infection with pathogens that are not detected by this test. Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other organisms; the organism(s) detected by the ePlex BCID-GN Panel may not be the definite cause of disease. Additional laboratory testing (e.g. sub-culturing of positive blood cultures for identification of organisms not detected by ePlex BCID-GN Panel and for susceptibility testing, differentiation of mixed growth, and association of antimicrobial resistance marker genes to a specific organism) and clinical presentation must be taken into consideration in the final diagnosis of bloodstream infection.
Summary of Technological Characteristics of the Device Compared to the Predicate Device
The GenMark ePlex Blood Culture Identification Gram-Negative (BCID-GN) Panel ("Subject Device") and the legally marketed device, FilmArray Blood Culture Identification Panel, K130914, ("Predicate Device") are described below:
{6}------------------------------------------------
| Characteristic | Subject Device | Predicate Device |
|---|---|---|
| Product Name | ePlex BCID-GN Panel | FilmArray BCID Panel |
| Manufacturer | GenMark Diagnostics, Inc. | BioFire Diagnostics, Inc. |
| OrganismsDetected | Acinetobacter baumannii Bacteroides fragilis Citrobacter Cronobacter sakazakii Enterobacter cloacae complex Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) Escherichia coli Fusobacterium necrophorum Fusobacterium nucleatum Haemophilus influenzae Klebsiella oxytoca Klebsiella pneumoniae Morganella morganii Neisseria meningitidis Proteus Proteus mirabilis Pseudomonas aeruginosa Salmonella Serratia Serratia marcescens Stenotrophomonas Saltophilia pyogenes (GAS) | Enterococci, Listeria monocytogenes,commonly encountered Staphylococci(including specific differentiation ofStaphylococcus aureus), commonlyencountered Streptococci (withspecific differentiation ofStreptococcus agalactiae,Streptococcus pneumoniae, andStreptococcus pyogenes),Acinetobacter baumannii, commonlyencountered Enterobacteriaceae(including specific differentiation ofthe Enterobacter cloacae complex,Escherichia coli, Klebsiella oxytoca,Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus, andSerratia marcescens), Haemophilusinfluenzae, Neisseria meningitidis(encapsulated), Pseudomonasaeruginosa, Candida albicans,Candida glabrata, Candida krusei,Candida parapsilosis, and Candidatropicalis. |
| Resistance GenesDetected | CTX-M, IMP, KPC, NDM, OXA, andVIM | Genetic determinants of resistance tomethicillin (mecA), vancomycin(vanA and vanB), and carbapenems(blaKPC) |
| Indication forUse | The ePlex BCID-GN Panel is indicatedas an aid in the diagnosis of specificagents of bacteremia. The use ofadditional laboratory testing (e.g. sub-culturing of positive blood cultures foridentification of organisms not detectedby the ePlex BCID-GN Panel and forsusceptibility testing, differentiation ofmixed growth, and association ofantimicrobial resistance marker genes toa specific organism) and clinicalpresentation must be taken intoconsideration in the final diagnosis ofblood stream infection. | FilmArray BCID is indicated as an aidin the diagnosis of specific agents ofbacteremia and fungemia and resultsshould be used in conjunction withother clinical and laboratory findings. |
| Characteristic | Subject Device | Predicate Device |
| Specimen Type | Blood culture samples identified aspositive by a continuous monitoringblood culture system thatdemonstrates the presence oforganisms as confirmed by Gramstain. | Blood culture samples identified aspositive by a continuous monitoringblood culture system thatdemonstrates the presence oforganisms as confirmed by Gramstain. |
| Chemistry | Reagents on cartridge include: samplelysis and nucleic acid extraction, PCRamplification and hybridization-basedelectrochemical detection reagents. | The FilmArray BCID pouch containsfreeze-dried reagents to performnucleic acid purification and nested,multiplex PCR with DNA meltanalysis. |
| Hardware | GenMark ePlex Instrument & SingleUse Cartridge | FilmArray Instrument and assay pouch |
| SoftwareInterfaceResult Reporting | GenMark ePlex System Software GenMark ePlex BCID-GN Panel Software | The FilmArray Software automaticallyinterprets the results of each DNAmelt curve analysis and combines thedata with the results of the internalpouch controls to provide a test resultfor each organism and antimicrobialresistance gene on the panel. |
{7}------------------------------------------------
Analysis of the similarities and differences indicate that the devices are substantially equivalent in their intended uses/indications for use, and are generally the same regarding user process, ease of use and general operator protocol. Comparison of technological similarities and differences between the proposed device and the predicate do not raise new or different questions of safety and effectiveness, and therefore render the proposed device as substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
Summarv of Performance Data
Expected Values
A prospective, multicenter clinical study was conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of the ePlex BCID-GN Panel in positive blood culture samples. A total of 349 samples were prospectively collected at 7 clinical sites in 2 phases from patients of all ages and genders. In the first phase from June 2014 through July 2016, 182 samples were prospectively collected and frozen; from June through July 2018, 167 samples were prospectively collected and tested fresh (never frozen). The expected values of individual analytes based on the ePlex BCID-GN Panel results in prospective samples are summarized by age group and by site in Tables 1 and 2 below.
{8}------------------------------------------------
Table 1: Expected Value by Age Group (Prospective Samples)
| Target | All Ages(N=349)n (%) | Age <1(N=7)n (%) | Age 1-17(N=10)n (%) | Age 18-44(N=50)n (%) | Age 45-64(N=124)n (%) | Age 65-84(N=125)n (%) | Age 85+(N=33)n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii | 4 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.0) | 2 (1.6) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) |
| Bacteroides fragilis | 11 (3.2) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (4.0) | 4 (3.2) | 2 (1.6) | 3 (9.1) |
| Citrobacter | 8 (2.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (4.0) | 1 (0.8) | 2 (1.6) | 3 (9.1) |
| Cronobacter sakazakii | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Enterobacter (non-cloacaecomplex) | 9 (2.6) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (10.0) | 2 (4.0) | 5 (4.0) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | 23 (6.6) | 3 (42.9) | 1 (10.0) | 6 (12.0) | 5 (4.0) | 8 (6.4) | 0 (0.0) |
| Escherichia coli | 132 (37.8) | 2 (28.6) | 2 (20.0) | 16 (32.0) | 41 (33.1) | 55 (44.0) | 16 (48.5) |
| Fusobacterium necrophorum | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Haemophilus influenzae | 7 (2.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (6.0) | 1 (0.8) | 1 (0.8) | 2 (6.1) |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | 12 (3.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (6.0) | 8 (6.5) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | 59 (16.9) | 1 (14.3) | 1 (10.0) | 10 (20.0) | 26 (21.0) | 17 (13.6) | 4 (12.1) |
| Morganella morganii | 3 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.6) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) |
| Neisseria meningitidis | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Proteus | 22 (6.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (4.8) | 13 (10.4) | 3 (9.1) |
| Proteus mirabilis | 22 (6.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (4.8) | 13 (10.4) | 3 (9.1) |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 28 (8.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (20.0) | 3 (6.0) | 12 (9.7) | 10 (8.0) | 1 (3.0) |
| Salmonella | 2 (0.6) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.8) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) |
| Serratia | 10 (2.9) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (10.0) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (4.0) | 4 (3.2) | 0 (0.0) |
| Serratia marcescens | 9 (2.6) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (10.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (3.2) | 4 (3.2) | 0 (0.0) |
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | 3 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (6.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Pan Candida | 2 (0.6) | 1 (14.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Pan Gram-Positive | 24 (6.9) | 1 (14.3) | 2 (20.0) | 5 (10.0) | 7 (5.6) | 7 (5.6) | 2 (6.1) |
| CTX-M | 24 (6.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (4.0) | 7 (5.6) | 12 (9.6) | 3 (9.1) |
| IMP | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| КРС | 3 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.0) | 1 (0.8) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) |
| NDM | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| OXA | 1 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| VIM | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
{9}------------------------------------------------
| Table 2: Expected Value by Collection Site (Prospective Samples) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- | -- | -- |
| Target | All Sites(N=349)n (%) | Site 1(N=88)n (%) | Site 2(N=23)n (%) | Site 3(N=98)n (%) | Site 4(N=58)n (%) | Site 5(N=46)n (%) | Site 6(N=28)n (%) | Site 7(N=8)n (%) | Resistance Gene | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enterobacter(non-cloacae complex) | 9 (2.6) | 2 (2.3) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (4.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.2) | 2 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) | Organism | CTX-M | IMP | KPC | NDM | OXA | VIM |
| Acinetobacter baumannii | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | 23 (6.6) | 3 (3.4) | 1 (4.3) | 10 (10.2) | 1 (1.7) | 6 (13.0) | 2 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) | Bacteroides fragilis | ||||||
| Escherichia coli | 132 (37.8) | 30 (34.1) | 8 (34.8) | 37 (37.8) | 25 (43.1) | 17 (37.0) | 12 (42.9) | 3 (37.5) | Citrobacter | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Fusobacterium necrophorum | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | Cronobacter sakazakii | X | |||||
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | Enterobacter cloacae complex | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Haemophilus influenzae | 7 (2.0) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (2.0) | 2 (3.4) | 1 (2.2) | 1 (3.6) | 0 (0.0) | Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | 12 (3.4) | 5 (5.7) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (3.1) | 1 (1.7) | 2 (4.3) | 1 (3.6) | 0 (0.0) | Escherichia coli | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | 59 (16.9) | 17 (19.3) | 3 (13.0) | 20 (20.4) | 5 (8.6) | 7 (15.2) | 4 (14.3) | 3 (37.5) | Fusobacterium necrophorum | ||||||
| Morganella morganii | 3 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.3) | 2 (2.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | Fusobacterium nucleatum | ||||||
| Neisseria meningitidis | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | Haemophilus influenzae | ||||||
| Proteus | 22 (6.3) | 9 (10.2) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (5.1) | 5 (8.6) | 2 (4.3) | 1 (3.6) | 0 (0.0) | Klebsiella oxytoca | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Proteus mirabilis | 22 (6.3) | 9 (10.2) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (5.1) | 5 (8.6) | 2 (4.3) | 1 (3.6) | 0 (0.0) | Klebsiella pneumoniae | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 28 (8.0) | 5 (5.7) | 2 (8.7) | 10 (10.2) | 8 (13.8) | 2 (4.3) | 1 (3.6) | 0 (0.0) | Morganella morganii | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Salmonella | 2 (0.6) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.2) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | Neisseria meningitidis | ||||||
| Serratia | 10 (2.9) | 1 (1.1) | 2 (8.7) | 1 (1.0) | 3 (5.2) | 3 (6.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | Proteus | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Serratia marcescens | 9 (2.6) | 1 (1.1) | 2 (8.7) | 1 (1.0) | 3 (5.2) | 2 (4.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | Proteus mirabilis | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | 3 (0.9) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.7) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.6) | 0 (0.0) | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Pan Candida | 2 (0.6) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.6) | 0 (0.0) | Salmonella | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Pan Gram-Positive | 24 (6.9) | 15 (17.0) | 1 (4.3) | 5 (5.1) | 1 (1.7) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) | Serratia | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| CTX-M | 24 (6.9) | 9 (10.2) | 1 (4.3) | 3 (3.1) | 4 (6.9) | 5 (10.9) | 2 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) | Serratia marcescens | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| IMP | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | X | |||||
| КРС | 3 (0.9) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.0) | 1 (1.7) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||||||
| NDM | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||||||
| OXA | 1 (0.3) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||||||
| VIM | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
{10}------------------------------------------------
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
Clinical Performance
Samples with final, valid ePlex BCID-GN Panel test results and a valid comparator result were evaluable and included in summaries and analyses of demographics, expected values (positivity rate), and performance characteristics. Evaluable samples included 167 prospective fresh and 182 prospective frozen samples as well as 577 retrospective samples and 777 contrived samples.
Comparator Method
The performance of the ePlex BCID-GN Panel was compared to standard laboratory procedures for identification of blood culture isolates, including traditional and automated identification methods, MALDI-TOF IVD, and microbiological and biochemical techniques. Identification for samples with Acinetobacter baumannii or Candida parapsilosis identified by standard laboratory procedures was confirmed using analytically validated PCR assays followed by bi-directional sequencing. For antibiotic resistance genes, the ePlex BCID-GN Panel was compared to analytically validated qPCR amplification assays followed by bi-directional sequencing in samples with an associated organism identified by culture (See Table 3 for organism associations).
Table 3: Resistance Marker Organism Associations
VOL 005 Page 9
{11}------------------------------------------------
The comparator method(s) results were used to determine the Detected / Not Detected status for each target organism on the ePlex BCID-GN Panel. The comparator methods for each target are summarized in Table 4.
| Target | Comparator Method |
|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii | Standard laboratory procedures for organism ID.PCR/sequencing to confirm Acinetobacter baumannii or differentAcinetobacter species not included in this panel. |
| Bacteroides fragilis | |
| Citrobacter | |
| Cronobacter sakazakii | |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | |
| Enterobacter non-cloacae complex | |
| Escherichia coli | |
| Fusobacterium necrophorum | |
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | |
| Haemophilus influenzae | |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae | Standard laboratory procedures for organism identification. |
| Morganella morganii | |
| Neisseria meningitidis | |
| Proteus | |
| Proteus mirabilis | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | |
| Salmonella | |
| Serratia | |
| Serratia marcescens | |
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | |
| Pan Gram-Negative | |
| Pan Candida | Standard laboratory procedures for organism ID.PCR/sequencing to confirm C. parapsilosis or identifyC. metapsilosis, C. orthopsilosis. |
| CTX-M, IMP, KPC, NDM, OXA, VIM | qPCR/sequencing in samples with associated organism detectedby comparator method. See Table 3 for organism associations. |
Table 4: Comparator Method(s) by ePlex BCID-GN Panel Target
{12}------------------------------------------------
Demographics of Clinical Samples
Clinical performance was evaluated in positive blood culture samples prospectively and retrospectively collected. Prospective samples were collected at 7 clinical sites in 2 phases. From June 2014 through July 2016, 183 samples were prospectively collected and frozen; from June through July 2018, 171 samples were prospectively collected and tested fresh (never frozen) for a total of 354 samples across the 2 phases. One of these samples was withdrawn due to organism identification from unacceptable methods. Of the 353 prospectively-collected samples eligible for testing, 349 were evaluable. Samples with final, valid ePlex BCID-GN Panel results and a valid comparator result were evaluable. Four samples were not evaluable because they did not have final, valid ePlex BCID-GN Panel results and were excluded from performance evaluations. Demographic information for prospectively-collected samples is described in Table 5. Subjects enrolled in this study were from a diverse demographic distribution and represent the intended patient population.
To supplement the number of positives for low prevalence targets in the prospective collection, 578 samples were collected retrospectively, 577 were evaluable. One sample was not evaluable because it did not have a final, valid ePlex BCID-GN Panel result and was excluded from performance evaluations. Demographic information for retrospectively-collected samples is described in Table 6.
| All SitesN = 349n (%) | Site 1N = 88n (%) | Site 2N = 23n (%) | Site 3N = 98n (%) | Site 4N = 58n (%) | Site 5N = 46n (%) | Site 6N = 28n (%) | Site 7N=8n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||||||||
| Male | 168 (48.1) | 37 (42.0) | 12 (52.2) | 52 (53.1) | 28 (48.3) | 21 (45.7) | 13 (46.4) | 5 (62.5) |
| Female | 181 (51.9) | 51 (58.0) | 11 (47.8) | 46 (46.9) | 30 (51.7) | 25 (54.3) | 15 (53.6) | 3 (37.5) |
| Age | ||||||||
| <1 yr | 7 (2.0) | 2 (2.3) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (4.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.2) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| 1-17 yrs | 10 (2.9) | 4 (4.5) | 1 (4.3) | 3 (3.1) | 1 (1.7) | 1 (2.2) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| 18-44 yrs | 50 (14.3) | 10 (11.4) | 3 (13.0) | 20 (20.4) | 3 (5.2) | 8 (17.4) | 6 (21.4) | 0 (0.0) |
| 45-64 yrs | 124 (35.5) | 35 (39.8) | 9 (39.1) | 28 (28.6) | 21 (36.2) | 14 (30.4) | 13 (46.4) | 4 (50.0) |
| 65-84 yrs | 125 (35.8) | 29 (33.0) | 8 (34.8) | 35 (35.7) | 25 (43.1) | 17 (37.0) | 7 (25.0) | 4 (50.0) |
| 85+ yrs | 33 (9.5) | 8 (9.1) | 2 (8.7) | 8 (8.2) | 8 (13.8) | 5 (10.9) | 2 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) |
Table 5: Demographic Data for Clinical Samples by Collection Site (Prospective Collection)
{13}------------------------------------------------
| All SitesN = 577n (%) | Site 1N = 78n (%) | Site 2N = 73n (%) | Site 3N = 31n (%) | Site 4N = 93n (%) | Site 5N=1n (%) | Site 6N = 80n (%) | Site 7N = 67n (%) | Site 8N = 48n (%) | Site 9N = 29n (%) | Site 10N = 77n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||||||||||
| Male | 307 (53.2) | 36 (46.2) | 41 (56.2) | 15 (48.4) | 49 (52.7) | 0 (0.0) | 47 (58.8) | 38 (56.7) | 29 (60.4) | 19 (65.5) | 33 (42.9) |
| Female | 270 (46.8) | 42 (53.8) | 32 (43.8) | 16 (51.6) | 44 (47.3) | 1 (100) | 33 (41.3) | 29 (43.3) | 19 (39.6) | 10 (34.5) | 44 (57.1) |
| Age | |||||||||||
| <1 yr | 9 (1.6) | 1 (1.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (3.2) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (2.5) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (2.6) |
| 1-17 yrs | 20 (3.5) | 1 (1.3) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.2) | 8 (8.6) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (7.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.4) | 3 (3.9) |
| 18-44 yrs | 78 (13.5) | 13 (16.7) | 7 (9.6) | 2 (6.5) | 10 (10.8) | 1 (100) | 15 (18.8) | 8 (11.9) | 8 (16.7) | 6(20.7) | 8 (10.4) |
| 45-64 yrs | 193 (33.4) | 27 (34.6) | 18 (24.7) | 13 (41.9) | 27 (29.0) | 0 (0.0) | 32 (40.0) | 27 (40.3) | 16 (33.3) | 9 (31.0) | 24 (31.2) |
| 65-84 yrs | 226 (39.2) | 29 (37.2) | 40 (54.8) | 11 (35.5) | 40 (43.0) | 0 (0.0) | 20 (25.0) | 24 (35.8) | 21 (43.8) | 11 (37.9) | 30 (39.0) |
| 85+ yrs | 49 (8.5) | 7 (9.0) | 8 (11.0) | 4 (12.9) | 5 (5.4) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (6.3) | 6 (9.0) | 2 (4.2) | 2 (6.9) | 10 (13.0) |
| Unknown | 2 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (3.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
Clinical Performance
Sensitivity or positive percent agreement (PPA) was calculated by dividing the number of true positive (TP) results by the sum of TP and false negative (FN) results, while specificity or negative percent agreement (NPA) was calculated by dividing the number of true negative (TN) results by the sum of TN and false positive (FP) result being defined as a sample where the detected ePlex BCID-GN Panel result matched the detected comparator method result, while a TN result was one where a negative ePlex BCID-GN Panel result matched a negative comparator method result. The two-sided 95% confidence interval was also calculated.
A total of 349 prospectively-collected samples (167 tested fresh and 182 tested after previously frozen) and 577 retrospectively collected samples from blood culture bottles flagged positive in a continuously monitoring blood culture system and removed from the system within 8 hours of positivity were evaluated for the ePlex BCID-GN Panel targets. Specimens evaluated were determined to contain gram-negative or gram-variable organisms based on Gram stain. A total of 777 contrived samples were prepared by spiking an isolate into a blood culture bottle with human whole blood and growing until flagged positive by a continuously monitoring blood culture system. Contrived samples were removed from the system within 8 hours of positivity and stored frozen until the time of testing. PPA and NPA results are summarized by target in Tables 7-34 below, and the strains used to contrive samples are summarized in Table 35.
{14}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | TP/TP+FN | Sensitivity/PPA% (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | Specificity/NPA% (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prospective (Fresh) | 0/0 | --- | 167/167 | 100 (97.8-100) | |
| Acinetobacterbaumannii | Prospective (Frozen) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 178/178 | 100 (97.9-100) |
| Prospective (All) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 345/345 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 15/15 | 100 (79.6-100) | 560/561 | 99.8 (99.0-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | 905/906A | 99.9 (99.4-100) | |
| Contrived | 55/55 | 100 (93.5-100) | 722/722 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 74/74 | 100 (95.1-100) | 1627/1628 | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
CI= Confidence Interval
A. Acinetobacter baumanii was detected in the 1/1 false positive sample using PCR/sequencing.
Table 8: Clinical Performance for Bacteroides fragilis
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Bacteroides fragilis | Prospective (Fresh) | 6/6 | 100 (61.0-100) | 161/161 | 100 (97.7-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 177/177 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 11/11 | 100 (74.1-100) | 338/338 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 14/17 | 82.4 (59.0-93.8) | 558/560 | 99.6 (98.7-99.9) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 25/28A | 89.3 (72.8-96.3) | 896/898B | 99.8 (99.2-99.9) | |
| Contrived | 40/40 | 100 (91.2-100) | 737/737 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 65/68 | 95.6 (87.8-98.5) | 1633/1635 | 99.9 (99.6-100) |
A. B. fragilis was not detected in 2 false negative samples, but PCR/sequencing instead detected B. caccae and B. thetaiotaomicron, which were not identified by standard laboratory procedures.
B. B. fragilis was detected in 2/2 false positive samples using PCR/sequencing.
{15}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Citrobacter | Prospective (Fresh) | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 163/164 | 99.4 (96.6-99.9) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 178/180 | 98.9 (96.0-99.7) | |
| Prospective (All) | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 341/344 | 99.1 (97.5-99.7) | |
| Retrospective | 20/21 | 95.2 (77.3-99.2) | 555/556 | 99.8 (99.0-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 25/26 | 96.2 (81.1-99.3) | 896/9004 | 99.6 (98.9-99.8) | |
| Contrived | 43/43 | 100 (91.8-100) | 734/734 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Citrobacter | Overall | 68/69 | 98.6 (92.2-99.7) | 1630/1634 | 99.8 (99.4-99.9) |
Table 9: Clinical Performance for Citrobacter
A. Citrobacter braakii (2) and Citrobacter freundii (2) were detected in 44 false positive samples using PCR/sequencing.
Table 10: Clinical Performance for Cronobacter sakazakii
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Cronobacter sakazakii | Prospective (Fresh) | 0/0 | --- | 167/167 | 100 (97.8-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 0/0 | --- | 182/182 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 0/0 | --- | 349/349 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 576/576 | 100 (99.3-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 925/925 | 100 (99.6-100) | |
| Contrived | 45/45 | 100 (92.1-100) | 732/732 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 46/46 | 100 (92.3-100) | 1657/1657 | 100 (99.8-100) |
{16}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Enterobacter cloacaecomplex | Prospective (Fresh) | 12/12 | 100 (75.8-100) | 153/155 | 98.7 (95.4-99.6) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | 173/175 | 98.9 (95.9-99.7) | |
| Prospective (All) | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | 326/330 | 98.8 (96.9-99.5) | |
| Retrospective | 47/50 | 94.0 (83.8-97.9) | 526/527 | 99.8 (98.9-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 66/69A | 95.7 (88.0-98.5) | 852/857B | 99.4 (98.6-99.8) | |
| Contrived | 35/37C | 94.6 (82.3-98.5) | 739/740 | 99.9 (99.2-100) | |
| Overall | 101/106 | 95.3 (89.4-98.0) | 1591/1597 | 99.6 (99.2-99.8) |
Table 11: Clinical Performance for Enterobacter cloacae complex
A. A species of the Enterobacter cloacae complex was not detected in 1 false negative sample, but PCR/sequencing and MALDI-TOF instead detected E. coli. Standard laboratory procedures identified E. cloacae only.
B. E. cloacae was detected in 2/5 false positive samples using PCR/sequencing.
C. E. cloacae complex was not detected in 2 samples containing Enterobacter asburiae.
Table 12: Clinical Performance for Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex)
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Enterobacter -non-cloacae complex | Prospective (Fresh) | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 163/164 | 99.4 (96.6-99.9) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 5/7 | 71.4 (35.9-91.8) | 175/175 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 8/10 | 80.0 (49.0-94.3) | 338/339 | 99.7 (98.3-99.9) | |
| Retrospective | 12/12 | 100 (75.8-100) | 565/565 | 100 (99.3-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 20/22A | 90.9 (72.2-97.5) | 903/904B | 99.9 (99.4-100) | |
| Contrived | 36/36 | 100 (90.4-100) | 741/741 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 56/58 | 96.6 (88.3-99.0) | 1644/1645 | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
A. A species of the Enterobacter non-cloacae complex was not detected in 2 false negative samples. Standard laboratory procedures identified E. aerogenes and PCR/sequencing detected E. cloacae.,.
B. A species of the Enterobacter non-cloacae complex was not detected in the false positive sample using PCR/sequencing.
{17}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Escherichia coli | Prospective (Fresh) | 59/60 | 98.3 (91.1-99.7) | 106/107 | 99.1 (94.9-99.8) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 72/73 | 98.6 (92.6-99.8) | 109/109 | 100 (96.6-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 131/133 | 98.5 (94.7-99.6) | 215/216 | 99.5 (97.4-99.9) | |
| Retrospective | 132/140 | 94.3 (89.1-97.1) | 435/437 | 99.5 (98.3-99.9) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 263/273 | 96.3 (93.4-98.0) | 650/653A | 99.5 (98.7-99.8) | |
| Contrived | 52/52 | 100 (93.1-100) | 725/725 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 315/325 | 96.9 (94.4-98.3) | 1375/1378 | 99.8 (99.4-99.9) |
Table 13: Clinical Performance for Escherichia coli
A. E. coli was detected in 3/3 false positive samples using PCR/sequencing.
Table 14: Clinical Performance for Fusobacterium necrophorum
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Fusobacteriumnecrophorum | Prospective (Fresh) | 0/0 | --- | 167/167 | 100 (97.8-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 0/0 | --- | 182/182 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 0/0 | --- | 349/349 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 576/576 | 100 (99.3-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 925/925 | 100 (99.6-100) | |
| Contrived | 47/48 | 97.9 (89.1-99.6) | 729/729 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 48/49 | 98.0 (89.3-99.6) | 1654/1654 | 100 (99.8-100) |
{18}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Fusobacteriumnucleatum | Prospective (Fresh) | 0/0 | --- | 167/167 | 100 (97.8-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 0/0 | --- | 182/182 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 0/0 | --- | 349/349 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 571/572 | 99.8 (99.0-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 920/921A | 99.9 (99.4-100) | |
| Contrived | 47/47 | 100 (92.4-100) | 730/730 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 52/52 | 100 (93.1-100) | 1650/1651 | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
| Table 15: Clinical Performance for Fusobacterium nucleatum |
|---|
| ------------------------------------------------------------ |
A. F. nucleatum was detected in the 1/1 false positive sample using PCR/sequencing.
Table 16: Clinical Performance for Haemophilus influenzae
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Haemophilusinfluenzae | Prospective (Fresh) | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 164/164 | 100 (97.7-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 178/178 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | 342/342 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | 570/570 | 100 (99.3-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 14/14 | 100 (78.5-100) | 912/912 | 100 (99.6-100) | |
| Contrived | 41/41 | 100 (91.4-100) | 736/736 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 55/55 | 100 (93.5-100) | 1648/1648 | 100 (99.8-100) |
{19}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Prospective (Fresh) | 4/6 | 66.7 (30.0-90.3) | 160/161 | 99.4 (96.6-99.9) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | 175/175 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 11/13 | 84.6 (57.8-95.7) | 335/336 | 99.7 (98.3-99.9) | |
| Retrospective | 29/34 | 85.3 (69.9-93.6) | 541/543 | 99.6 (98.7-99.9) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 40/47A | 85.1 (72.3-92.6) | 876/879B | 99.7 (99.0-99.9) | |
| Contrived | 20/20 | 100 (83.9-100) | 757/757 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 60/67 | 89.6 (80.0-94.8) | 1633/1636 | 99.8 (99.5-99.9) |
Table 17: Clinical Performance for Klebsiella oxytoca
A. K. oxytoca was not detected in 2 false negative samples using but 16S sequencing instead detected Raoultella ornithinolytica and Raoultella planticola, which were not identified by standard laboratory procedures.
B. Klebsiella oxytoca was detected in 3/3 false positive samples using PCR/sequencing.
Table 18: Clinical Performance for Klebsiella pneumoniae group
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniaegroup | Prospective (Fresh) | 29/30 | 96.7 (83.3-99.4) | 136/137 | 99.3 (96.0-99.9) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 29/31 | 93.5 (79.3-98.2) | 151/151 | 100 (97.5-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 58/61 | 95.1 (86.5-98.3) | 287/288 | 99.7 (98.1-99.9) | |
| Retrospective | 106/108 | 98.1 (93.5-99.5) | 466/469 | 99.4 (98.1-99.8) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 164/169A | 97.0 (93.3-98.7) | 753/757B | 99.5 (98.6-99.8) | |
| Contrived | 72/72 | 100 (94.9-100) | 705/705 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 236/241 | 97.9 (95.2-99.1) | 1458/1462 | 99.7 (99.3-99.9) |
A. K. pneumoniae was not detected in 1 false negative sample, but PCR/sequencing and MALDI-TOF instead detected K. oxyloca, which was not identified by standard laboratory procedures.
B. K. pneumoniae was detected in 4/4 false positive samples using PCR/sequencing.
{20}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Morganella morganii | Prospective (Fresh) | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 164/164 | 100 (97.7-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 0/0 | --- | 182/182 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 346/346 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | 566/567 | 99.8 (99.0-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 13/13 | 100 (77.2-100) | 912/913A | 99.9 (99.4-100) | |
| Contrived | 49/49 | 100 (92.7-100) | 728/728 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) | 1640/1641 | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
Table 19: Clinical Performance for Morganella morganii
A. M. morganii was detected in 1/1 false positive clinical samples using PCR/sequencing.
Table 20: Clinical Performance for Neisseria meningitidis
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Neisseria meningitidis | Prospective (Fresh) | 0/0 | --- | 167/167 | 100 (97.8-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 0/0 | --- | 182/182 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 0/0 | --- | 349/349 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 576/577 | 99.8 (99.0-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 925/926A | 99.9 (99.4-100) | |
| Contrived | 44/44 | 100 (92.0-100) | 733/733 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 44/44 | 100 (92.0-100) | 1658/1659 | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
A. N. meningitidis was not detected in the false positive sample using PCR/sequencing.
{21}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Proteus | Prospective (Fresh) | 7/8 | 87.5 (52.9-97.8) | 159/159 | 100 (97.6-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 15/15 | 100 (79.6-100) | 167/167 | 100 (97.8-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 22/23 | 95.7 (79.0-99.2) | 326/326 | 100 (98.8-100) | |
| Retrospective | 54/55 | 98.2 (90.4-99.7) | 522/522 | 100 (99.3-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 76/78 | 97.4 (91.1-99.3) | 848/848 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Contrived | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | 768/768 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 85/87 | 97.7 (92.0-99.4) | 1616/1616 | 100 (99.8-100) |
Table 21: Clinical Performance for Proteus
Table 22: Clinical Performance for Proteus mirabilis
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Proteus mirabilis | Prospective (Fresh) | 7/8 | 87.5 (52.9-97.8) | 159/159 | 100 (97.6-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 15/15 | 100 (79.6-100) | 167/167 | 100 (97.8-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 22/23 | 95.7 (79.0-99.2) | 326/326 | 100 (98.8-100) | |
| Retrospective | 50/51 | 98.0 (89.7-99.7) | 526/526 | 100 (99.3-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 72/74 | 97.3 (90.7-99.3) | 852/852 | 100 (99.6-100) | |
| Contrived | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | 768/768 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 81/83 | 97.6 (91.6-99.3) | 1620/1620 | 100 (99.8-100) |
{22}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Pseudomonasaeruginosa | Prospective (Fresh) | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | 157/157 | 100 (97.6-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 17/18 | 94.4 (74.2-99.0) | 163/164 | 99.4 (96.6-99.9) | |
| Prospective (All) | 27/28 | 96.4 (82.3-99.4) | 320/321 | 99.7 (98.3-99.9) | |
| Retrospective | 56/60 | 93.3 (84.1-97.4) | 514/517 | 99.4 (98.3-99.8) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 83/88 | 94.3 (87.4-97.5) | 834/838A | 99.5 (98.8-99.8) | |
| Contrived | 32/32 | 100 (89.3-100) | 745/745 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 115/120 | 95.8 (90.6-98.2) | 1579/1583 | 99.7 (99.4-99.9) |
Table 23: Clinical Performance for Pseudomonas aeruginosa
A. P. aeruginosa was detected in 2/4 false positive samples using PCR/sequencing.
Table 24: Clinical Performance for Salmonella
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Salmonella | Prospective (Fresh) | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 165/165 | 100 (97.7-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 0/0 | --- | 182/182 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 347/347 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 18/19 | 94.7 (75.4-99.1) | 558/558 | 100 (99.3-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 20/21 A | 95.2 (77.3-99.2) | 905/905 | 100 (99.6-100) | |
| Contrived | 34/35 | 97.1 (85.5-99.5) | 742/742 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 54/56 | 96.4 (87.9-99.0) | 1647/1647 | 100 (99.8-100) |
A. Salmonella was not detected in 1 false negative sample, but PCR sequencing instead detected E. coli, which was not identified by standard laboratory procedures.
{23}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Serratia | Prospective (Fresh) | 6/6 | 100 (61.0-100) | 161/161 | 100 (97.7-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 178/178 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | 339/339 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | 542/543 | 99.8 (99.0-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 44/44 | 100 (92.0-100) | 881/8824 | 99.9 (99.4-100) | |
| Contrived | 36/36 | 100 (90.4-100) | 741/741 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 80/80 | 100 (95.4-100) | 1622/1623 | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
Table 25: Clinical Performance for Serratia
A. S. marcescens was detected in the 1/1 false positive sample using PCR/sequencing.
Table 26: Clinical Performance for Serratia marcescens
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Serratia marcescens | Prospective (Fresh) | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 162/162 | 100 (97.7-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 178/178 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | 340/340 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | 542/543 | 99.8 (99.0-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 43/43 | 100 (91.8-100) | 882/883A | 99.9 (99.4-100) | |
| Contrived | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | 758/758 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) | 1640/1641 | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
A. S. marcescens was detected in the 1/1 false positive sample using PCR/sequencing.
{24}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Stenotrophomonasmaltophilia | Prospective (Fresh) | 2/3 | 66.7 (20.8-93.9) | 164/164 | 100 (97.7-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 181/181 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 3/4 | 75.0 (30.1-95.4) | 345/345 | 100 (98.9-100) | |
| Retrospective | 8/10 | 80.0 (49.0-94.3) | 566/567 | 99.8 (99.0-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 11/14 | 78.6 (52.4-92.4) | 911/912A | 99.9 (99.4-100) | |
| Contrived | 36/36 | 100 (90.4-100) | 741/741 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Overall | 47/50 | 94.0 (83.8-97.9) | 1652/1653 | 99.9 (99.7-100) |
Table 27: Clinical Performance for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia
A. S. maltophilia was detected in the 1/1 false positive sample using PCR/sequencing.
Table 28: Clinical Performance for CTX-M
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| CTX-M | Prospective (Fresh) | 10/13 | 76.9 (49.7-91.8) | 127/127 | 100 (97.1-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 12/16 | 75.0 (50.5-89.8) | 144/144 | 100 (97.4-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 22/29 | 75.9 (57.9-87.8) | 271/271 | 100 (98.6-100) | |
| Retrospective | 52/56 | 92.9 (83.0-97.2) | 483/483 | 100 (99.2-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 74/85A | 87.1 (78.3-92.6) | 754/754 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Contrived | 75/75 | 100 (95.1-100) | 437/437 | 100 (99.1-100) | |
| Overall | 149/160 | 93.1 (88.1-96.1) | 1191/1191 | 100 (99.7-100) |
A. In 3/11 false negative samples, CTX-M signal was above the threshold for detection; however, an associated by the BCID-GN Panel and the CTX-M target was reported as 'N/A'. Further testing of the 8/11 remaining false negative samples indicated that 7 of the 8 samples may have been contaminated during the original comparator extraction process and misidentified as having CTX-M present. Specifically, results for 7 of the 8 samples were negative for CTX-M from the following additional testing of 2 repeat extractions from the original sample, 2) qPCR testing of an extraction from the isolate, and 3) testing of the original sample with an FDA-cleared multiplex assay. For these 7 samples, the originally extracted sample was re-tested with qPCR and CTX-M was again detected, suggesting contamination during the original extraction process. The remaining 8th sample was possitive for CTX-M from the repeat extractions, negative for CTX-M from the isolate, and negative for CTX-M when tested with an FDA-cleared multiplex assay. These inconsistent detection results suggest the 8th sample may be a true low-copy CTX-M positive sample.
Confidential
{25}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| IMP | Prospective (Fresh) | 0/0 | --- | 138/138 | 100 (97.3-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 0/0 | --- | 159/159 | 100 (97.6-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 0/0 | --- | 297/297 | 100 (98.7-100) | |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 532/532 | 100 (99.3-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 829/829 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Contrived | 40/40 | 100 (91.2-100) | 436/436 | 100 (99.1-100) | |
| Overall | 40/40 | 100 (91.2-100) | 1265/1265 | 100 (99.7-100) |
Table 29: Clinical Performance for IMP
Table 30: Clinical Performance for KPC
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| KPC | Prospective (Fresh) | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 136/136 | 100 (97.3-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 158/158 | 100 (97.6-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 294/294 | 100 (98.7-100) | |
| Retrospective | 4/5 | 80.0 (37.6-96.4) | 527/528 | 99.8 (98.9-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 7/8 | 87.5 (52.9-97.8) | 821/822 | 99.9 (99.3-100) | |
| Contrived | 44/44 | 100 (92.0-100) | 477/477 | 100 (99.2-100) | |
| Overall | 51/52 | 98.1 (89.9-99.7) | 1298/1299 | 99.9 (99.6-100) |
{26}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| NDM | Prospective (Fresh) | 0/0 | --- | 138/138 | 100 (97.3-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 0/0 | --- | 159/159 | 100 (97.6-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 0/0 | --- | 297/297 | 100 (98.7-100) | |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 532/532 | 100 (99.3-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 829/829 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| NDM | Contrived | 54/54 | 100 (93.4-100) | 422/422 | 100 (99.1-100) |
| Overall | 54/54 | 100 (93.4-100) | 1251/1251 | 100 (99.7-100) |
Table 31: Clinical Performance for NDM
Table 32: Clinical Performance for OXA
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| OXA | Prospective (Fresh) | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 137/137 | 100 (97.3-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 158/158 | 100 (97.6-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 1/2 | 50.0 (9.5-90.5) | 295/295 | 100 (98.7-100) | |
| Retrospective | 9/11 | 81.8 (52.3-94.9) | 519/521 | 99.6 (98.6-99.9) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 10/13A | 76.9 (49.7-91.8) | 814/816 | 99.8 (99.1-99.9) | |
| Contrived | 37/37 | 100 (90.6-100) | 439/439 | 100 (99.1-100) | |
| Overall | 47/50 | 94.0 (83.8-97.9) | 1253/1255 | 99.8 (99.4-100) |
A. In 1/3 false negative samples, OXA signal was above the threshold for detection; however, an associated organism was not detected by the BCID-GN Panel and the OXA target was reported as 'N/A'. One additional false negative sample was tested with an FDA-cleared multiplex assay and OXA was not detected. The isolate from the remaining false negative for OXA-23 and OXA-48 by qPCR.
{27}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| VIM | Prospective (Fresh) | 0/0 | --- | 138/138 | 100 (97.3-100) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 0/0 | --- | 159/159 | 100 (97.6-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 0/0 | --- | 297/297 | 100 (98.7-100) | |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 532/532 | 100 (99.3-100) | |
| Prospective / Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 829/829 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Contrived | 42/42 | 100 (91.6-100) | 434/434 | 100 (99.1-100) | |
| Overall | 42/42 | 100 (91.6-100) | 1263/1263 | 100 (99.7-100) |
Table 33: Clinical Performance for VIM
Pan Targets
In addition to the evaluable prospective and retrospective samples that contain gram-negative organisms, the clinical performance of the Pan Candida and Pan Gram-Positive targets was evaluated by testing an additional 741 non-intended use retrospective samples with grampositive or fungal organisms; these are denoted as Retrospective (Non-Intended Use) samples. Results for the Pan targets are summarized in Table 34 and results stratified by species are summarized in Table 36. A summary of the strains used to prepare contrived samples and the number of strains for each target is shown in Table 35.
{28}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Sample Type | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Pan Candida | Prospective (Fresh) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 165/166 | 99.4 (96.7-99.9) |
| Prospective (Frozen) | 0/0 | --- | 182/182 | 100 (97.9-100) | |
| Prospective (All) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 347/348A | 99.7 (98.4-99.9) | |
| Retrospective | 4/7B | 57.1 (25.0-84.2) | 569/570C | 99.8 (99.0-100) | |
| Retrospective (Non-Intended Use) | 99/102D | 97.1 (91.7-99.0) | 638/639E | 99.8 (99.1-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 777/777 | 100 (99.5-100) | |
| Prospective (Fresh) | 7/8 | 87.5 (52.9-97.8) | 155/159 | 97.5 (93.7-99.0) | |
| Pan Gram-Positive | Prospective (Frozen) | 10/15 | 66.7 (41.7-84.8) | 164/167 | 98.2 (94.9-99.4) |
| Prospective (All) | 17/23F | 73.9 (53.5-87.5) | 319/326G | 97.9 (95.6-99.0) | |
| Retrospective | 44/55H | 80.0 (67.6-88.4) | 512/522I | 98.1 (96.5-99.0) | |
| Retrospective (Non-Intended Use) | 567/571 | 99.3 (98.2-99.7) | 165/170J | 97.1 (93.3-98.7) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 776/777 | 99.9 (99.3-100) |
Table 34: Clinical Performance for Pan Targets
A. Candida glabrata was detected in the 1/1 false positive sample using PCR/sequencing.
B. 3 of 3 (100%) false negative results occurred in mixed infections with bacterial organisms where the BCID-GN Panel results were correct for the other infections in these samples.
C. Candida albicans was detected in the 1/1 false positive sample using PCR/sequencing.
D. 2 of 3 (67%) false negative results occurred in mixed infections with bacterial organisms where the BCID-GN Panel results were correct for the other infections in these samples.
- E. Candida glabrata was detected in the 1/1 false positive sample using PCR/sequencing.
F. Bacillus (the gram-positive organism identified by standard laboratory procedures) was not detected in 2 false negative samples using PCR sequencing, but 16S sequencing instead detected Paenibacillus urinalis, which were not identified by standard laboratory procedures. 3 of the remaining 4 (75%) false negative results occurred in mixed infections with bacterial organisms where the BCID-GN Panel correctly detected the gram-negative organisms present.
G. Enterococcus (1), Staphylococus (3), or Streptococcus (2) were detected in 6/7 false positive samples using PCR/sequencing (testing was not performed for the remaining 1/7 false positive samples).
H. 11 of 11 (100%) false negative results occurred in mixed infections with bacterial organisms where the BCID-GN Panel correctly detected the gram-negative organisms present.
Enterococcus (2), Staphylococcus (1), or Streptococus (5) were detected in 8/10 false positive samples using PCR/sequencing (testing was I. not performed for the remaining 2/10 false positive samples).
Bacillus (1) or Streptococcus (1) were detected in 2/5 false positive samples using (testing was not performed for the J. remaining 3/5 false positive samples).
{29}------------------------------------------------
Table 35: Contrived Sample Summary
| Target | Organism | Strain | Independent ContrivedSamples Tested |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii | Acinetobacter baumannii | ATCC19606 | 2 |
| ATCCBAA-2093 | 4 | ||
| ATCCBAA-747 | 5 | ||
| NCIMB12457 | 2 | ||
| NCTC13302 | 3 | ||
| NCTC13303 | 4 | ||
| Acinetobacter baumannii | NCTC13423 | 17 | |
| Acinetobacter baumannii, NDM | CDC#0033 | 5 | |
| ATCCBAA-1605 | 5 | ||
| Acinetobacter baumannii, OXA-23 | NCTC13304 | 5 | |
| NCTC13305 | 3 | ||
| Acinetobacter baumannii Total | 55 | ||
| Bacteroides fragilis | Bacteroides fragilis | ATCC23745 | 8 |
| ATCC25285 | 8 | ||
| ATCC43860 | 8 | ||
| ATCC700786 | 8 | ||
| NCTC9343 | 8 | ||
| Bacteroides fragilis Total | 40 | ||
| Citrobacter | Citrobacter braakii | ATCC43162 | 4 |
| ATCC51113 | 4 | ||
| ATCC43864 | 4 | ||
| Citrobacter freundii | ATCC8090 | 4 | |
| NCTC8581 | 4 | ||
| NCTC9750 | 5 | ||
| Citrobacter freundii, CTX-M | JMI2047 | 6 | |
| Citrobacter freundii, KPC | CDC#0116 | 4 | |
| Citrobacter koseri | ATCC27156 | 4 | |
| Citrobacter youngae | ATCC29935 | 4 | |
| Citrobacter Total | 43 | ||
| Cronobacter sakazakii | Cronobacter sakazakii | ATCC12868 | 2 |
| Target | Organism | Strain | Independent ContrivedSamples Tested |
| ATCC29004 | 2 | ||
| ATCC29544 | 4 | ||
| ATCCBAA-894 | 3 | ||
| FSLF6-0023 | 4 | ||
| FSLF6-0028 | 4 | ||
| FSLF6-0029 | 4 | ||
| FSLF6-0034 | 3 | ||
| FSLF6-0035 | 3 | ||
| FSLF6-0043 | 4 | ||
| FSLF6-0049 | 3 | ||
| FSLF6-0050 | 4 | ||
| FSLF6-0051 | 5 | ||
| Cronobacter sakazakii Total | 45 | ||
| ATCC35953 | 2 | ||
| ATCC35955 | 1 | ||
| Enterobacter asburiae | ATCC35956 | 4 | |
| ATCC35957 | 1 | ||
| Enterobacter cloacae, CTX-M | CDC#0038 | 4 | |
| Enterobacter cloacaecomplex | NCTC13464 | 3 | |
| Enterobacter cloacae, CTX-M, KPC | CDC#0163 | 2 | |
| Enterobacter cloacae, CTX-M, NDM | CDC#0038 | 1 | |
| JMI53571 | 12 | ||
| Enterobacter cloacae, VIM | CDC#0154 | 6 | |
| Enterobacter hormaechei, KPC | ATCCBAA-2082 | 1 | |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex Total | 37 | ||
| ATCC13048 | 3 | ||
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | Enterobacter aerogenes | ATCC29010 | 3 |
| ATCC51697 | 3 | ||
| Enterobacter aerogenes, IMP | CDC#0161 | 5 | |
| Enterobacter aerogenes, OXA-48 | CDC#0074 | 12 | |
| Enterobacter amnigenus | ATCC33072 | 3 | |
| Target | Organism | Strain | Independent ContrivedSamples Tested |
| ATCC33731 | 3 | ||
| ATCC51816 | 4 | ||
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) Total | 36 | ||
| Escherichia coli, CTX-M | CDC#0086 | 3 | |
| NCTC13452 | 3 | ||
| NCTC13461 | 6 | ||
| NCTC13463 | 2 | ||
| Escherichia coli, CTX-M, NDM | CDC#0137 | 6 | |
| CDC#0151 | 2 | ||
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli, IMP | NCTC13476 | 7 |
| Escherichia coli, KPC | ATCCBAA-2340 | 2 | |
| CDC#0114 | 4 | ||
| CDC#0118 | 6 | ||
| Escherichia coli, NDM | CDC#0150 | 5 | |
| CDC#0151 | 4 | ||
| Escherichia coli, VIM | JMI32465 | 2 | |
| Escherichia coli Total | 52 | ||
| Fusobacteriumnecrophorum | Fusobacterium necrophorum subsp.funduliforme | ATCC51357 | 24 |
| Fusobacterium necrophorum subsp.necrophorum | ATCC27852 | 24 | |
| Fusobacterium necrophorum Total | 48 | ||
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | ATCC23726 | 8 | |
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | ATCC25586 | 20 | |
| ATCC31647 | 19 | ||
| Fusobacterium nucleatum Total | 47 | ||
| Haemophilus influenzae | ATCC10211 | 9 | |
| ATCC43065 | 6 | ||
| Haemophilus influenzae | ATCC49144 | 9 | |
| NCTC12699 | 9 | ||
| NCTC8468 | 8 | ||
| Haemophilus influenzae Total | 41 | ||
| Target | Organism | Strain | Independent ContrivedSamples Tested |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Klebsiella oxytoca | ATCC43086 | 4 |
| ATCC43165 | 4 | ||
| ATCC43863 | 2 | ||
| ATCC49131 | 4 | ||
| ATCC51817 | 3 | ||
| ATCC700324 | 3 | ||
| Klebsiella oxytoca Total | 20 | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniaegroup | Klebsiella pneumoniae, CTX-M | NCTC13465 | 5 |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae, CTX-M, NDM | ATCCBAA-2146 | 3 | |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae, CTX-M, OXA | CDC#0140 | 12 | |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae, IMP | CDC#0034 | 8 | |
| CDC#0080 | 6 | ||
| CDC#0112 | 1 | ||
| CDC#0113 | 1 | ||
| CDC#0115 | 4 | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae, KPC | CDC#0117 | 4 | |
| CDC#0120 | 4 | ||
| CDC#0125 | 4 | ||
| CDC#0129 | 4 | ||
| LMC_DR00015 | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae, VIM | NCTC13439 | ||
| NCTC13440 | 5 | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group Total | 72 | ||
| Morganella morganii | Morganella morganii | 148-200 | 8 |
| 148-204 | 8 | ||
| 148-205 | 8 | ||
| 148-206 | 9 | ||
| 148-209 | 7 | ||
| Morganella morganii, CTX-M1, NDM | CDC#0057 | 5 | |
| Morganella morganii, KPC | CDC#0133 | 4 | |
| Morganella morganii Total | 49 | ||
| Target | Organism | Strain | Independent ContrivedSamples Tested |
| Neisseria meningitidis | Neisseria meningitidis | ATCC13077 | 9 |
| ATCC13090 | 8 | ||
| ATCC13102 | 8 | ||
| ATCC13113 | 3 | ||
| ATCC35561 | 10 | ||
| NCTC10026 | 6 | ||
| Neisseria meningitidis Total | 44 | ||
| Proteus mirabilis | Proteus mirabilis, KPC | CDC#0155 | 4 |
| Proteus mirabilis, NDM | CDC#0159 | 5 | |
| Proteus mirabilis Total | 9 | ||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Pseudomonas aeruginosa, IMP | CDC#0092 | 5 |
| CDC#0103 | 8 | ||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa, KPC | CDC#0090 | 1 | |
| CDC#0054 | 5 | ||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa, VIM | CDC#0100 | 4 | |
| CDC#0108 | 4 | ||
| NCTC13437 | 5 | ||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa Total | 32 | ||
| Salmonella | Salmonella 4,5,12:I:- | FSLS5-0580 | 2 |
| Salmonella Heidelberg | ATCC8326 | 2 | |
| Salmonella Infantis | ATCCBAA-1675 | 2 | |
| Salmonella Javiana | ATCC10721 | 1 | |
| Salmonella Montevideo | ATCC8387 | 8 | |
| Salmonella Muenchen | ATCC8388 | 1 | |
| Salmonella Newport | ATCC6962 | 6 | |
| Salmonella Typhimurium | ATCC13311 | 7 | |
| Salmonella enterica subspecies enterica Enteritidis (Group D1) | ATCCBAA-708 | 6 | |
| Salmonella Total | 35 | ||
| Serratia | Serratia ficaria | ATCC33105 | 4 |
| Serratia grimesii | ATCC14460 | 3 |
{30}------------------------------------------------
{31}------------------------------------------------
{32}------------------------------------------------
{33}------------------------------------------------
{34}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Organism | Strain | Independent ContrivedSamples Tested | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serratia plymuthica | ATCC53858 | 3 | |||
| Serratia rubidaea | ATCC27593 | 4 | |||
| ATCC29025 | 3 | ||||
| Serratia Total | 17 | ||||
| ATCC13880 | 2 | ||||
| ATCC14041 | 3 | ||||
| Serratia marcescens | ATCC14756 | 3 | |||
| Serratia marcescens | ATCC43861 | 4 | |||
| ATCC43862 | 3 | ||||
| ATCC8100 | 3 | ||||
| Serratia marcescens, IMP | l | ||||
| Serratia marcescens Total | 19 | ||||
| Stenotrophomonasmaltophilia | 148-201 | 7 | |||
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | 148-222 | 6 | |||
| 148-223 | 7 | ||||
| 148-224 | 8 | ||||
| 148-225 | 8 | ||||
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Total | 36 |
{35}------------------------------------------------
Genus and Group Assay Species Stratification
The ePlex BCID-GN Panel reports genus or group level results for Citrobacter, Enterobacter cloacae complex, Enterobacter non-cloacae complex, Salmonella, Serratia, Pan Candida and Pan Gram-Positive targets. Sensitivity/PPA of these genus and group level targets for species as determined by comparator methods for all evaluable samples tested are summarized in Table 36 and for the Pan targets for non-intended use samples in Table 37.
{36}------------------------------------------------
| Prospective Samples | Retrospective Samples | Contrived Samples | Combined Samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target SpeciesDetected byComparator Method | Sensitivity/PPA | Sensitivity/PPA | Sensitivity/PPA | Sensitivity/PPA | ||||
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | |
| Citrobacter | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 20/21 | 95.2 (77.3-99.2) | 43/43 | 100 (91.8-100) | 68/69 | 98.6 (92.2-99.7) |
| Citrobacter braakii | 2/3 | 66.7 (20.8-93.9) | 8/8 | 100 (67.6-100) | 10/11 | 90.9 (62.3-98.4) | ||
| Citrobacter freundii | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 13/13 | 100 (77.2-100) | 27/27 | 100 (87.5-100) | 44/44 | 100 (92.0-100) |
| Citrobacter koseri | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) |
| Citrobacter youngae | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | ||
| Enterobacter (non-cloacaecomplex) | 8/10 | 80.0 (49.0-94.3) | 12/12 | 100 (75.8-100) | 36/36 | 100 (90.4-100) | 56/58 | 96.6 (88.3-99.0) |
| Enterobacter aerogenes | 7/9 | 77.8 (45.3-93.7) | 12/12 | 100 (75.8-100) | 26/26 | 100 (87.1-100) | 45/47 | 95.7 (85.8-98.8) |
| Enterobacter amnigenus | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | ||||
| Enterobacter gergoviae | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | ||||
| Enterobacter cloacaecomplex | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | 47/50 | 94.0 (83.8-97.9) | 35/37 | 94.6 (82.3-98.5) | 101/106 | 95.3 (89.4-98.0) |
| Enterobacter asburiae | 6/8 | 75.0 (40.9-92.9) | 6/8 | 75.0 (40.9-92.9) | ||||
| Enterobacter cloacae | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | 46/49 | 93.9 (83.5-97.9) | 28/28 | 100 (87.9-100) | 93/96 | 96.9 (91.2-98.9) |
| Enterobacter hormaechei | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | ||
| Proteus | 22/23 | 95.7 (79.0-99.2) | 54/55 | 98.2 (90.4-99.7) | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | 85/87 | 97.7 (92.0-99.4) |
| Proteus mirabilis | 22/23 | 95.7 (79.0-99.2) | 50/51 | 98.0 (89.7-99.7) | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | 81/83 | 97.6 (91.6-99.3) |
Table 36: Species Detected in Genus and Group Assays by Comparator Methods
| Enterobacter cloacae | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | 46/49 | 93.9 (83.5-97.9) | 28/28 | 100 (87.9-100) | 93/96 | 96.9 (91.2-98.9) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enterobacter hormaechei | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | ||
| Proteus | 22/23 | 95.7 (79.0-99.2) | 54/55 | 98.2 (90.4-99.7) | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | 85/87 | 97.7 (92.0-99.4) |
| Proteus mirabilis | 22/23 | 95.7 (79.0-99.2) | 50/51 | 98.0 (89.7-99.7) | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | 81/83 | 97.6 (91.6-99.3) |
| Proteus vulgaris | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | ||||
| Salmonella | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 18/19 | 94.7 (75.4-99.1) | 34/35 | 97.1 (85.5-99.5) | 54/56 | 96.4 (87.9-99.0) |
| Salmonella | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 15/15 | 100 (79.6-100) | 17/17 | 100 (81.6-100) | ||
| Salmonella 4,5,12:i:- | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | ||||
| Salmonella Heidelberg | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | ||||
| Salmonella Infantis | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | ||||
| Salmonella Javiana | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | ||||
| Salmonella Montevideo | 7/8 | 87.5 (52.9-97.8) | 7/8 | 87.5 (52.9-97.8) | ||||
| Salmonella Muenchen | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | ||||
| Salmonella Newport | 6/6 | 100 (61.0-100) | 6/6 | 100 (61.0-100) | ||||
| Salmonella Typhimurium | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | ||||
| Salmonella choleraesuissubsp. Arizonae | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | ||||
| Salmonella enterica subsp.enterica Enteritidis (GroupD1) | 6/6 | 100 (61.0-100) | 6/6 | 100 (61.0-100) | ||||
| Prospective Samples | Retrospective Samples | Contrived Samples | Combined Samples | |||||
| Target SpeciesDetected byComparator Method | Sensitivity/PPA | Sensitivity/PPA | Sensitivity/PPA | Sensitivity/PPA | ||||
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | |
| Salmonella enterica subsp.enterica serovarTyphimurium | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | ||||
| Salmonella Typhi | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | ||||
| Serratia | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | 36/36 | 100 (90.4-100) | 80/80 | 100 (95.4-100) |
| Serratia ficaria | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | ||||
| Serratia grimesii | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | ||||
| Serratia liquefaciens | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | ||||
| Serratia marcescens | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) |
| Serratia plymuthica | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | ||||
| Serratia rubidaea | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | ||||
| Pan Candida | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 4/7 | 57.1 (25.0-84.2) | N/A | N/A | 5/8 | 62.5 (30.6-86.3) |
| Candida albicans | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 2/4 | 50.0 (15.0-85.0) | 3/5 | 60.0 (23.1-88.2) | ||
| Candida glabrata | 1/2 | 50.0 (9.5-90.5) | 1/2 | 50.0 (9.5-90.5) | ||||
| Candida krusei | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | ||||
| Candida parapsilosis | ||||||||
| Pan Gram-Positive | 17/23 | 73.9 (53.5-87.5) | 44/55 | 80.0 (67.6-88.4) | N/A | N/A | 61/78 | 78.2 (67.8-85.9) |
| Bacillus (unspeciated) | 1/4 | 25.0 (4.6-69.9) | 1/4 | 25.0 (4.6-69.9) | ||||
| Enterococcus (unspeciated) | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | ||||
| Enterococcus casseliflavus | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | ||||
| Enterococcus faecalis | 5/7 | 71.4 (35.9-91.8) | 18/20 | 90.0 (69.9-97.2) | 23/27 | 85.2 (67.5-94.1) | ||
| Enterococcus faecium | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 8/9 | 88.9 (56.5-98.0) | 9/10 | 90.0 (59.6-98.2) | ||
| Staphylococcus(unspeciated) | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 4/6 | 66.7 (30.0-90.3) | 7/9 | 77.8 (45.3-93.7) | ||
| Staphylococcus aureus | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 5/6 | 83.3 (43.6-97.0) | 7/8 | 87.5 (52.9-97.8) | ||
| Staphylococcus cohnii | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | ||||
| Staphylococcusepidermidis | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 2/3 | 66.7 (20.8-93.9) | 3/4 | 75.0 (30.1-95.4) | ||
| Staphylococcushaemolyticus | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | ||||
| Staphylococcus hominis | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | ||
| Streptococcus | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | ||||
| Streptococcus - viridansgroup | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 1/2 | 50.0 (9.5-90.5) |
{37}------------------------------------------------
{38}------------------------------------------------
| Target Species | Prospective Samples | Retrospective Samples | Contrived Samples | Combined Samples | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detected byComparator Method | Sensitivity/PPA | Sensitivity/PPA | Sensitivity/PPA | Sensitivity/PPA | ||||
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | |
| Streptococcus anginosusgroup | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 4/5 | 80.0 (37.6-96.4) | 5/6 | 83.3 (43.6-97.0) | ||
| Streptococcus infantarius | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | ||
| Streptococcus mitis group | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | ||
| Streptococcus oralis | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | ||
| Streptococcus pneumoniae | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | ||
| Streptococcus salivarius | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
Table 37. Species Detected in Pan Assays by Comparator Methods for Samples in Retrospective (Non-Intended Use) Samples with Gram-Positive or Fungal Organisms
| Target Species Detected by ComparatorMethod | Retrospective (Non-Intended Use) SamplesSensitivity/PPA | |
|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | |
| Pan Candida | 99/102 | 97.1 (91.7-99.0) |
| Candida albicans | 47/48 | 97.9 (89.1-99.6) |
| Candida glabrata | 37/38 | 97.4 (86.5-99.5) |
| Candida krusei | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) |
| Candida parapsilosis | 15/16 | 93.8 (71.7-98.9) |
| Pan Gram-Positive | 567/571 | 99.3 (98.2-99.7) |
| Bacillus (unspeciated) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) |
| Bacillus cereus | 4/5 | 80.0 (37.6-96.4) |
| Bacillus cereus group - not anthracis | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Enterococcus | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Enterococcus faecalis | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) |
| Enterococcus faecium | 14/14 | 100 (78.5-100) |
| Coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS) | 14/14 | 100 (78.5-100) |
| Staphylococcus (unspeciated) | 86/86 | 100 (95.7-100) |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 173/174 | 99.4 (96.8-99.9) |
| Staphylococcus auricularis | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) |
| Staphylococcus capitis | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) |
| Staphylococcus cohnii | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Target Species Detected by ComparatorMethod | Retrospective (Non-Intended Use) Samples | |
| Sensitivity/PPATP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | |
| Staphylococcus epidermidis | 86/87 | 98.9 (93.8-99.8) |
| Staphylococcus haemolyticus | 6/6 | 100 (61.0-100) |
| Staphylococcus hominis | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) |
| Staphylococcus hominis ssp hominis | 21/21 | 100 (84.5-100) |
| Staphylococcus intermedius | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Staphylococcus lugdunensis | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Staphylococcus saccharolyticus | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Staphylococcus saprophyticus | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Staphylococcus sciuri | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Staphylococcus simulans | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) |
| Staphylococcus warneri | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) |
| Alpha Hemolytic Streptococcus | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Beta Hemolytic Streptococci, Group G | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Gamma Hemolytic Streptococcus | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Streptococcus (unspeciated) | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) |
| Streptococcus - viridans group | 17/17 | 100 (81.6-100) |
| Streptococcus agalactiae | 21/21 | 100 (84.5-100) |
| Streptococcus anginosus | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) |
| Streptococcus bovis | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) |
| Streptococcus constellatus ssp constellatus | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Streptococcus dysgalactiae (Group G) | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) |
| Streptococcus gordonii | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Streptococcus intermedius | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) |
| Streptococcus mitis | 11/12 | 91.7 (64.6-98.5) |
| Streptococcus mitis group | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) |
| Streptococcus pneumoniae | 22/22 | 100 (85.1-100) |
| Streptococcus pyogenes | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) |
| Streptococcus salivarius | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) |
{39}------------------------------------------------
{40}------------------------------------------------
Resistance Gene Assay Species Stratification
Test results for resistance genes are only reported when an associated organism assay is positive in the same sample. (See Table 3 for organisms specifically associated with the six resistance markers on the ePlex BCID-GN Panel).
CTX-M
The PPA and NPA of the BCID-GN Panel CTX-M target stratified by the organism identified by comparator methods for prospective, retrospective and contrived samples are shown in Table 38.
| Species Detected by Comparator Method | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Acinetobacter baumannii | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 15/15 | 100 (79.6-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 55/55 | 100 (93.5-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 74/74 | 100 (95.1-100) | |
| Citrobacter | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) |
| Retrospective | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 20/20 | 100 (83.9-100) | |
| Contrived | 6/6 | 100 (61.0-100) | 37/37 | 100 (90.6-100) | |
| Combined | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) | |
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 12/12 | 100 (75.8-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 36/36 | 100 (90.4-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 58/58 | 100 (93.8-100) | |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 50/50 | 100 (92.9-100) | |
| Contrived | 22/22 | 100 (85.1-100) | 15/15 | 100 (79.6-100) | |
| Combined | 22/22 | 100 (85.1-100) | 84/84 | 100 (95.6-100) | |
| Escherichia coli | Prospective | 16/18 | 88.9 (67.2-96.9) | 115/115 | 100 (96.8-100) |
| Retrospective | 35/37 | 94.6 (82.3-98.5) | 103/103 | 100 (96.4-100) | |
| Contrived | 22/22 | 100 (85.1-100) | 30/30 | 100 (88.6-100) | |
| Combined | 73/77 | 94.8 (87.4-98.0) | 248/248 | 100 (98.5-100) | |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Prospective | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 12/12 | 100 (75.8-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 20/20 | 100 (83.9-100) | |
| Combined | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 66/66 | 100 (94.5-100) | |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | Prospective | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 56/56 | 100 (93.6-100) |
| Retrospective | 14/15 | 93.3 (70.2-98.8) | 93/93 | 100 (96.0-100) | |
| Contrived | 20/20 | 100 (83.9-100) | 52/52 | 100 (93.1-100) | |
| Combined | 39/40 | 97.5 (87.1-99.6) | 201/201 | 100 (98.1-100) | |
| Morganella morganii | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | |
| Contrived | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 44/44 | 100 (92.0-100) | |
| Combined | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 57/57 | 100 (93.7-100) | |
| Proteus | Prospective | 2/5 | 40.0 (11.8-76.9) | 18/18 | 100 (82.4-100) |
| Retrospective | 2/3 | 66.7 (20.8-93.9) | 52/52 | 100 (93.1-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | |
| Combined | 4/8 | 50.0 (21.5-78.5) | 79/79 | 100 (95.4-100) |
Table 38: Clinical Performance of CTX-M Target in Samples with Associated Organisms Detected by Comparator Methods
{41}------------------------------------------------
| Species Detected by Comparator Method | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Proteus mirabilis | Prospective | 2/5 | 40.0 (11.8-76.9) | 18/18 | 100 (82.4-100) |
| Retrospective | 2/3 | 66.7 (20.8-93.9) | 48/48 | 100 (92.6-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | |
| Combined | 4/8 | 50.0 (21.5-78.5) | 75/75 | 100 (95.1-100) | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Prospective | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 27/27 | 100 (87.5-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 60/60 | 100 (94.0-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 32/32 | 100 (89.3-100) | |
| Combined | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 119/119 | 100 (96.9-100) | |
| Salmonella | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) |
| Retrospective | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 18/18 | 100 (82.4-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 35/35 | 100 (90.1-100) | |
| Combined | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 55/55 | 100 (93.5-100) | |
| Serratia | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 36/36 | 100 (90.4-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 80/80 | 100 (95.4-100) | |
| Serratia marcescens | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) | |
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 36/36 | 100 (90.4-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 50/50 | 100 (92.9-100) |
A comparison of CTX-M identified by comparator methods versus the ePlex BCID-GN Panel
results are shown in Table 39 for prospective and retrospective samples.
| Comparator Method | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCID-GN | Org+/ARG+ | Org+/ARG- | Org- | Total |
| Org+/ARG+ | 74 | 0 | 2 | 76 |
| Org+/ARG- | 8A | 741 | 2 | 751 |
| Org- | 3B | 13 | 83 | 99 |
| Total | 85 | 754 | 87 | 926 |
Table 39: Distribution of CTX-M in Clinical Samples
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org+/ARG+: 74/85=87.1% (78.3-92.6)
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org+/ARG-: 741/754=98.3% (97.1-99.0)
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org-: 83/87=95.4% (88.8-98.2)
A. Further testing of these 8 false negative samples indicated that 7 of the 8 samples may have been contaminated during the original extraction process and misidentified as having CTX-M present. Specifically, results for 7 of the 8 samples were negative for CTX-M from the following additional testing of 2 repeat extractions from the original sample, 2) qPCR testing of an extraction from the isolate, and 3) testing of the original sample with an FDA-cleared multiplex assay. For these 7 samples, the originally extracted sample was re-tested with qPCR and CTX-M was again detected, suggesting contamination during the original extraction process. The remaining 8th sample was positive for CTX-M from the repeat extractions, negative for CTX-M from the isolate, and negative for CTX-M when tested with an FDA-cleared multiplex assay. These inconsistent detection results suggest the 8th sample may be a true low-copy CTX-M positive sample.
B. For these 3 samples, CTX-M signal was above the threshold for detection; however, an associated organism was not detected by the ePlex BCID-GN Panel and the CTX-M target was reported as 'N/A'.
{42}------------------------------------------------
IMP
The PPA and NPA of the BCID-GN Panel IMP target stratified by the contrived organism are shown below in Table 40. No prospective or retrospective samples were found to contain IMP.
| Table 40: Clinical Performance of IMP Target in Contrived Samples | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species Detected by Comparator Method | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | |
| Acinetobacter baumannii | 0/0 | --- | 74/74 | 100 (95.1-100) | |
| Citrobacter | 0/0 | --- | 69/69 | 100 (94.7-100) | |
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 53/53 | 100 (93.2-100) | |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | 0/0 | --- | 106/106 | 100 (96.5-100) | |
| Escherichia coli | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | 318/318 | 100 (98.8-100) | |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | 0/0 | --- | 67/67 | 100 (94.6-100) | |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | 14/14 | 100 (78.5-100) | 227/227 | 100 (98.3-100) | |
| Morganella morganii | 0/0 | --- | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) | |
| Proteus | 0/0 | --- | 87/87 | 100 (95.8-100) | |
| Proteus mirabilis | 0/0 | --- | 83/83 | 100 (95.6-100) | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 13/13 | 100 (77.2-100) | 107/107 | 100 (96.5-100) | |
| Salmonella | 0/0 | --- | 56/56 | 100 (93.6-100) | |
| Serratia | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 79/79 | 100 (95.4-100) | |
| Serratia marcescens | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 61/61 | 100 (94.1-100) |
A comparison of IMP identified by comparator methods versus the ePlex BCID-GN Panel results are shown in Table 41 for prospective and retrospective samples.
Table 41: Distribution of IMP in Clinical Samples
| Comparator Method | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCID-GN | Org+/ARG+ | Org+/ARG- | Org- | Total |
| Org+/ARG+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Org+/ARG- | 0 | 812 | 4 | 816 |
| Org- | 0 | 17 | 93 | 110 |
| Total | 0 | 829 | 97 | 926 |
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org+/ARG+: 0/0= N/A
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org+/ARG-: 812/829=97.9% (96.7-98.7)
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org-: 93/97=95.9% (89.9-98.4)
{43}------------------------------------------------
KPC
The PPA and NPA of the BCID-GN Panel KPC target stratified by the organism identified by comparator methods for prospective, retrospective and contrived samples are shown in Table 42.
Table 42: Clinical Performance of KPC Target in Samples with Associated Organisms Detected by Comparator Methods
| Species Detected by Comparator Method | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Acinetobacter baumannii | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 15/15 | 100 (79.6-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 55/55 | 100 (93.5-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 74/74 | 100 (95.1-100) | |
| Citrobacter | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 21/21 | 100 (84.5-100) | |
| Contrived | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 39/39 | 100 (91.0-100) | |
| Combined | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 65/65 | 100 (94.4-100) | |
| Cronobacter sakazakii | Prospective | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 45/45 | 100 (92.1-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 46/46 | 100 (92.3-100) | |
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 12/12 | 100 (75.8-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 36/36 | 100 (90.4-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 58/58 | 100 (93.8-100) | |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 49/49 | 100 (92.7-100) | |
| Contrived | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | |
| Combined | 3/4 | 75.0 (30.1-95.4) | 102/102 | 100 (96.4-100) | |
| Escherichia coli | Prospective | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 132/132 | 100 (97.2-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 140/140 | 100 (97.3-100) | |
| Contrived | 6/6 | 100 (61.0-100) | 46/46 | 100 (92.3-100) | |
| Combined | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | 318/318 | 100 (98.8-100) | |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 13/13 | 100 (77.2-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 20/20 | 100 (83.9-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 67/67 | 100 (94.6-100) | |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | Prospective | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 59/59 | 100 (93.9-100) |
| Retrospective | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 103/104 | 99.0 (94.8-99.8) | |
| Contrived | 22/22 | 100 (85.1-100) | 50/50 | 100 (92.9-100) | |
| Combined | 28/28 | 100 (87.9-100) | 212/213 | 99.5 (97.4-99.9) | |
| Morganella morganii | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | |
| Contrived | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 45/45 | 100 (92.1-100) | |
| Combined | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 58/58 | 100 (93.8-100) | |
| Proteus | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 23/23 | 100 (85.7-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 55/55 | 100 (93.5-100) | |
| Contrived | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | |
| Combined | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 83/83 | 100 (95.6-100) | |
| Proteus mirabilis | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 23/23 | 100 (85.7-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 51/51 | 100 (93.0-100) | |
| Contrived | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | |
| Combined | 4/4 | 100 (51.0-100) | 79/79 | 100 (95.4-100) | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 28/28 | 100 (87.9-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 60/60 | 100 (94.0-100) | |
| Contrived | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 31/31 | 100 (89.0-100) | |
| Combined | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 90/90 | 100 (96.9-100) | |
| Species Detected by Comparator Method | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | |||
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Salmonella | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 35/35 | 100 (90.1-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 56/56 | 100 (93.6-100) | |
| Serratia | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 36/36 | 100 (90.4-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 80/80 | 100 (95.4-100) | |
| Serratia marcescens | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) |
{44}------------------------------------------------
A comparison of KPC identified by comparator methods versus the ePlex BCID-GN Panel results are shown in Table 43 for prospective and retrospective samples.
Table 43: Distribution of KPC in Clinical Samples
| Comparator Method | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCID-GN | Org+/ARG+ | Org+/ARG- | Org- | Total |
| Org+/ARG+ | 7 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Org+/ARG- | 1 | 804 | 4 | 809 |
| Org- | 0 | 17 | 92 | 109 |
| Total | 8 | 822 | 96 | 926 |
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org+/ARG+: 7/8=87.5% (52.9-97.8)
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org+/ARG-: 804/822=97.8% (96.6-98.6)
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org-: 92/96=95.8% (89.8-98.4)
{45}------------------------------------------------
NDM
The PPA and NPA of the BCID-GN Panel NDM target stratified by the contrived organism are shown below in Table 44. No prospective or retrospective samples were found to contain NDM.
Table 44: Clinical Performance of NDM Target in Contrived Samples by Organism
| Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species Detected by Comparator Method | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | |
| Acinetobacter baumannii | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 69/69 | 100 (94.7-100) | |
| Citrobacter | 0/0 | --- | 69/69 | 100 (94.7-100) | |
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | 0/0 | --- | 58/58 | 100 (93.8-100) | |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | 13/13 | 100 (77.2-100) | 93/93 | 100 (96.0-100) | |
| Escherichia coli | 23/23 | 100 (85.7-100) | 302/302 | 100 (98.7-100) | |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | 0/0 | --- | 67/67 | 100 (94.6-100) | |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | 238/238 | 100 (98.4-100) | |
| Morganella morganii | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 57/57 | 100 (93.7-100) | |
| Proteus | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 82/82 | 100 (95.5-100) | |
| Proteus mirabilis | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | 78/78 | 100 (95.3-100) | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 0/0 | --- | 120/120 | 100 (96.9-100) | |
| Salmonella | 0/0 | --- | 56/56 | 100 (93.6-100) | |
| Serratia | 0/0 | --- | 80/80 | 100 (95.4-100) | |
| Serratia marcescens | 0/0 | --- | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) |
A comparison of NDM identified by comparator methods versus the ePlex BCID-GN Panel results are shown in Table 45 for prospective and retrospective samples.
Table 45: Distribution of NDM in Clinical Samples
| Comparator Method | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCID-GN | Org+/ARG+ | Org+/ARG- | Org- | Total |
| Org+/ARG+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Org+/ARG- | 0 | 812 | 4 | 816 |
| Org- | 0 | 17 | 93 | 110 |
| Total | 0 | 829 | 97 | 926 |
% Agreement (95% Cl) for Org+/ARG+: 0/0= N/A
% Agreement (95% Cl) for Org+/ARG-: 812/829=97.9% (96.7-98.7)
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org-: 93/97=95.9% (89.9-98.4)
{46}------------------------------------------------
OXA
The PPA and NPA of the BCID-GN Panel OXA target stratified by target identified by comparator methods for prospective, retrospective, and contrived samples are shown in Table 46.
| Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species Detected by Comparator Method | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | ||
| Prospective | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | ||
| Acinetobacter baumannii | Retrospective | 7/7 | 100 (64.6-100) | 8/8 | 100 (67.6-100) | |
| Contrived | 13/13 | 100 (77.2-100) | 42/42 | 100 (91.6-100) | ||
| Combined | 21/21 | 100 (84.5-100) | 53/53 | 100 (93.2-100) | ||
| Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 5/5 | 100 (56.6-100) | ||
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 21/21 | 100 (84.5-100) | ||
| Citrobacter | Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 43/43 | 100 (91.8-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 69/69 | 100 (94.7-100) | ||
| Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | ||
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 12/12 | 100 (75.8-100) | ||
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | Contrived | 12/12 | 100 (75.8-100) | 24/24 | 100 (86.2-100) | |
| Combined | 12/12 | 100 (75.8-100) | 46/46 | 100 (92.3-100) | ||
| Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | ||
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 50/50 | 100 (92.9-100) | ||
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 37/37 | 100 (90.6-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 106/106 | 100 (96.5-100) | ||
| Prospective | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 132/132 | 100 (97.2-100) | ||
| Retrospective | 1/2 | 50.0 (9.5-90.5) | 138/138 | 100 (97.3-100) | ||
| Escherichia coli | Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 52/52 | 100 (93.1-100) | |
| Combined | 1/3 | 33.3 (6.1-79.2) | 322/322 | 100 (98.8-100) | ||
| Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 13/13 | 100 (77.2-100) | ||
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | ||
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 20/20 | 100 (83.9-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 67/67 | 100 (94.6-100) | ||
| Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 61/61 | 100 (94.1-100) | ||
| Retrospective | 0/1 | 0.0 (0.0-79.3) | 107/107 | 100 (96.5-100) | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | Contrived | 12/12 | 100 (75.8-100) | 60/60 | 100 (94.0-100) | |
| Combined | 12/13 | 92.3 (66.7-98.6) | 228/228 | 100 (98.3-100) | ||
| Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 3/3 | 100 (43.9-100) | ||
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | ||
| Morganella morganii | Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 49/49 | 100 (92.7-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) | ||
| Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 23/23 | 100 (85.7-100) | ||
| Retrospective | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 53/54 | 98.1 (90.2-99.7) | ||
| Proteus | Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | |
| Combined | 1/1 | 100 (20.7-100) | 85/86 | 98.8 (93.7-99.8) | ||
| Proteus mirabilis | Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 23/23 | 100 (85.7-100) | |
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 50/51 | 98.0 (89.7-99.7) | ||
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | ||
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 82/83 | 98.8 (93.5-99.8) | ||
| Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 28/28 | 100 (87.9-100) | ||
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 59/60 | 98.3 (91.1-99.7) | ||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 32/32 | 100 (89.3-100) | |
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 119/120 | 99.2 (95.4-99.9) | ||
| Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | ||
| Salmonella | Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | |
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 35/35 | 100 (90.1-100) | ||
| Species Detected by Comparator Method | Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | ||||
| TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) | |||
| Serratia | Combined | 0/0 | --- | 56/56 | 100 (93.6-100) | |
| Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 10/10 | 100 (72.2-100) | ||
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | ||
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 36/36 | 100 (90.4-100) | ||
| Serratia marcescens | Combined | 0/0 | --- | 80/80 | 100 (95.4-100) | |
| Prospective | 0/0 | --- | 9/9 | 100 (70.1-100) | ||
| Retrospective | 0/0 | --- | 34/34 | 100 (89.8-100) | ||
| Contrived | 0/0 | --- | 19/19 | 100 (83.2-100) | ||
| Combined | 0/0 | --- | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) |
Table 46: Clinical Performance of OXA Target in Samples with Associated Organisms Detected by Comparator Methods
{47}------------------------------------------------
A comparison of OXA identified by comparator methods versus the ePlex BCID-GN Panel
results are shown in Table 47 for prospective and retrospective samples.
| Table 47: Distribution of OXA in Clinical Samples | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| --------------------------------------------------- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| BCID-GN | Comparator Method | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Org+/ARG+ | Org+/ARG- | Org- | Total | |
| Org+/ARG+ | 10 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
| Org+/ARG- | 2A | 798 | 4 | 804 |
| Org- | 1B | 16 | 93 | 110 |
| Total | 13 | 816 | 97 | 926 |
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org+/ARG+: 10/13=76.9% (49.7-91.8)
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org+/ARG-: 798/816=97.8% (96.5-98.6)
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org-: 93/97=95.9% (89.9-98.4)
A. One false negative sample was tested with an FDA-cleared multiplex assay and OXA was not detected. The isolate from the remaining false negative sample tested negative for OXA-23 and OXA-48 by qPCR.
B. For this sample, OXA signal was above the threshold for detection; however, an associated organism was not detected by the ePlex BCID-GN Panel and the OXA target was reported as 'N/A'.
{48}------------------------------------------------
VIM
The PPA and NPA of the BCID-GN Panel VIM target stratified by the contrived organism are shown below in Table 48. No prospective or retrospective samples were found to contain VIM.
Table 48: Clinical Performance of VIM Target in Contrived Samples by Organism
| Sensitivity/PPA | Specificity/NPA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species Detected by Comparator Method | TP/TP+FN | % (95% CI) | TN/TN+FP | % (95% CI) |
| Acinetobacter baumannii | 0/0 | --- | 74/74 | 100 (95.1-100) |
| Citrobacter | 0/0 | --- | 69/69 | 100 (94.7-100) |
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | 0/0 | --- | 58/58 | 100 (93.8-100) |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | 6/6 | 100 (61.0-100) | 100/100 | 100 (96.3-100) |
| Escherichia coli | 2/2 | 100 (34.2-100) | 323/323 | 100 (98.8-100) |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | 0/0 | --- | 67/67 | 100 (94.6-100) |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | 16/16 | 100 (80.6-100) | 225/225 | 100 (98.3-100) |
| Morganella morganii | 0/0 | --- | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) |
| Proteus | 0/0 | --- | 87/87 | 100 (95.8-100) |
| Proteus mirabilis | 0/0 | --- | 83/83 | 100 (95.6-100) |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 18/18 | 100 (82.4-100) | 102/102 | 100 (96.4-100) |
| Salmonella | 0/0 | --- | 56/56 | 100 (93.6-100) |
| Serratia | 0/0 | --- | 80/80 | 100 (95.4-100) |
| Serratia marcescens | 0/0 | --- | 62/62 | 100 (94.2-100) |
A comparison of VIM identified by comparator methods versus the ePlex BCID-GN Panel results are shown in Table 49 for prospective and retrospective samples.
Table 49: Distribution of VIM in Clinical Samples
| BCID-GN | Org+/ARG+ | Org+/ARG- | Org- | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Org+/ARG+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Org+/ARG- | 0 | 812 | 4 | 816 |
| Org- | 0 | 17 | 93 | 110 |
| Total | 0 | 829 | 97 | 926 |
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org+/ARG+: 0/0= N/A
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org+/ARG-: 812/829=97.9% (96.7-98.7)
% Agreement (95% CI) for Org-: 93/97=95.9% (89.9-98.4)
{49}------------------------------------------------
Resistance Markers and Antimicrobial Resistance Susceptibility
A supplemental comparison of the CTX-M BCID-GN Panel target versus phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) for extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) activity, Ceftazidime, Ceftriaxone, and Aztreonam, and a combination of the 4 results (ESBL/Combo) is provided in Table 57 for clinical isolates with available AST results. In total, 162 isolates had ESBL confirmatory testing and 770 isolates had ESBL confirmatory testing and/or AST results for 1 or more of Ceftazidime, Ceftriaxone, or Aztreonam. A true positive (TP) result was defined where CTX-M was detected by the BCID-GN Panel and the isolate was positive for the ESBL confirmatory test or resistant (R) or intermediate (I) to the specific antimicrobial. A false negative (FN) result was defined similarly when CTX-M was not detected by the BCID-GN Panel. PPA was calculated as 100 x (TP/(TP+FN)). A true negative (TN) result was defined where CTX-M was not detected by the BCID-GN Panel and the isolate was negative for the ESBL confirmatory test or susceptible (S) to the specific antimicrobial. A false positive (FP) result was defined similarly when CTX-M was detected by the BCID-GN Panel. NPA was calculated as 100 x (TN/(TN+FP)). For the ESBL/Combo analysis, the phenotypic AST result was positive or negative based on the ESBL confirmatory test, if available. If the ESBL confirmatory test was not available, then the phenotypic AST result was positive if any of the 3 antimicrobials were resistant or intermediate, otherwise, the result was negative if any of the 3 antimicrobials were susceptible. Note: ESBL resistance can be due to mechanisms other than acquisition of the CTX-M resistance gene.
Table 50: Clinical Performance of the BCID-GN Panel target CTX-M to Phenotypic Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for ESBL, Ceftazidime, Ceftriaxone, and Aztreonam
| AssociatedOrganism | ESBL confirmatory | Ceftazidime | Ceftriaxone | Aztreonam | ESBL/Combo | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | |
| A. baumannii | --- | --- | 0/10(0.0%) | 3/3(100%) | 0/11(0.0%) | 1/1(100%) | 0/3(0.0%) | 0/0(%) | 0/15(0.0%) | 2/2(100%) |
| Citrobacter | --- | --- | 0/2(0.0%) | 14/15(93.3%) | 0/3(0.0%) | 21/22(95.5%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 16/17(94.1%) | 0/3(0.0%) | 21/22(95.5%) |
| Enterobacter | --- | --- | 0/2(0.0%) | 12/12(100%) | 0/2(0.0%) | 18/18(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 9/9(100%) | 0/3(0.0%) | 17/17 (100%) |
| E. cloacaecomplex | --- | --- | 0/10(0.0%) | 30/30(100%) | 0/17(0.0%) | 39/39(100%) | 0/5(0.0%) | 25/25(100%) | 0/18(0.0%) | 39/39 (100%) |
| E. coli | 28/30(93.3%) | 82/82(100%) | 29/38(76.3%) | 159/167(95.2%) | 47/59(79.7%) | 180/181(99.4%) | 23/27(85.2%) | 118/120(98.3%) | 47/53(88.7%) | 196/197(99.5%) |
| K. oxytoca | 0/0 | 10/10(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 29/29(100%) | 0/2(0.0%) | 40/40(100%) | 0/2(0.0%) | 20/20(100%) | 0/2(0.0%) | 41/41 (100%) |
| K. pneumoniaegroup | 7/11 (63.6%) | 25/25(100%) | 13/23(56.5%) | 83/83(100%) | 17/27(63.0%) | 115/115(100%) | 10/12(83.3%) | 72/72(100%) | 17/26(65.4%) | 119/119(100%) |
{50}------------------------------------------------
| AssociatedOrganism | ESBL confirmatory | Ceftazidime | Ceftriaxone | Aztreonam | ESBL/Combo | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | |
| M. morganii | 0/1(0.0%) | 6/6(100%) | 0/2(0.0%) | 9/9(100%) | 0/0 | 4/4(100%) | 0/2(0.0%) | 9/9(100%) | ||
| Proteus | 3/3(100%) | 0/0 | 1/2(50.0%) | 46/48(95.8%) | 4/7(57.1%) | 59/59(100%) | 2/3(66.7%) | 35/36(97.2%) | 4/8(50.0%) | 59/59 (100%) |
| P. mirabilis | 3/3(100%) | 0/0 | 1/2(50.0%) | 43/45(95.6%) | 4/5(80.0%) | 56/56(100%) | 2/3(66.7%) | 32/33(97.0%) | 4/6(66.7%) | 56/56 (100%) |
| P. aeruginosa | 0/7(0.0%) | 46/46(100%) | 0/20(0.0%) | 0/0 | 0/9(0.0%) | 25/25(100%) | 0/32(0.0%) | 41/41 (100%) | ||
| Salmonella | 1/1(100%) | 0/0 | 0/0 | 6/6(100%) | 1/2(50.0%) | 12/12(100%) | 1/1(100%) | 8/8(100%) | 1/2(50.0%) | 15/15 (100%) |
| Serratia | 0/1(0.0%) | 25/25(100%) | 0/4(0.0%) | 32/32(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 20/20(100%) | 0/4(0.0%) | 34/34 (100%) | ||
| S. marcescens | 0/1(0.0%) | 24/24(100%) | 0/4(0.0%) | 31/31(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 19/19(100%) | 0/4(0.0%) | 33/33 (100%) | ||
| S. maltophilia | 0/2(0.0%) | 2/2(100%) | 0/3(0.0%) | 0/0 | 0/5(0.0%) | 0/0 | 0/5(0.0%) | 2/2(100%) | ||
| Any Organism | 42/48(87.5%) | 117/117(100%) | 44/102(43.1%) | 528/541(97.6%) | 73/168(43.5%) | 613/615(99.7%) | 38/74(51.4%) | 403/408(98.8%) | 73/183(39.9%) | 684/686(99.7%) |
| CI | (75.3-94.1) | (96.8-100) | (33.9-52.8) | (95.9-98.6) | (36.2-51.0) | (98.8-99.9) | (40.2-62.4) | (97.2-99.5) | (33.1-47.1) | (98.9-99.9) |
A supplemental comparison of the 5 BCID-GN Panel carbapenemase resistance gene (OXA, KPC, IMP, NDM, VIM) targets versus phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) for Ertapenem, Imipenem, and Meropenem is provided in Table 51 for clinical isolates with available AST results. In total, 731 isolates had AST results for 1 or more of Ertapenem, Imipenem, or Meropenem. A true positive (TP) result was defined where OXA, KPC, IMP, NDM and/or VIM was detected by the BCID-GN Panel and the isolate was resistant (R) or intermediate (I) to Ertapenem, Imipenem, or Meropenem. A false negative (FN) result was defined similarly when OXA, KPC, IMP, NDM and/or VIM was not detected by the BCID-GN Panel. PPA was calculated as 100 x (TP/(TP+FN)). A true negative (TN) result was defined where OXA, KPC, IMP, NDM and/or VIM was not detected by the BCID-GN Panel and the isolate was susceptible (S) to Ertapenem, Imipenem, or Meropenem. A false positive (FP) result was defined similarly when OXA. KPC, IMP, NDM and/or VIM was detected by the BCID-GN Panel. NPA was calculated as 100 x (TN/(TN+FP)). Note: Carbapenemase resistance can be due to mechanisms other than acquisition of the OXA, KPC, IMP, NDM and/or VIM resistance genes.
{51}------------------------------------------------
Table 51: Clinical Performance of the BCID-GN Panel Resistance Gene Targets Compared to Phenotypic Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Ertapenem, Imipenem, and Meropenem
| AssociatedOrganism | OXA | KPC | IMP | NDM | VIM | Any ResistanceMarker | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | PPATP/TP+FN(%) | NPATN/TN+FP(%) | |
| A. baumannii | 8/9 (88.9%) | 9/9(100%) | 0/9(0.0%) | 9/9 (100%) | 0/9(0.0%) | 9/9(100%) | 0/9(0.0%) | 9/9(100%) | 0/9(0.0%) | 9/9(100%) | 8/9(88.9%) | 9/9(100%) |
| Citrobacter | 0/1(0.0%) | 22/22(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 22/22(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 22/22(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 22/22(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 22/22(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 22/22 (100%) |
| C. sakazakii | --- | --- | --- | 1/1 (100%) | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Enterobacter | 0/0 | 15/15(100%) | 0/0 | 15/15(100%) | 0/0 | 15/15(100%) | 0/0 | 15/15(100%) | 0/0 | 15/15(100%) | 0/0 | 15/15 (100%) |
| E. cloacaecomplex | 0/1(0.0%) | 51/51(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 51/51(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 51/51(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 51/51(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 51/51(100%) | 0/1(0.0%) | 51/51 (100%) |
| E. coli | 0/2(0.0%) | 247/248(99.6%) | 1/2(50.0%) | 248/248(100%) | 0/2(0.0%) | 248/248(100%) | 0/2(0.0%) | 248/248(100%) | 0/2(0.0%) | 248/248(100%) | 1/2 (50.0%) | 247/248(99.6%) |
| K. oxytoca | 0/0 | 40/40(100%) | 0/0 | 40/40(100%) | 0/0 | 40/40(100%) | 0/0 | 40/40(100%) | 0/0 | 40/40(100%) | 0/0 | 40/40 (100%) |
| K. pneumoniaegroup | 0/8(0.0%) | 136/136(100%) | 5/8(62.5%) | 135/136(99.3%) | 0/8(0.0%) | 136/136(100%) | 0/8(0.0%) | 136/136(100%) | 0/8(0.0%) | 136/136(100%) | 5/8 (62.5%) | 135/136(99.3%) |
| M. morganii | 0/0 | 10/10(100%) | 0/0 | 10/10(100%) | 0/0 | 10/10(100%) | 0/0 | 10/10(100%) | 0/0 | 10/10(100%) | 0/0 | 10/10 (100%) |
| Proteus | 0/0 | 61/62(98.4%) | 0/0 | 62/62(100%) | 0/0 | 62/62(100%) | 0/0 | 62/62(100%) | 0/0 | 62/62(100%) | 0/0 | 61/62(98.4%) |
| P. mirabilis | 0/0 | 57/57(100%) | 0/0 | 57/57(100%) | 0/0 | 57/57(100%) | 0/0 | 57/57(100%) | 0/0 | 57/57(100%) | 0/0 | 57/57 (100%) |
| P. aeruginosa | 0/5(0.0%) | 65/66(98.5%) | 0/5(0.0%) | 66/66(100%) | 0/5(0.0%) | 66/66(100%) | 0/5(0.0%) | 66/66(100%) | 0/5(0.0%) | 66/66(100%) | 0/5(0.0%) | 65/66(98.5%) |
| Salmonella | 0/0 | 8/8 (100%) | 0/0 | 8/8 (100%) | 0/0 | 8/8 (100%) | 0/0 | 8/8 (100%) | 0/0 | 8/8 (100%) | 0/0 | 8/8 (100%) |
| Serratia | 0/0 | 38/38(100%) | 0/0 | 38/38(100%) | 0/0 | 38/38(100%) | 0/0 | 38/38(100%) | 0/0 | 38/38(100%) | 0/0 | 38/38 (100%) |
| S. marcescens | 0/0 | 37/37(100%) | 0/0 | 37/37(100%) | 0/0 | 37/37(100%) | 0/0 | 37/37(100%) | 0/0 | 37/37(100%) | 0/0 | 37/37 (100%) |
| Any Organism | 8/26(30.8%) | 796/799(99.6%) | 6/26(23.1%) | 799/800(99.9%) | 0/26(0.0%) | 799/799(100%) | 0/26(0.0%) | 799/799(100%) | 0/26(0.0%) | 799/799(100%) | 14/26(53.8%) | 796/800(99.5%) |
| CI | (16.5-50.0) | (98.9-99.9) | (11.0-42.1) | (99.3-100) | (0.0-12.9) | (99.5-100) | (0.0-12.9) | (99.5-100) | (0.0-12.9) | (99.5-100) | (35.5-71.2) | (98.7-99.8) |
CI= confidence interval
{52}------------------------------------------------
Co-detections in Clinical Samples
The ePlex BCID-GN Panel identified a total of 103 bacterial co-detections in prospective and retrospective samples. Of the 349 prospective samples, 320 (91.7%) had single detections, 22 (6.2%) had double detections, and 7 (2.0%) had triple detections. Of the 577 retrospective samples, 503 (87.2%) had single detections, 62 (10.7%) had double detections, and 12 (2.1%) had triple detections. Tables 52-55 below summarize co-detections detected in prospective and retrospective samples.
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the ePlexBCID-GN Panel in Prospective Clinical Samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | ResistanceMarker | Number ofSamples(NumberDiscrepant) | DiscrepantOrganism(s) / ResistanceMarker(s)A,B |
| A. baumannii | Pan Gram-Positive | 2 (0) | |||
| Citrobacter | E. cloacae complex | K. oxytoca | 2 (2) | Citrobacter (2), E. cloacaecomplex (2) | |
| Citrobacter | K. oxytoca | K. pneumoniae group | 1 (1) | Citrobacter (1) | |
| Citrobacter | P. mirabilis | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (1) | Pan Gram-Positive (1) | |
| E. cloacae complex | E. coli | K. pneumoniae group | 1 (0) | ||
| E. cloacae complex | Pan Candida | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (0) | ||
| E. cloacae complex | Pan Gram-Positive | 2 (0) | |||
| E. coli | K. oxytoca | 2 (1) | K. oxytoca (1) | ||
| E. coli | K. pneumoniae group | CTX-M | 1 (1) | E. coli (1) | |
| E. coli | Pan Gram-Positive | 2 (1) | Pan Gram-Positive (1) | ||
| Enterobacter | K. pneumoniae group | 1 (1) | Enterobacter (1) | ||
| K. oxytoca | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (0) | |||
| K. oxytoca | S. marcescens | 1 (0) | |||
| K. pneumoniae group | P. mirabilis | 1 (0) | |||
| K. pneumoniae group | Pan Gram-Positive | 2 (0) | |||
| K. pneumoniae group | Pan Gram-Positive | CTX-M, KPC | 1 (1) | Pan Gram-Positive (1) | |
| M. morganii | P. mirabilis | 1 (0) |
Table 52: Co-Detections Identified by the ePlex BCID-GN Panel (Prospective Samples)
{53}------------------------------------------------
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the ePlexBCID-GN Panel in Prospective Clinical Samples | Number ofSamples(Number Discrepant) | DiscrepantOrganism(s) / ResistanceMarker(s)A,B | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | ResistanceMarker | ||
| P. aeruginosa | P. mirabilis | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (0) | ||
| P. aeruginosa | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (0) | |||
| P. mirabilis | Pan Gram-Positive | 3 (2) | Pan Gram-Positive (2) | ||
| P. mirabilis | Pan Gram-Positive | CTX-M | 1 (0) |
A. A discrepant organism or resistance marker is defined as one that was detected by the comparator method(s).
B. 12/13 false positive organisms were investigated using; the discrepant organism was detected in 1/13 and not detected in 1.
One false positive Pan Gram-Positive sample was not tested.
- i. In 3/3 false positive Citrobacter samples, Citrobacter was detected.
- ii. In 2/2 false positive E. cloacae complex samples, E. cloacae complex was detected.
-
- An Enterobacter species was not detected in the 1 false positive Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) sample.
- iv. In 1/1 false positive E. coli sample, E. coli was detected.
- In 1/1 false positive K. oxytoca sample, K. oxytoca was detected. v.
- vi. In 4/4 false positive Pan Gram-Positive samples, a Pan Gram-Positive organism was detected.
Table 53: Co-Detections Identified by the ePlex BCID-GN Panel (Retrospective Samples)
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the ePlexBCID-GN Panel in Retrospective Clinical Samples | Number Samples(Number Discrepant) | Discrepant Organism(s) /Resistance Marker(s)A,B | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | Resistance Marker | ||
| A. baumannii | K. pneumoniae group | Pan Gram-Positive | CTX-M, OXA | 1 (1) | A. baumannii (1), K. pneumoniae group (1), Pan Gram-Positive (1) |
| A. baumannii | Pan Gram-Positive | 2 (0) | |||
| A. baumannii | Pan Gram-Positive | OXA | 4 (1) | Pan Gram-Positive (1) | |
| B. fragilis | E. cloacae complex | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (1) | B. fragilis (1) | |
| B. fragilis | E. coli | 2 (1) | B. fragilis (1) | ||
| B. fragilis | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (0) | |||
| Citrobacter | E. cloacae complex | 1 (1) | E. cloacae complex (1) | ||
| Citrobacter | E. coli | 1 (0) | |||
| Citrobacter | K. oxytoca | 1 (1) | Citrobacter (1) | ||
| Citrobacter | K. oxytoca | K. pneumoniae group | 1 (1) | K. oxytoca (1) | |
| Citrobacter | K. pneumoniae group | 1 (0) | |||
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the ePlexBCID-GN Panel in Retrospective Clinical Samples | NumberSamples(NumberDiscrepant) | DiscrepantOrganism(s) /Resistance Marker(s)A,B | |||
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | ResistanceMarker | ||
| Citrobacter | K. pneumoniae group | Pan Gram-Positive | CTX-M | 1 (0) | |
| Citrobacter | M. morganii | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (1) | M. morganii (1) | |
| Citrobacter | Pan Gram-Positive | 3 (2) | Pan Gram-Positive (2) | ||
| E. cloacaecomplex | K. pneumoniae group | 1 (0) | |||
| E. cloacaecomplex | P. aeruginosa | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (1) | P. aeruginosa (1) | |
| E. cloacaecomplex | Pan Candida | 1 (1) | Pan Candida (1) | ||
| E. cloacaecomplex | Pan Gram-Positive | 2 (1) | Pan Gram-Positive (1) | ||
| E. coli | K. oxytoca | 1 (0) | |||
| E. coli | K. oxytoca | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (0) | ||
| E. coli | K. pneumoniae group | 2 (0) | |||
| E. coli | M. morganii | 1 (0) | |||
| E. coli | P. mirabilis | 3 (0) | |||
| E. coli | P. mirabilis | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (0) | ||
| E. coli | Pan Gram-Positive | 8 (2) | Pan Gram-Positive (2) | ||
| E. coli | Pan Gram-Positive | CTX-M | 1 (0) | ||
| Enterobacter | Pan Candida | 1 (0) | |||
| Enterobacter | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (0) | |||
| H. influenzae | N. meningitidis | P. aeruginosa | 1 (1) | N. meningitidis (1), P.aeruginosa (1) | |
| K. oxytoca | K. pneumoniae group | 2 (1) | K. pneumoniae group (1) | ||
| K. oxytoca | Pan Gram-Positive | 3 (2) | Pan Gram-Positive (2) | ||
| K. oxytoca | S. marcescens | 1 (1) | S. marcescens (1) | ||
| K. pneumoniaegroup | Pan Gram-Positive | 4 (1) | Pan Gram-Positive (1) | ||
| K. pneumoniaegroup | Pan Gram-Positive | S. marcescens | 1 (1) | K. pneumoniae group (1) | |
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the ePlexBCID-GN Panel in Retrospective Clinical Samples | NumberSamples(NumberDiscrepant) | DiscrepantOrganism(s) /Resistance Marker(s)A,B | |||
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | ResistanceMarker | ||
| K. pneumoniaegroup | S. maltophilia | 1 (0) | |||
| M. morganii | P. aeruginosa | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (1) | P. aeruginosa (1) | |
| M. morganii | P. mirabilis | 1 (0) | |||
| M. morganii | Pan Gram-Positive | Proteus | 1 (0) | ||
| P. aeruginosa | Pan Gram-Positive | 1 (0) | |||
| P. mirabilis | Pan Gram-Positive | 5 (0) | |||
| Pan Candida | Pan Gram-Positive | 2 (0) | |||
| Pan Gram-Positive | S. maltophilia | 1 (0) | |||
| Pan Gram-Positive | S. marcescens | 3 (0) |
{54}------------------------------------------------
{55}------------------------------------------------
A. A discrepant organism or resistance marker is defined as one that was detected by the BCID-GN Panel but not by the comparator method(s).
B. 24/26 false positive organisms were investigated using the discrepant organism was detected in 21/24, not detected in 2, and was indeterminate for one organism.
i. In 1/1 false positive A.baumannii sample, A. baumannii was detected.
-
- In 2/2 false positive B. fragilis samples, B. fragilis was detected.
iii. In 1/1 false positive Citrobacter sample, Citrobacter was detected.
- In 2/2 false positive B. fragilis samples, B. fragilis was detected.
-
In the one false positive E. cloacae complex sample, PCR/sequencing was indeterminate. iv.
-
v. In 1/1 false positive K. oxytoca sample, K. oxytoca was detected.
-
In 3/3 false positive K. pneumoniae group samples, K. pneumoniae group was detected. V1.
-
vii. In 1/1 false positive sample, M. morganii was detected.
-
V111. N. meningitidis was not detected in the 1 N. meningitidis false positive sample.
In 2/3 false positive P. aeruginosa samples, P. aeruginosa was detected. P. aeruginosa was not detected in the remaining sample. ıx..
In 1/1 false positive pan Candida sample, Pan Candida was detected. X.
- In 8/8 false positive Pan Gram-Positive samples, a Pan Gram-Positive organism was detected. xi.
- In 1/1 false positive S. marcescens sample, S. marcescens was detected. xii.
Table 54: Additional Co-Detections Identified by the Comparator Method(s) (Prospective
Samples)
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the ComparatorMethod(s) in Prospective Clinical Samples | NumberSamples(NumberDiscrepant) | DiscrepantOrganism(s) /ResistanceMarker(s)A | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | Target 4 | ResistanceMarker | ||
| A. baumannii | E. faecium | Staphylococcus | 1 (0) | |||
| A. baumannii | Staphylococcus | 1 (0) | ||||
| Achromobacter xylosoxidans* | E. cloacae | 1 (0) | ||||
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the ComparatorMethod(s) in Prospective Clinical Samples | NumberSamples | DiscrepantOrganism(s) / | ||||
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | Target 4 | ResistanceMarker | (NumberDiscrepant) | ResistanceMarker(s)A |
| Acinetobacterlwoffii* | Staphylococcushominis | 1 (0) | ||||
| Acinetobacterpittii* | S. aureus | 1 (0) | ||||
| Aerococcusviridans* | K. oxytoca | S. epidermidis | Staphylococcuscohnii | 1 (0) | ||
| Aerococcusviridans* | Staphylococcushominis | 1 (0) | ||||
| B. fragilis | Clostridiumspecies* | 1 (0) | ||||
| Bacillus | E. cloacae | 1 (0) | ||||
| C. acnes* | E. coli | 1 (0) | ||||
| C. albicans | E. cloacae | E. faecalis | 1 (0) | |||
| C. freundii | P. mirabilis | Providenciastuartii* | 1 (0) | |||
| Candida lusitaniae* | S. liquefaciens | 1 (0) | ||||
| Citrobacteramalonaticus* | E. coli | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. aerogenes | K. oxytoca | Leclerciaadecarboxylata* | 2 (2) | E. aerogenes (2) | ||
| E. aerogenes | P. aeruginosa | 1 (1) | P. aeruginosa (1) | |||
| E. cloacae | E. coli | K. pneumoniae | 1 (0) | |||
| E. cloacae | S. aureus | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. coli | E. faecalis | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. coli | K. pneumoniae | 1 (1) | E. coli (1) | |||
| E. coli | P. mirabilis | Providenciastuartii* | S. anginosusgroup | CTX-M | 1 (1) | E. coli (1) |
| E. faecalis | K. pneumoniae | 3 (1) | E. faecalis (1) | |||
| E. faecalis | M. morganii | P. mirabilis | 1 (1) | E. faecalis (1) | ||
| E. faecalis | Providenciastuartii* | 1 (0) | ||||
| Enterobacteriaceae* | K. pneumoniae | 1 (0) | ||||
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the Comparator | NumberSamples(NumberDiscrepant) | DiscrepantOrganism(s) /ResistanceMarker(s)A | ||||
| Method(s) in Prospective Clinical Samples | ||||||
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | Target 4 | ResistanceMarker | ||
| K. pneumoniae | Staphylococcushaemolyticus | non-fermentingGram-Negativebacilli* | 1 (1) | K. pneumoniae (1) | ||
| Lactococcus lactis* | P. mirabilis | 1 (0) | ||||
| Micrococcusluteus* | Sphingomonaspaucimobilis* | 1 (0) | ||||
| P. aeruginosa | P. mirabilis | Streptococcus -viridans group | 1 (0) | |||
| P. aeruginosa | S. maltophilia | 1 (1) | S. maltophilia (1) | |||
| P. aeruginosa | Staphylococcushaemolyticus | 1 (0) | ||||
| P. mirabilis | Staphylococcus | 1 (0) | ||||
| S. maltophilia | Streptococcus | 1 (1) | Streptococcus (1) |
{56}------------------------------------------------
{57}------------------------------------------------
- Indicates an off-panel organism not detected by the BCID-GN Panel.
A. A discrepant organism or resistance marker is defined as one that was detected by the comparator method(s) but not by the BCID-GN Panel (excludes organisms not detected by the BCID-GN panel).
Table 55: Additional Co-Detections Identified by the Comparator Method(s)
(Retrospective Samples)
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the Comparator Method(s) in Retrospective Clinical Samples | Number Samples (Number Discrepant) | Discrepant Organism(s) / Resistance Marker(s)A | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | Target 4 | Resistance Marker | ||
| A. baumannii | E. faecalis | OXA | 2 (0) | |||
| A. baumannii | E. faecalis | S. aureus | 1 (0) | |||
| A. baumannii | E. faecium | OXA | 1 (0) | |||
| A. baumannii | Staphylococcus | 1 (0) | ||||
| Acinetobacter radioresistens* | P. vulgaris | OXA | 1 (0) | |||
| Aeromonas caviae* | E. coli | Enterococcus casseliflavus | K. oxytoca | 1 (1) | E. casseliflavus (1) | |
| Aeromonas veronii* | E. cloacae | 1 (1) | E. cloacae (1) | |||
| B. fragilis | S. anginosus group | 1 (0) | ||||
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the Comparator Method(s) inRetrospective Clinical Samples | NumberSamples(NumberDiscrepant) | DiscrepantOrganism(s) /ResistanceMarker(s)A | ||||
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | Target 4 | ResistanceMarker | ||
| C. albicans | E. faecalis | 1 (0) | ||||
| C. albicans | E. faecium | Staphylococcushominis | 1 (1) | C. albicans (1) | ||
| C. albicans | P. aeruginosa | 1 (1) | C. albicans (1) | |||
| C. albicans | S. epidermidis | 1 (0) | ||||
| C. braakii | E. cloacae | K. oxytoca | 1 (1) | C. braakii (1), K.oxytoca (1) | ||
| C. braakii | E. coli | 1 (0) | ||||
| C. braakii | Streptococcus oralis | 1 (0) | ||||
| C. freundii | Enterococcus | 1 (1) | Enterococcus (1) | |||
| C. freundii | K. pneumoniae | 2 (0) | ||||
| C. freundii | K. pneumoniae | Staphylococcushominis | CTX-M | 1 (0) | ||
| C. glabrata | E. aerogenes | Staphylococcus | 1 (1) | Staphylococcus (1) | ||
| C. glabrata | P. mirabilis | 1 (1) | C. glabrata (1) | |||
| C. koseri | E. faecalis | 1 (0) | ||||
| C. krusei | S. epidermidis | 1 (1) | S. epidermidis (1) | |||
| C. youngae | K. oxytoca | 1 (1) | K. oxytoca (1) | |||
| Clostridiumperfringens* | E. coli | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. aerogenes | S. anginosus group | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. cloacae | E. coli | 1 (1) | E. coli (1) | |||
| E. cloacae | E. faecalis | 1 (1) | E. faecalis (1) | |||
| E. cloacae | E. faecium | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. cloacae | E. faecium | Staphylococcushominis | 1 (0) | |||
| E. cloacae | K. pneumoniae | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. cloacae | M. morganii | 1 (1) | E. cloacae (1) | |||
| E. cloacae | S. anginosus group | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. cloacae | S. maltophilia | 1 (1) | S. maltophilia (1) | |||
| E. coli | E. faecalis | 2 (0) | ||||
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the Comparator Method(s) inRetrospective Clinical Samples | NumberSamples(NumberDiscrepant) | DiscrepantOrganism(s) /ResistanceMarker(s)A | ||||
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | Target 4 | ResistanceMarker | ||
| E. coli | E. faecalis | CTX-M | 1 (0) | |||
| E. coli | E. faecalis | K. pneumoniae | 1 (1) | E. coli (1) | ||
| E. coli | E. faecalis | P. mirabilis | 1 (0) | |||
| E. coli | E. faecium | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. coli | E. faecium | CTX-M | 1 (1) | E. faecium (1) | ||
| E. coli | K. oxytoca | Streptococcusinfantarius | 1 (0) | |||
| E. coli | P. aeruginosa | 1 (1) | P. aeruginosa (1) | |||
| E. coli | P. mirabilis | 1 (1) | E. coli (1) | |||
| E. coli | P. mirabilis | P. vulgaris | Streptococcus -viridans group | 1 (1) | S. viridans group(1) | |
| E. coli | Propionibacteria* | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. coli | S. anginosus gp | 1 (1) | S. anginosus group(1) | |||
| E. coli | S. aureus | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. coli | S. pneumoniae | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. coli | Staphylococcus | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. faecalis | K. pneumoniae | 1 (1) | K. pneumoniae (1) | |||
| E. faecalis | M. morganii | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. faecalis | M. morganii | P. vulgaris | 1 (0) | |||
| E. faecalis | P. aeruginosa | S. aureus | 1 (1) | P. aeruginosa (1) | ||
| E. faecalis | P. mirabilis | 3 (0) | ||||
| E. faecalis | S. maltophilia | 1 (1) | E. faecalis (1) | |||
| E. faecalis | S. marcescens | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. faecium | K. pneumoniae | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. faecium | P. aeruginosa | 1 (0) | ||||
| E. faecium | P. mirabilis | 1 (0) | ||||
| K. oxytoca | S. anginosus group | 1 (0) | ||||
| K. pneumoniae | P. aeruginosa | 1 (1) | P. aeruginosa (1) | |||
| K. pneumoniae | S. aureus | 2 (1) | S. aureus (1) | |||
| Distinct Co-Detection Combinations Detected by the Comparator Method(s) inRetrospective Clinical Samples | NumberSamples | DiscrepantOrganism(s) /ResistanceMarker(s)A | ||||
| Target 1 | Target 2 | Target 3 | Target 4 | (NumberDiscrepant) | ||
| K. pneumoniae | Staphylococcus | 1 (1) | Staphylococcus (1) | |||
| P. aeruginosa | S. maltophilia | 1 (1) | S. maltophilia (1) | |||
| P. mirabilis | Peptostreptococcusanaerobius* | 1 (0) | ||||
| P. mirabilis | Providenciastuartii* | 2 (1) | P. mirabilis (1) | |||
| P. mirabilis | Staphylococcus | 1 (0) | ||||
| Pseudomonasputida* | S. epidermidis | S. maltophilia | 1 (0) | |||
| S. aureus | S. marcescens | 1 (0) | ||||
| S. marcescens | Staphylococcus | 1 (0) | ||||
| S. marcescens | Streptococcus mitisgroup | Streptococcussalivarius | 1 (0) |
{58}------------------------------------------------
{59}------------------------------------------------
{60}------------------------------------------------
- Indicates an off-panel organism not detected by the BCID-GN Panel.
A. A discrepant organism or resistance marker is defined as one that was detected by the comparator method(s) but not by the BCID-GN Panel (excludes organisms not detected by the BCID-GN panel).
Clinical Study ePlex Instrument Performance
A total of 2460 samples (including prospective, retrospective, and contrived samples) were initially tested in the clinical evaluations. Of these, 23/2460 (0.9%) did not complete the run and the sample was retested. After repeat testing, all 2460 samples completed testing and 2334/2460 (94.9%, 95% CI: 93.9%-95.7%) generated valid results and 126/2460 (5.1%, 95% CI: 4.3%-6.1%) generated invalid results on the first completed attempt.
Upon repeat testing of the 126 samples with initially invalid results, 1/126 (0.8%) did not complete the run and the sample was retested. After repeat testing, all 126 samples completed testing and 114/126 (90.5%) generated valid results. Overall, after final testing, 12/2460 (0.5%, 95% CI: 0.3%-0.9%) had final, invalid results, resulting in a final validity rate of 2448/2460 (99.5%, 95% CI: 99.1%-99.7%).
{61}------------------------------------------------
ANALYTICAL PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Limit of Detection (LoD)
The limit of detection (LoD), or analytical sensitivity, was identified and verified for each target on the BCID-GN Panel using quantified reference strains in simulated blood culture sample matrix, which is defined as a whole blood with EDTA added to a blood culture bottle in the same ratio as the manufacturer recommends and incubated for 8 hours. At least 20 replicates per target were tested for each condition. The limit of detection was defined as the lowest concentration of each target that is detected in ≥95% of tested replicates. The confirmed LoD for each ePlex BCID-GN Panel organism is shown in Table 56.
| Target | Organism | Strain | LoDConcentration(CFU/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii | Acinetobacter baumannii | NCTC 13421 | 1 x 106 |
| Acinetobacter baumannii | Acinetobacter baumannii | NCTC 13304 | 1 x 106 |
| Bacteroides fragilis | Bacteroides fragilis | ATCC 25285 | 1 x 105 |
| Bacteroides fragilis | Bacteroides fragilis | ATCC 43860 | 1 x 104 |
| Citrobacter | Citrobacter freundii | NCTC 9750 | 1 x 106 |
| Citrobacter | Citrobacter koseri | ATCC 27156 | 1 x 106 |
| Cronobacter sakazakii | Cronobacter sakazakii | ATCC 29544 | 1 x 105 |
| Cronobacter sakazakii | Cronobacter sakazakii | ATCC 29004 | 1 x 106 |
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | Enterobacter aerogenes | CDC#0074 | 1 x 106 |
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | Enterobacter aerogenes | CDC#0161 | 1 x 105 |
| Enterobacter cloacaeComplex | Enterobacter amnigenus | ATCC 33072 | 1 x 106 |
| Enterobacter cloacaeComplex | Enterobacter cloacae | CDC#0154 | 1 x 106 |
| Enterobacter cloacaeComplex | Enterobacter asburiae | ATCC 35957 | 1 x 106 |
| Enterobacter cloacaeComplex | Enterobacter hormaechei | ATCC BAA-2082 | 1 x 106 |
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli | CDC#0118 | 1 x 107 |
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli | NCTC 13441 | 1 x 106 |
| Target | Organism | Strain | LoD Concentration (CFU/mL) |
| Fusobacterium necrophorum | Fusobacterium necrophorum | ATCC 51357 | 1 x 108 |
| Fusobacterium necrophorum | Fusobacterium necrophorum | ATCC 27852 | 1 x 107 |
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | Fusobacterium nucleatum | ATCC 25586 | |
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | Fusobacterium nucleatum | ATCC 23726 | 1 x 105 |
| Haemophilus influenzae | Haemophilus influenzae | ATCC 19418 | |
| Haemophilus influenzae | Haemophilus influenzae | ATCC 9006 | 1 x 107 |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Klebsiella oxytoca | ATCC 43165 | |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Klebsiella oxytoca | ATCC 8724 | 1 x 107 |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | Klebsiella pneumoniae | CDC#0160 | |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | Klebsiella pneumoniae | CDC#0107 | 1 x 106 |
| Morganella morganii | Morganella morganii | ATCC 25829 | |
| Morganella morganii | Morganella morganii | CDC#0133 | 1 x 107 |
| Neisseria meningitidis | Neisseria meningitidis | ATCC 13090 | |
| Neisseria meningitidis | Neisseria meningitidis | ATCC 13102 | 1 x 104 |
| Proteus | Proteus vulgaris | ATCC 6896 | |
| Proteus | Proteus vulgaris | ATCC 6380 | 1 x 107 |
| Proteus mirabilis | Proteus mirabilis | CDC#0159 | |
| Proteus mirabilis | Proteus mirabilis | ATCC 43071 | 1 x 106 |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | CDC#0103 | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | NCTC 13437 | 1 x 106 |
| Salmonella | Salmonella bongori | ATCC 43975 | |
| Salmonella | Salmonella enterica | ATCC 6962 | 1 x 105 |
| Serratia | Serratia liquefaciens | ATCC 27592 | |
| Serratia | Serratia plymuthica | ATCC 53858 | 1 x 107 |
| Serratia marcescens | Serratia marcescens | ATCC 14041 | |
| Serratia marcescens | Serratia marcescens | ATCC 14756 | 1 x 105 |
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | ATCC 13637 | |
| Target | Organism | Strain | LoDConcentration(CFU/mL) |
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | ATCC 17666 | $1 x 10^7$ | |
| Pan Candida | Candia albicans | ATCC 10231 | $1 x 10^6$ |
| Candia glabrata | ATCC 15126 | $1 x 10^5$ | |
| Pan Gram-Positive | Enterococcus faecalis | ATCC 51575 | $1 x 10^5$ |
| Enterococcus faecium | ATCC 31282 | $1 x 10^7$ | |
| Bacillus subtilis | ATCC 21008 | $1 x 10^6$ | |
| Staphylococcus aureus | ATCC BAA-2313 | $1 x 10^5$ | |
| Streptococcus agalactiae | ATCC 13813 | $1 x 10^6$ | |
| Streptococcus anginosus | ATCC 33397 | $1 x 10^6$ | |
| CTX-M | Escherichia coli (CTX-M-15) | NCTC 13441 | $1 x 10^4$ |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (CTX-M-2) | CDC#0107 | $1 x 10^5$ | |
| IMP | Enterobacter aerogenes (IMP-4) | CDC#0161 | $1 x 10^6$ |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (IMP-1) | CDC#0103 | $1 x 10^5$ | |
| KPC | Enterobacter hormaechei (KPCvariant not known) | ATCC BAA-2082 | $1 x 10^6$ |
| Morganella morganii (KPC-2) | CDC#0133 | $1 x 10^6$ | |
| NDM | Escherichia coli (NDM-1) | CDC#0118 | $1 x 10^5$ |
| Proteus mirabilis (NDM-1) | CDC#0159 | $1 x 10^5$ | |
| OXA | Acinetobacter baumannii (OXA-23) | NCTC 13421 | $1 x 10^5$ |
| Acinetobacter baumannii (OXA-27) | NCTC 13304 | $1 x 10^5$ | |
| Enterobacter aerogenes (OXA-48) | CDC#0074 | $1 x 10^6$ | |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (OXA-48) | CDC#0160 | $1 x 10^6$ | |
| VIM | Enterobacter cloacae (VIM-1) | CDC#0154 | $1 x 10^6$ |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (VIM-10) | NCTC 13437 | $1 x 10^5$ |
Table 56: LoD Results Summary
{62}------------------------------------------------
{63}------------------------------------------------
{64}------------------------------------------------
Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity)
A panel of 336 strains/isolates representing the genetic, temporal and geographic diversity of each target on the ePlex BCID-GN Panel was evaluated to demonstrate analytical reactivity. Bacteria were tested at 1 x 10° CFU/mL or less and fungal strains were tested at 1 x 10° CFU/mL. In the cases where the initial testing concentration did not result in a "Detected" result, the concentration was increased to the point where detection was observed (see footnotes for concentration of these strains). Organisms detected are shown in Table 57. Additional strains were detected as part of the Limit of Detection (Analytical Sensitivity) Study and can be found in Table 56. Citrobacter strains that were tested but not detected include the following: C. amalonaticus, C. farmer, C. gillenii, C. murliniae, and C. sedlakii. Serratia odorifera and Staphylococcus simulans were not detected at concentrations of 1 x 108 CFU/mL and only one of three replicates were detected at concentrations of 1 x 109 CFU/mL.
| Organism | Strain | Organism | Strain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii | CDC#0052 | Cronobacter sakazakii | ATCC |
| NCTC 13302 | Cronobacter sakazakii | ATCC | |
| NCTC 13303 | FSL | ||
| Acinetobacter baumannii | NCTC 13305 | Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) | |
| NCTC 13420 | ATCC | ||
| NCTC 13422 | Enterobacter aerogenes | ATCC | |
| NCTC 13423 | ATCC | ||
| Acinetobacter baumannii (NDM-1) | CDC#0033 | Enterobacter amnigenus | ATCC |
| ATCC BAA-1605 | ATCC | ||
| CDC#0045 | Enterobacter gergoviae | ATCC | |
| Acinetobacter baumannii (OXA-23) | CDC#0056 | Enterobacter cloacae complex | |
| NCTC 13301 | ATCC | ||
| NCTC 13424 | Enterobacter asburiae | ATCC | |
| Acinetobacter spp. (IMP only) | JMI4084A | ATCC | |
| Bacteroides fragilis | Enterobacter cloacae (CTX-15) | CDC | |
| ATCC 23745 | Enterobacter cloacae (CTX-9) | NCTC | |
| Bacteroides fragilis | ATCC 700786 | Enterobacter cloacae (CTX-15, KPC-2) | CDC |
| NCTC 9343 | Enterobacter cloacae (CTX, NDM) | JMI | |
| Citrobacter | Enterobacter cloacae subsp. cloacae | ATCC | |
| Citrobacter braakii | ATCC 43162 | ATCC | |
| ATCC 51113 | Enterobacter cloacae subsp. dissolvens | ATCC | |
| Citrobacter freundii | ATCC 6879 | Enterobacter hormaechei | ATCC |
| ATCC 8090 | Enterobacter hormaechei subsp. hormaechei | ATCC | |
| Citrobacter freundii (CTX) | JMI2047 | Enterobacter hormaechei subsp. oharae | ATCC |
| Citrobacter freundii (KPC-2) | CDC#0116 | Enterobacter hormaechei subsp. steigerwaltii | CIP |
| ATCC 25409 | Enterobacter ludwigii | DSM | |
| Citrobacter koseri | ATCC 27028 | Escherichia coli | |
| ATCC 29225 | ATCC | ||
| ATCC 29936 | ATCC | ||
| Citrobacter species (CTX-15, NDM-1) | CDC #0157 | Escherichia coli | ATCC |
| Citrobacter werkmanii | ATCC 51114 | ATCC |
| Table 57: Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity) | |
|---|---|
Strain
ATCC 12868 ATCC BAA-894 FSL F6-0023
ATCC 13048 ATCC 29010 ATCC 51697 ATCC 33731 ATCC 51816ª ATCC 33028 ATCC 33426
ATCC 35954 ATCC 35955 ATCC 35956 CDC#0038 NCTC 13464 CDC#0163 JMI53571 ATCC 23355 ATCC 35030 ATCC 23373 ATCC 700323 ATCC 49162 ATCC 49163 CIP108489T DSM-16688
ATCC 14948 ATCC 25922 ATCC 33605 ATCC 33876 ATCC 35150 ATCC 4157
{65}------------------------------------------------
| Organism | Strain |
|---|---|
| ATCC 43888 | |
| ATCC 51446 | |
| ATCC 51755 | |
| ATCC 53498 | |
| ATCC 700728 | |
| NCIMB 8545 | |
| NCTC 8620 | |
| ATCC 9637 | |
| ATCC BAA-196 | |
| ATCC BAA-197 | |
| ATCC BAA-198 | |
| ATCC BAA-199 | |
| ATCC BAA-200 | |
| ATCC BAA-201 | |
| ATCC BAA-202 | |
| ATCC BAA-203 | |
| ATCC BAA-204 | |
| LMC 243094647 | |
| LMC 243098776 | |
| LMC 243098947 | |
| LMC 243108047 | |
| LMC 243109799 | |
| LMC 243112411 | |
| LMC 244006281 | |
| LMC 244006433 | |
| LMC 244008038 | |
| LMC 244012579 | |
| NCTC 13351 | |
| NCTC 10279 | |
| ATCC 10536 | |
| ATCC 10538 | |
| ATCC 10799 | |
| ATCC 11229 | |
| ATCC 13762 | |
| ATCC 14169 | |
| Escherichia coli (CTX-14) | CDC#0086 |
| ATCC BAA-2326 | |
| NCTC 13353 | |
| Escherichia coli (CTX-15) | NCTC 13400 |
| NCTC 13450 | |
| NCTC 13451 | |
| Escherichia coli (CTX-3) | NCTC 13452 |
| Escherichia coli (CTX-1) | NCTC 13461 |
| Escherichia coli (CTX-2) | NCTC 13462 |
| Escherichia coli (CTX-8) | NCTC 13463 |
| Escherichia coli (CTX-15, NDM-6) | CDC#0137 |
| Escherichia coli (CTX-15, NDM-7) | CDC#0162 |
| Escherichia coli (IMP) | NCTC 13476 |
| Escherichia coli (KPC) | ATCC BAA-2340 |
| Escherichia coli (NDM-5) | CDC#0150 |
| Escherichia coli (OXA) | LMC DR00012 |
| Escherichia coli (VIM) | JMI32465 |
| Fusobacterium necrophorum | |
| ATCC 25286 | |
| Fusobacterium necrophorum subsp. | NCTC 10575 |
| necrophorum | NCTC 10577 |
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | |
| Fusobacterium nucleatum subsp. nucleatum | ATCC 31647 |
| Fusobacterium nucleatum subsp. fusiforme | ATCC 51190 |
| Organism | Strain | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Fusobacterium nucleatum subsp. vincentii | ATCC 49256 | ||
| Haemophilus influenzae | ATCC 33930 | ||
| ATCC 43065 | |||
| ATCC 43163 | |||
| Haemophilus influenzae | NCTC 11931 | ||
| NCTC 12699 | |||
| NCTC 8143 | |||
| Haemophilus influenzae Type b | ATCC 10211 | ||
| Haemophilus influenzae Type c | ATCC 9007 | ||
| Haemophilus influenzae Type d | ATCC 9332 | ||
| Haemophilus influenzae Type e | NCTC 8472 | ||
| Haemophilus influenzae Type f | ATCC 9833 | ||
| Klebsiella oxytoca | |||
| ATCC 43086 | |||
| ATCC 43863 | |||
| Klebsiella oxytoca | ATCC 49131 | ||
| ATCC 700324 | |||
| ATCC 51817 | |||
| Klebsiella oxytoca (KPC-3) | CDC#0147 | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (CTX-15) | CDC#0109 | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (CTX-25) | NCTC 13465 | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (CTX, KPC) | IMH-C2261309 | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (CTX, NDM-1) | NCTC 13443 | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (CTX-15; NDM-1; OXA-232) | CDC#0153 | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (CTX-15, OXA-232) | CDC#0075 | ||
| CDC#0066 | |||
| CDC#0039 | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (CTX-15, OXA-181) | CDC#0140 | ||
| CDC#0141 | |||
| CDC#0142 | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (IMP-4) | CDC#0034 | ||
| CDC#0080 | |||
| CDC#0125 | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPC-3) | CDC#0112 | ||
| CDC#0113 | |||
| ATCC BAA-1705 | |||
| IMH-C2260742 | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPC) | IMH-C3151729 | ||
| IMH-C4151728 | |||
| IMH-C4171868 | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (OXA-48) | NCTC 13442 | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (CTX-15; VIM-27) | CDC#0040 | ||
| CDC#0135 | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae (VIM-1) | NCTC 13439 | ||
| NCTC 13440 | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. Ozaenae | ATCC 11296 | ||
| ATCC 13883 | |||
| ATCC 27736 | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae | ATCC 51503 | ||
| ATCC 51504 | |||
| Klebsiella quasipneumoniae | ATCC 700603 | ||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. rhinoscleromatis | ATCC 9436 | ||
| Klebsiella variicola | Morganella morganii | ATCC BAA-830 | |
| Morganella morganii | ATCC 25830 | ||
| GM148-209 |
{66}------------------------------------------------
| Organism | Strain | |
|---|---|---|
| Morganella morganii (CTX-15; NDM-1) | CDC#0057c | |
| Neisseria meningitidis | ||
| Neisseria meningitidis Serotype A | ATCC 13077 | |
| Neisseria meningitidis Serotype B | NCTC 10026 | |
| Neisseria meningitidis Serotype W135 | NCTC 11203 | |
| Neisseria meningitidis Serotype Y | ATCC 35561 | |
| Proteus | ||
| Proteus hauseri | ATCC 13315 | |
| ATCC 33583 | ||
| Proteus mirabilis | ATCC BAA-663 | |
| Proteus mirabilis (IMP) | JMI955389 | |
| Proteus mirabilis (KPC-6) | CDC#0155 | |
| Proteus penneri | ATCC 35197 | |
| ATCC 33420 | ||
| ATCC 49132 | ||
| Proteus vulgaris | ATCC 8427 | |
| NCTC 4636 | ||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | ||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (IMP-14) | CDC#0092 | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (IMP-1) | CDC#0241 | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (IMP) | CDC#0439 | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (KPC-5) | CDC#0090 | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (VIM-2) | CDC#0100 | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (VIM-4) | CDC#0054 | |
| Salmonella | ||
| Salmonella enterica serovar 4,[5],12:i | FSL S5-0580 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Agona | ATCC 51957 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Bareilly | ATCC 9115 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Braenderup | ATCC 700136 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis | ATCC BAA-708 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Hadar | ATCC 51956 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg | ATCC 8326 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Infantis | ATCC BAA-1675 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Javiana | ATCC 10721 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Montevideo | ATCC 8387 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Muenchen | ATCC 8388 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Oranienburg | ATCC 9239 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Paratyphi B | FSL S5-0447 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Saintpaul | ATCC 9712 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Thompson | ATCC 8391 | |
| Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi | ATCC 19430 | |
| Salmonella enterica subsp. arizonae | ATCC 13314 | |
| Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae | ATCC 12325 | |
| Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhimurium | ATCC 14028 | |
| Salmonella enterica subsp. houtenae | ATCC 29834 | |
| Salmonella enterica subsp. indica | ATCC BAA-1578 | |
| Salmonella enterica subsp. salamae | ATCC 6959 | |
| Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Mississippi | FSL A4-0633 | |
| Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Schwarzengrund | FSL S5-0458 | |
| Serratia | ||
| Serratia ficaria | ATCC 33105 | |
| Serratia fonticola | ATCC 29844 | |
| Serratia grimesii | ATCC 14460 | |
| ATCC 13880 | ||
| Serratia marcescens | ATCC 43861 | |
| ATCC 43862 | ATCC 43862 | |
| Serratia marcescens (CTX) | JMI10244 | |
| Organism | Strain | |
| Serratia rubidaea | ATCC 27593 | |
| ATCC 29025 | ||
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | ||
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | ATCC 13636 | |
| GM148-207 | ||
| GM148-208 | ||
| Pan-Gram Positive | ||
| Bacillus amyloliquefaciens | ATCC 23845 | |
| Bacillus atrophaeus | ATCC 49337 | |
| Bacillus cereus | ATCC 10876 | |
| Bacillus licheniformis | ATCC 21039 | |
| Bacillus thuringiensis | ATCC 35646 | |
| Enterococcus avium | ATCC 14025 | |
| Enterococcus casseliflavus | ATCC 700327 | |
| Enterococcus faecalis | JMI876745 | |
| Enterococcus gallinarum | ATCC 49573 | |
| Enterococcus hirae | ATCC 49479 | |
| Enterococcus raffinosus | ATCC 49464 | |
| Enterococcus saccharolyticus | ATCC 43076D | |
| Staphylococcus capitis | NRS866 | |
| Staphylococcus chromogenes | ATCC 43764 | |
| Staphylococcus cohnii | ATCC 29974 | |
| Staphylococcus epidermidis | ATCC 35984 | |
| Staphylococcus gallinarum | ATCC 700401 | |
| Staphylococcus haemolyticus | ATCC 29970 | |
| Staphylococcus hominis | ATCC 27844 | |
| Staphylococcus hyicus | ATCC 11249 | |
| Staphylococcus lentus | ATCC 700403 | |
| Staphylococcus lugdunensis | ATCC 49576 | |
| Staphylococcus pasteuri | ATCC 51128 | |
| Staphylococcus vitulinus | ATCC 51699 | |
| Streptococcus constellatus | ATCC 27513 | |
| Streptococcus dysgalactiae | ATCC 35666 | |
| Streptococcus equi | ATCC 9528 | |
| Streptococcus gallolyticus | ATCC 9809 | |
| Streptococcus gordonii | ATCC 35557 | |
| Streptococcus infantis | ATCC 700779 | |
| Streptococcus intermedius | ATCC 27335 | |
| Streptococcus mitis | ATCC 49456 | |
| Streptococcus oralis | ATCC 35037 | |
| Streptococcus parasanguinis | ATCC 15909 | |
| Streptococcus pneumoniae | ATCC 8335 | |
| Streptococcus pyogenes | ATCC 12344 | |
| Streptococcus salivarius | ATCC 7073 | |
| Streptococcus thoraltensis | ATCC 700865E | |
| Pan Candida | ||
| Candida albicans | ATCC 24433 | |
| ATCC 90028 | ||
| ATCC 2001 | ||
| Candida glabrata | ATCC 66032 | |
| ATCC 14243 | ||
| Candida krusei | ATCC 32196 | |
| ATCC 34135F | ||
| ATCC 22019 | ||
| Candida parapsilosis | ATCC 58895 | |
| ATCC 90018G |
{67}------------------------------------------------
- A. Non-target species used to evaluate resistance marker.
- B. 5/6 replicates detected at 2.0 x 108 CFU/mL.
- C. 5/6 replicates detected at 4.5 x 108 CFU/mL.
D. Strain may have reduced sensitivity and was not 100% detected at concentrations <1 x 10° CFU/mL.
E. Strain may have reduced sensitivity and was not 100% detected at concentrations <4 x 10° CFU/mL.
F. In initial testing, 1/6 replicates was detected at 1x 10° CFUmL; during additional testing, 3/3 replicates detected at bottle positivity.
G. In intial testing, 2/6 replicates were detected at 1 x 10° CFU/mL; during additional testing, 6/6 replicates detected at bottle positivity.
Predicted (in silico) Reactivity for Genus and Group Assays
In addition to species-specific assays, the ePlex BCID-GN Panel contains a number of broader genus or group-level assays including: Citrobacter cloacae complex, Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex), Klebsiella pneumoniae group, Proteus, Serratia, Pan Candida, and Pan Gram-Positive assays. Tables 58-65 highlight the-predicted (in silico) reactivity (inclusivity) for these assay targets.
Note: the performance of the ePlex BCID-GN Panel has not been established for all of the organisms listed in the tables below. See the Analytical Reactivity section for data on organisms for which performance characteristics have been established (indicated with an asterisk in Tables 58-65). Some species were not assessed in silico due to lack of sequence data, though they may appear in the analytical sensitivity or specificity studies.
| Table 58: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for Citrobacter | ||
|---|---|---|
| Detection Predicted for ≥95% of target sequences | ||
| Citrobacter koseri* | Citrobacter intermedius | |
| Detection Predicted for 85%-94% of target sequences | ||
| Citrobacter freundii* | Citrobacter braakii* | |
| Detection Predicted for <85.0% of target sequences | ||
| Citrobacter werkmanii* (66.7%) | Citrobacter youngae* (50.0%) | |
| Detection Not Predicted | ||
| Citrobacter europaeus | Citrobacter gillenii | Citrobacter amalonaticusA |
| Citrobacter farmeri | Citrobacter sedlakii | Citrobacter murliniae |
A. Detection predicted in silico, however ATCCBAA-2563 was not detected in wet testing.
{68}------------------------------------------------
| Table 59: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for Enterobacter cloacae | |
|---|---|
| complex |
| Detection Predicted for ≥95% of target sequences | ||
|---|---|---|
| Enterobacter cloacae* | Enterobacter asburiae* | Enterobacter hormaechei* |
| Enterobacter xiangfangensis | ||
| Detection Predicted for 85%-94% of target sequences | ||
| None Identified | ||
| Detection Predicted for <85.0% of target sequences | ||
| Enterobacter ludwigii* (68.4%) | Enterobacter nimipressuralis(25.0%) | |
| Detection Not Predicted | ||
| Enterobacter kobei | Enterobacter cancerogenus |
Table 60: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex)
| Detection Predicted for ≥95% of target sequences | |
|---|---|
| Enterobacter aerogenes* | Enterobacter gergoviae* |
| Detection Predicted for 85%-94% of target sequences | |
| None Identified | |
| Detection Predicted for <85.0% of target sequences | |
| Enterobacter amnigenus* (62.5%) | |
| Detection Not Predicted | |
| None Identified |
{69}------------------------------------------------
| Group | Detection Predicted for ≥95% of target sequences | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Klebsiella pneumoniae* | Klebsiella quasipneumoniae* | Klebsiella variicola* | |
| Detection Predicted for 85%-94% of target sequences | |||
| None Identified | |||
| Detection Predicted for <85.0% of target sequences | |||
| None Identified | |||
| Detection Not Predicted | |||
| None Identified |
Table 61: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for Klebsiella pneumoniae Group
Table 62: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for Proteus
| Detection Predicted for ≥95% of target sequences | ||
|---|---|---|
| Proteus mirabilis* | Proteus penneri* | Proteus vulgaris* |
| Proteus hauseri* | Proteus cibarius | |
| Detection Predicted for 85%-94% of target sequences | ||
| None Identified | ||
| Detection Predicted for <85.0% of target sequences | ||
| None Identified | ||
| Detection Not Predicted | ||
| Proteus myxofaciens |
{70}------------------------------------------------
| Detection Predicted for ≥95% of target sequences | ||
|---|---|---|
| Serratia marcescens* | Serratia grimesii* | Serratia rubidaea* |
| Serratia ficaria* | Serratia liquefaciens* | Serratia proteamaculans |
| Serratia fonticola* | Serratia plymuthica* | |
| Detection Predicted for 85%-94% of target sequences | ||
| None Identified | ||
| Detection Predicted for <85.0% of target sequences | ||
| Serratia quinivorans (33.3%) | ||
| Detection Not Predicted | ||
| Serratia nematodiphila | Serratia odoriferaA* | Serratia ureilytica |
Table 63: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for Serratia
B. Not predicted in silico, however ATCC 33077 was intermittently detected in wet testing. See Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity) Study.
Table 64: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for Pan Candida
| Detection Predicted for ≥95% of target sequences | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candida albicans* | Candida glabrata* | Candida krusei* |
| Candida parapsilosis* | ||
| Detection Predicted for 85%-94% of target sequences | ||
| None Identified | ||
| Detection Predicted for <85% of target sequences | ||
| None Identified | ||
| Detection Not Predicted | ||
| Detection was not predicted by bioinformatic analysis for other Candida species for which sequence data was available. |
{71}------------------------------------------------
| Table 65: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for Pan Gram-Positive | ||
|---|---|---|
| Detection Predicted for ≥95% of target sequences | ||
| Bacillus | ||
| Bacillus amyloliquefaciens* | Bacillus paralicheniformis | Bacillus toyonensis |
| Bacillus atrophaeus* | Bacillus siamensis | Bacillus vallismortis |
| Bacillus bombysepticus | Bacillus subtilis* | Bacillus velezensis |
| Bacillus licheniformis* | Bacillus tequilensis | Bacillus weihenstephanensis |
| Bacillus methylotrophicus | Bacillus thuringiensis* | |
| Enterococcus | ||
| Enterococcus avium* | Enterococcus faecium* | Enterococcus raffinosus* |
| Enterococcus dispar | Enterococcus flavescens | Enterococcus saccharolyticus* |
| Enterococcus durans | Enterococcus malodoratus | Enterococcus thailandicus |
| Enterococcus faecalis* | Enterococcus pseudoavium | |
| Staphylococcus | ||
| Staphylococcus aureus* | Staphylococcus haemolyticus* | Staphylococcus pseudintermedius |
| Staphylococcus agnetis | Staphylococcus hominis* | Staphylococcus pseudolugdunensis |
| Staphylococcus argensis | Staphylococcus hominis subsp.novobiosepticus | Staphylococcus pulvereri |
| Staphylococcus argenteus | Staphylococcus hyicus* | Staphylococcus rostri |
| Staphylococcus auricularis | Staphylococcus jettensis | Staphylococcus saprophyticus |
| Staphylococcus capitis* | Staphylococcus kloosii | Staphylococcus schleiferi |
| Staphylococcus caprae | Staphylococcus lentus* | Staphylococcus schweitzeri |
| Staphylococcus carnosus | Staphylococcus lugdunensis* | Staphylococcus sciuri |
| Staphylococcus chromogenes* | Staphylococcus lutrae | Staphylococcus simiae |
| Staphylococcus cohnii* | Staphylococcus massiliensis | Staphylococcus simulans |
| Staphylococcus delphini | Staphylococcus microti | Staphylococcus stepanovicii |
| Staphylococcus devriesei | Staphylococcus muscae | Staphylococcus succinus |
| Staphylococcus epidermidis* | Staphylococcus nepalensis | Staphylococcus vitulinus* |
| Staphylococcus equorum | Staphylococcus pasteuri* | Staphylococcus warneri |
| Staphylococcus felis | Staphylococcus petrasii | Staphylococcus xylosus |
| Staphylococcus fleurettii | Staphylococcus pettenkoferi | |
| Staphylococcus gallinarum*Staphylococcus piscifermentans | ||
| Streptococcus | ||
| Streptococcus agalactiae | Streptococcus infantarius | Streptococcus phocae |
| Streptococcus alactolyticus | Streptococcus infantis* | Streptococcus pneumoniae* |
| Streptococcus anginosus | Streptococcus intermedius* | Streptococcus porcinus |
| Streptococcus australis | Streptococcus intestinalis | Streptococcus porcorum |
| Streptococcus caballi | Streptococcus lactarius | Streptococcus pseudopneumoniae |
| Streptococcus constellatus | Streptococcus loxodontisalivarius | Streptococcus pseudoporcinus |
| Streptococcus criceti | Streptococcus luteciae | Strepotococcus pyogenes |
| Streptococcus cristatus | Streptococcus lutetiensis | Streptococcus rifensis |
| Streptococcus danieliae | Streptococcus macedonicus | Streptococcus rubneri |
| Streptococcus dentasini | Streptococcus marimammalium | Streptococcus salivarius* |
| Streptococcus dentisani | Streptococcus massiliensis | Streptococcus saliviloxodontae |
| Streptococcus didelphis | Streptococcus mitis* | Streptococcus sanguinis |
| Streptococcus difficilis | Streptococcus moroccensis | Streptococcus seminale |
| Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp.dysgalactiae | Streptococcus oligofermentans | Streptococcus sinensis |
| Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp.equisimilis | Streptococcus oralis* | Streptococcus suis |
| Streptococcus dysgalactiae* | Streptococcus oricebi | Streptococcus thermophilus |
| Streptococcus equi* | Streptococcus orisratti | Streptococcus thoraltensis* |
| Streptococcus equinus | Streptococcus panodentis | Streptococcus tigurinus |
| Streptococcus fryi | Streptococcus parasanguinis* | Streptococcus troglodytae |
| Streptococcus gallolyticus* | Streptococcus parasuis | Streptococcus troglodytidis |
| Streptococcus gordonii* | Streptococcus parauberis | Streptococcus urinalis |
| Streptococcus himalayensis | Streptococcus pasteuri | Streptococcus ursoris |
| Streptococcus hongkongensis | Streptococcus pasteurianus | Streptococcus vestibularis |
| Streptococcus hyointestinalis | Streptococcus peroris | Streptococcus waiu |
| Detection Predicted for 85%-94% of target sequences | ||
| Bacillus cereus* | Enterococcus hirae* | Staphylococcus saccharolyticus |
| Enterococcus casseliflavus* | Staphylococcus arlettae | Streptococcus bovis |
| Enterococcus cecorum | Staphylococcus condimenti | Streptococcus uberis |
| Enterococcus gallinarum | Staphylococcus intermedius | |
| Detection Predicted for <85.0% of target sequences | ||
| Bacillus mojavensis (77.8%) | Bacillus sonorensis (83.3%) | Streptococcus halichoeri (66.7%) |
| Streptococcus ratti (75.0%) | ||
| Detection Not Predicted | ||
| Bacillus pseudomycoides | Enterococcus sulfureus | Streptococcus hyovaginalis |
| Enterococcus aquimarinus | Enterococcus termitis | Streptococcus ictaluri |
| Enterococcus asini | Enterococcus ureasiticus | Streptococcus iniae |
| Enterococcus caccae | Enterococcus ureilyticus | Streptococcus lactis |
| Enterococcus camelliae | Enterococcus villorum | Streptococcus macacae |
| Enterococcus canintestini | Staphylococcus caseolyticus | Streptococcus marmotae |
| Enterococcus canis | Streptococcus acidominimus | Streptococcus merionis |
| Enterococcus columbae | Streptococcus azizii | Streptococcus milleri |
| Enterococcus devriesei | Streptococcus cameli | Streptococcus minor |
| Enterococcus haemoperoxidus | Streptococcus canis | Streptococcus oriloxodontae |
| Enterococcus hawaiiensis | Streptococcus castoreus | Streptococcus orisasini |
| Enterococcus hermanniensis | Streptococcus cremoris | Streptococcus orisuis |
| Enterococcus italicus | Streptococcus criae | Streptococcus ovis |
| Enterococcus mundtii | Streptococcus cuniculi | Streptococcus pharyngis |
| Enterococcus pallens | Streptococcus dentapri | Streptococcus pluranimalium |
| Enterococcus pernyi | Streptococcus dentiloxodontae | Streptococcus plurextorum |
| Enterococcus phoeniculicola | Streptococcus dentirousetti | Streptococcus plutanimalium |
| Enterococcus plantarum | Streptococcus devriesei | Streptococcus porci |
| Enterococcus quebecensis | Streptococcus downei | Streptococcus rupicaprae |
| Enterococcus ratti | Streptococcus entericus | Streptococcus sobrinus |
| Enterococcus rivorum | Streptococcus ferus | Streptococcus tangierensis |
| Enterococcus rotai | Streptococcus gallinaceus | |
| Enterococcus silesiacus | Streptococcus henryi |
Table 65: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for Pan Gram-Positive
{72}------------------------------------------------
{73}------------------------------------------------
{74}------------------------------------------------
Predicted (in silico) Reactivity for Resistance Markers
The ePlex BCID-GN Panel contains six resistance markers that were each assessed for predicted in silico reactivity. Tables 66-76 highlight the-predicted (in silico) reactivity for CTX-M, IMP, KPC, NDM, OXA, and VIM. Strains that were tested as part of the Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity) Study are marked with an asterisk in Tables 66-76. It is noted that the performance of the ePlex BCID-GN Panel has not been established for all organisms listed in Tables 66-76. Table 77 includes all variants that are not predicted to be detected by the BCID-GN Panel by in silico analysis.
The CTX-M assay on the ePlex BCID-GN Panel is designed to detect the following CTX-M groups: CTX-M-1, CTX-M-2, CTX-M-8, CTX-M-9, and CTX-M-25.
| Target | Associated Organism | Variant Detected |
|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii | Acinetobacter baumannii | CTX-M-15 |
| Citrobacter | Citrobacter freundii | CTX-M-3CTX-M-15*CTX-M-30CTX-M-55 |
| Citrobacter koseri | CTX-M-3CTX-M-15 | |
| Enterobacter (non-cloacae Complex) | Enterobacter aerogenes | CTX-M-3 |
| Enterobacter gergoviae | CTX-M-15 | |
| Enterobacter asburiae | CTX-M-15 | |
| Enterobacter cloacae Complex | Enterobacter cloacae | CTX-M-3CTX-M-15*CTX-M-22CTX-M-37CTX-M-89CTX-M-177 |
| Enterobacter hormaechei | CTX-M-15CTX-M-1*CTX-M-3*CTX-M-10CTX-M-12CTX-M-14* | |
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli | CTX-M-15*CTX-M-22CTX-M-23CTX-M-28CTX-M-29 |
Table 66: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for CTX-M-1
{75}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Associated Organism | Variant Detected | Target | Associated Organism | Variant Detected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTX-M-174CTX-M-175CTX-M-179CTX-M-180CTX-M-181CTX-M-182CTX-M-184CTX-M-186 | CTX-M-176CTX-M-183CTX-M-197CTX-M-204 | ||||
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Klebsiella oxytoca | CTX-M-3CTX-M-15CTX-M-28CTX-M-162 | Morganella morganii | Morganella morganii | CTX-M-3CTX-M-15*CTX-M-55 |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae group | Klebsiella pneumoniae | CTX-M-1CTX-M-3CTX-M-10CTX-M-11CTX-M-12CTX-M-15*CTX-M-22CTX-M-28CTX-M-32CTX-M-52CTX-M-54CTX-M-55CTX-M-57CTX-M-60CTX-M-62CTX-M-71CTX-M-72CTX-M-96CTX-M-155CTX-M-156CTX-M-157CTX-M-173 | Proteus mirabilis | Proteus mirabilis | CTX-M-1CTX-M-3CTX-M-15CTX-M-32CTX-M-66CTX-M-116CTX-M-136CTX-M-164CTX-M-167 |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | CTX-M-15CTX-M-28CTX-M-32 | |||
| Salmonella | Salmonella enterica | CTX-M-15CTX-M-53CTX-M-55CTX-M-57CTX-M-61CTX-M-88 | |||
| Salmonella sp. | CTX-M-3 | ||||
| Salmonella typhimurium | CTX-M-37CTX-M-61 | ||||
| Serratiamarcescens/Serratia | Serratia liquefaciens | CTX-M-22 | |||
| Serratia marcescens | CTX-M-3CTX-M-15CTX-M-55 | ||||
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | CTX-M-15 |
Table 67: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for CTX-M-2
| Target | Associated Organism | Variant Detected |
|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacterbaumannii | Acinetobacterbaumannii | CTX-M-2CTX-M-5CTX-M-43CTX-M-115 |
| Enterobacter cloacaecomplex | Enterobacter cloacae | CTX-M-5 |
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli | CTX-M-2*CTX-M-44CTX-M-56CTX-M-92CTX-M-97CTX-M-124 |
| Klebsiellapneumoniae Group | Klebsiellapneumoniae | CTX-M-2CTX-M-35CTX-M-59CTX-M-141CTX-M-165 |
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
| Morganella morganii | Morganella morganii | CTX-M-200 |
| Proteusmirabilis/Proteus | Proteus mirabilis | CTX-M-2 |
| CTX-M-20 | ||
| CTX-M-171 | ||
| Pseudomonasaeruginosa | Pseudomonasaeruginosa | CTX-1-2 |
| CTX-M-2 | ||
| Salmonella | Salmonella enterica | CTX-M-2 |
| CTX-M-4 | ||
| CTX-M-5 | ||
| CTX-M-6 | ||
| CTX-M-7 | ||
| Salmonella typhimurium | CTX-M-2 | |
| CTX-M-4 | ||
| CTX-M-5 | ||
| CTX-M-7 |
{76}------------------------------------------------
Table 68: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for CTX-M-8
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
|---|---|---|
| Citrobacter | Citrobacteramalonaticus | CTX-M-8 |
| Enterobacter cloacaeComplex | Enterobacter cloacae | CTX-M-8 |
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli | CTX-M-8* |
| Target | Associated Organism | Variant Detected |
|---|---|---|
| Klebsiellapneumoniae Group | Klebsiellapneumoniae | CTX-M-8 |
| Morganella morganii | Morganella morganii | CTX-M-63 |
| Salmonella | Salmonella enterica | CTX-M-8 |
Table 69: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for CTX-M-9
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected | Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citrobacter | Citrobacter freundii | CTX-M-14CTX-M-65 | CTX-M-168CTX-M-173 | ||
| Enterobacter non-cloacae Complex | Enterobacter aerogenes | CTX-M-9 | CTX-M-174CTX-M-176CTX-M-177 | ||
| Enterobacter cloacaeComplex | Enterobacter cloacae | CTX-M-9*CTX-M-13CTX-M-14CTX-M-64CTX-M-125CTX-M-1/CTX-M-65CTX-M-9CTX-M-13CTX-M-14CTX-M-14/CTX-M-15CTX-M-15 | Klebsiella pneumoniaeGroup | Klebsiella pneumoniae | CTX-M-191CTX-M-195CTX-M-196CTX-M-198CTX-M-199CTX-M-9CTX-M-13 |
| CTX-M-16 | CTX-M-14 | ||||
| CTX-M-19 | CTX-M-17 | ||||
| CTX-M-21 | CTX-M-18 | ||||
| CTX-M-24 | CTX-M-19 | ||||
| CTX-M-27 | CTX-M-24 | ||||
| CTX-M-38 | CTX-M-38 | ||||
| CTX-M-47 | CTX-M-46CTX-M-48 | ||||
| CTX-M-51 | CTX-M-49 | ||||
| CTX-M-64 | CTX-M-50 | ||||
| CTX-M-65 | CTX-M-65 | ||||
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli | CTX-M-67 | Proteusmirabilis/Proteus | Proteus mirabilis | CTX-M-81 |
| CTX-M-73 | CTX-M-99 | ||||
| CTX-M-82 | CTX-M-104 | ||||
| CTX-M-87 | CTX-M-147 | ||||
| CTX-M-93 | CTX-M-159 | ||||
| CTX-M-97 | CTX-M-201 | ||||
| CTX-M-98 | CTX-M-13 | ||||
| CTX-M-102 | CTX-M-14 | ||||
| CTX-M-104 | Salmonella | Salmonella enterica | CTX-M-24 | ||
| CTX-M-105 | CTX-M-65 | ||||
| CTX-M-106 | CTX-M-90 | ||||
| CTX-M-121 | CTX-M-9 | ||||
| CTX-M-122 | CTX-M-14 | ||||
| CTX-M-126CTX-M-129 | CTX-M-25 | ||||
| CTX-M-130 | Serratia | Serratialiquefaciens | CTX-M-27 | ||
| CTX-M-132 | CTX-M-65 | ||||
| CTX-M-134 | CTX-M-83 | ||||
| CTX-M-137CTX-M-148CTX-M-161 | CTX-M-84CTX-M-85CTX-M-86CTX-M-143CTX-M-14 |
{77}------------------------------------------------
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
|---|---|---|
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli | CTX-M-25 |
| CTX-M-39 | ||
| CTX-M-94 | ||
| CTX-M-100 | ||
| Klebsiellapneumoniae Group | KlebsiellapneumoniaeA* | CTX-M-26 |
| Table 70: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for CTX-M-25 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
|---|---|---|
| Proteusmirabilis/Proteus | Proteus mirabilis | CTX-M-41 |
| CTX-M-89 | ||
| CTX-M-91 | ||
| CTX-M-160 | ||
| Salmonella | Salmonella enterica | CTX-M-25 |
A. CTX-M-25 detected in Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity) study.
Table 71: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for IMP
| Target | Associated Organism | Variant Detected | Target | Associated Organism | Variant Detected | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacterbaumannii | Acinetobacterbaumannii | IMP-1IMP-2IMP-4IMP-5IMP-8IMP-10IMP-11IMP-14IMP-19IMP-55IMP-61 | Proteusmirabilis/Proteus | Proteus mirabilis | IMP-19IMP-26IMP-32IMP-38IMP-1IMP-27IMP-64IMP-1*IMP-2IMP-4IMP-6 | |
| Citrobacter | Citrobacter freundii | IMP-1IMP-4IMP-8IMP-23IMP-38 | IMP-7IMP-9IMP-10IMP-11IMP-13IMP-14*IMP-15 | |||
| Enterobacter non-cloacae Complex | Enterobacter aerogenes | IMP-4 | IMP-16IMP-17IMP-18IMP-19 | |||
| Enterobacter cloacaeComplex | Enterobacter cloacae | IMP-1IMP-4IMP-8IMP-11IMP-26IMP-34IMP-60 | IMP-20IMP-21IMP-22 | |||
| Enterobacter cloacaeComplex | Enterobacterhormaechei | IMP-13IMP-14 | Pseudomonasaeruginosa | Pseudomonasaeruginosa | IMP-25IMP-26IMP-29IMP-30IMP-33 | |
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli | IMP-1IMP-4IMP-6IMP-8IMP-14IMP-30IMP-52IMP-59IMP-66 | IMP-34IMP-37IMP-40IMP-41IMP-43 | |||
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Klebsiella oxytoca | IMP-1IMP-4IMP-8IMP-28IMP-34 | IMP-44IMP-45IMP-48IMP-49IMP-51 | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniaeGroup | Klebsiella pneumoniae | IMP-1IMP-4*IMP-6IMP-8IMP-10IMP-13 | Salmonella | Salmonella entericaSerratia marcescens | IMP-53IMP-54IMP-56IMP-62IMP-63IMP-4IMP-1 |
{78}------------------------------------------------
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
|---|---|---|
| Serratiamarcescens/Serratia | IMP-2 | |
| IMP-6 | ||
| IMP-8 | ||
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
| IMP-24 | ||
| Stenotrophomonasmaltophilia | Stenotrophomonasmaltophilia | IMP-25 |
Table 72: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for KPC
| Target | Associated Organism | VariantDetected |
|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii | Acinetobacter baumannii | KPC-2KPC-3KPC-10 |
| Citrobacter | Citrobacter freundii | KPC-2*KPC-3KPC-18 |
| Enterobacter non-cloacaeComplex | Enterobacter aerogenes | KPC-2KPC-3 |
| Enterobacter cloacaeComplex | Enterobacter cloacae | KPC-2*KPC-3KPC-4KPC-13KPC-18 |
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli | KPC-2KPC-3KPC-4KPC-5KPC-9KPC-18KPC-21KPC-28 |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Klebsiella oxytoca | KPC-2KPC-3* |
| Klebsiella pneumoniaeGroup | Klebsiella pneumoniae | KPC-1KPC-2KPC-3*KPC-4 |
| Target | Associated Organism | VariantDetected |
| KPC-5 | ||
| KPC-6 | ||
| KPC-7 | ||
| KPC-8 | ||
| KPC-11 | ||
| KPC-12 | ||
| KPC-14 | ||
| KPC-15 | ||
| KPC-16 | ||
| KPC-17 | ||
| KPC-19 | ||
| KPC-22 | ||
| KPC-24 | ||
| KPC-25 | ||
| KPC-26 | ||
| KPC-27 | ||
| KPC-30 | ||
| Proteus mirabilis/Proteus | Proteus mirabilis | KPC-2 |
| KPC-6* | ||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | KPC-2 |
| KPC-5* | ||
| Salmonella | Salmonella enterica | KPC-2 |
| Serratiamarcescens/Serratia | Serratia marcescens | KPC-2 |
| KPC-3 |
{79}------------------------------------------------
| Target | Associated Organism | Variant Detected | Target | Associated Organism | Variant Detected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii | Acinetobacter baumannii | VIM-1VIM-2VIM-6VIM-11 | Morganella morganii | Morganella morganii | VIM-39VIM-42VIM-51VIM-52 |
| Citrobacter | Citrobacter freundii | VIM-1VIM-2VIM-4VIM-23 | Proteus mirabilis/Proteus | Proteus mirabilis | VIM-4VIM-1VIM-1 |
| Enterobacter non-cloacae Complex | Enterobacter aerogenes | VIM-1 | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | VIM-2*VIM-3VIM-4*VIM-5VIM-6VIM-8VIM-9VIM-10VIM-11VIM-14VIM-15VIM-16VIM-17VIM-18VIM-20VIM-28VIM-30VIM-36VIM-37VIM-41VIM-43VIM-44VIM-45VIM-46VIM-48VIM-50 |
| Enterobacter cloacae Complex | Enterobacter cloacae | VIM-1VIM-2VIM-4VIM-23VIM-31VIM-40 | |||
| Enterobacter hormaechei | VIM-1VIM-4VIM-23 | ||||
| Enterobacter xiangfangensis | VIM-1 | ||||
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli^ | VIM-1VIM-2VIM-19VIM-29 | |||
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Klebsiella oxytoca | VIM-1VIM-2VIM-4VIM-32VIM-35 | |||
| Klebsiella pneumoniae Group | Klebsiella pneumoniae | VIM-1*VIM-2VIM-4VIM-12VIM-19VIM-24VIM-26VIM-27*VIM-33VIM-34 | |||
| Salmonella | Salmonella enterica | VIM-1VIM-2 | |||
| Serratia marcescens/Serratia | Serratia marcescens | VIM-4VIM-54 | |||
| Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | Stenotrophomonas maltophilia | VIM-2 |
A. Unspecified VIM variant detected in Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity) study.
{80}------------------------------------------------
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacterbaumannii | Acinetobacterbaumannii | OXA-23* |
| OXA-49 | ||
| OXA-23/OXA-104 | ||
| OXA-23/OXA-64 | ||
| OXA-23/OXA-66 | ||
| OXA-23/OXA-69 | ||
| OXA-27 | ||
| OXA-65/OXA-239 | ||
| OXA-68 | ||
| OXA-146 | ||
| OXA-165 | ||
| OXA-166 | ||
| OXA-167 | ||
| OXA-168 | ||
| OXA-169 | ||
| OXA-170 | ||
| OXA-171 | ||
| OXA-183 |
| Target | Associated Organism | Variant Detected |
|---|---|---|
| OXA-225 | ||
| OXA-366 | ||
| OXA-398 | ||
| OXA-422 | ||
| OXA-423 | ||
| OXA-435 | ||
| OXA-440 | ||
| OXA-469 | ||
| OXA-481 | ||
| OXA-482 | ||
| OXA-483 | ||
| OXA-565 | ||
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli | OXA-23 |
| Klebsiellapneumoniae Group | Klebsiellapneumoniae | OXA-73 |
| Proteus mirabilis | Proteusmirabilis | OXA-23 |
Table 75: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for OXA-48
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii | Acinetobacterbaumannii | OXA-48 |
| Citrobacter | Citrobacterfreundii | OXA-181 |
| Enterobacter non-cloacae Complex | Enterobacteraerogenes | OXA-244 |
| Enterobacter cloacaeComplex | Enterobactercloacae | OXA-48OXA-163OXA-181 |
| Enterobacterhormaechei | OXA-370 | |
| Enterobacterludwigii | OXA-48 | |
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli^ | OXA-48OXA-163OXA-181OXA-204OXA-232OXA-244OXA-438OXA-439OXA-566OXA-1/OXA-48 |
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
| Klebsiella pneumoniaeGroup | Klebsiellapneumoniae | OXA-48*OXA-10OXA-162OXA-181*OXA-204OXA-232*OXA-244OXA-245OXA-247OXA-484OXA-505OXA-517OXA-519 |
| Klebsiellavariicola | OXA-181 | |
| Morganella morganii | Morganellamorganii | OXA-181 |
| Proteus mirabilis/Proteus | Proteus mirabilis | OXA-48 |
| Proteus mirabilis/Proteus | Proteus mirabilis | OXA-244 |
| Serratia | Serratia | OXA-48 |
| marcescens/Serratia | marcescens | OXA-405 |
A. Unspecified OXA variant detected in the Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity) study.
{81}------------------------------------------------
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacterbaumannii | Acinetobacterbaumannii | NDM-1* |
| Citrobacter | Citrobacter braakii | NDM-2 |
| Citrobacter | Citrobacter freundii | NDM-4 |
| NDM-1A | ||
| NDM-4 | ||
| NDM-6 | ||
| NDM-7 | ||
| Enterobacter non-cloacae Complex | Enterobacteraerogenes | NDM-1 |
| NDM-4 | ||
| NDM-5 | ||
| NDM-7 | ||
| Enterobacter cloacaeComplex | EnterobactercloacaeB | NDM-1 |
| NDM-4 | ||
| NDM-7 | ||
| Enterobacterhormaechei | NDM-1 | |
| Enterobacterludwigii | NDM-1 | |
| Escherichia coli | Escherichia coli | NDM-1 |
| NDM-3 | ||
| NDM-4 | ||
| NDM-5* | ||
| NDM-6* | ||
| NDM-7* | ||
| NDM-8 | ||
| NDM-11 | ||
| NDM-12 | ||
| NDM-13 | ||
| Target | AssociatedOrganism | VariantDetected |
| NDM-15 | ||
| NDM-16 | ||
| NDM-17 | ||
| NDM-18 | ||
| NDM-19 | ||
| Klebsiella oxytoca | Klebsiella oxytoca | NDM-1 |
| NDM-4 | ||
| NDM-1* | ||
| NDM-4 | ||
| Klebsiellapneumoniae Group | Klebsiellapneumoniae | NDM-5 |
| NDM-6 | ||
| NDM-7 | ||
| NDM-10 | ||
| NDM-16 | ||
| Morganella morganii | ||
| Proteusmirabilis/Proteus | Proteus mirabilis | NDM-1 |
| Pseudomonasaeruginosa | Pseudomonasaeruginosa | NDM-1 |
| NDM-5 | ||
| Salmonella | Salmonella enterica | NDM-1 |
| NDM-5 | ||
| Serratiamarcescens/Serratia | Serratia marcescens | NDM-1 |
| Stenotrophomonasmaltophilia | Stenotrophomonasmaltophilia | NDM-1 |
Table 76: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for NDM
A. Detected in a Citrobacter species in the Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity) study.
B. Unspecified NDM variant detected in the Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity) study.
C. NDM-1 was detected in Morganii in the Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity) study but no sequences were available for in silico analysis.
{82}------------------------------------------------
Table 77: Predicted (in silico) Reactivity (Inclusivity) Results for Variants Not Detected
| ResistanceMarker | Variant NotDetected | AssociatedOrganism | No. ofSequences |
|---|---|---|---|
| CTX-M-1 | CTX-M-80 | Klebsiellapneumoniae | 3 |
| CTX-M-15 | |||
| Not Specified | |||
| IMP | IMP-31 | Pseudomonasaeruginosa | 2 |
| IMP-35 | |||
| IMP-7 | 1 | ||
| NDM | NDM-1 | Escherichia coli | 6 |
| Klebsiellavariicola | 3 | ||
| Salmonellaenterica | 1 | ||
| NDM-3 | Acinetobacterbaumannii | 1 | |
| NDM-4 | Escherichia coli | 1 | |
| Cronobactersakazakii | 1 | ||
| NDM-9 | Escherichia coli | 1 | |
| Klebsiellapneumoniae | 2 | ||
| Not specified | Escherichia coli | 2 | |
| Klebsiellapneumoniae | 1 | ||
| Klebsiella sp | 1 | ||
| Pseudomonasaeruginosa | 1 | ||
| VIM | VIM-1 | Pseudomonasaeruginosa | 3 |
| Providenciavermicola | 1 | ||
| VIM-2 | Klebsiellapneumoniae | 1 | |
| VIM-5 | Enterobactercloacae | 2 | |
| Klebsiellapneumoniae | 3 | ||
| VIM-7 | Pseudomonasaeruginosa | 4 | |
| VIM-13 | Pseudomonasaeruginosa | 3 | |
| VIM-25 | Acinetobacterbaumannii | 1 | |
| Proteus mirabilis | 2 | ||
| ResistanceMarker | Variant NotDetected | AssociatedOrganism | No. ofSequences |
| VIM-38 | 2 | ||
| VIM-47 | Pseudomonasaeruginosa | 2 | |
| VIM-49 | 2 | ||
| Not specified | 1 | ||
| OXA-48 | OXA-232 | Escherichia coli | 1 |
{83}------------------------------------------------
Analytical Specificity (Cross-Reactivity and Exclusivity)
Cross-reactivity of on-panel and off-panel analytes was evaluated with the BCID-GN Panel. Bacterial targets were tested in triplicate at a concentration of ~1x10° CFU/mL while fungi were tested in triplicate at a concentration of ~1x107 CFU/mL. If the target concentration could not be reached, the organism was diluted 2-fold from stock for use (indicated with an asterisk in Tables 78-81).
No cross reactivity was observed for any of the on-panel organisms. The following off-panel organisms showed cross reactivity: Acinetobacter anitratus (at a concentration of >1x104 CFU/mL) cross-reacts with the Acinetobacter baumannii assay, Enterobacter cowanii (at a concentration of >1x108 CFU/mL) cross-reacts with the Enterobacter cloacae complex assay, Escherichia hermanii cross-reacts with the Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) assay (at a concentration of >1x106 CFU/mL) and with the Serratia assay (at a concentration of >1x107 CFU/mL), Fusobacterium periodonticum (at a concentration of 5x10° CFU/mL) and Fusobacterium simiae (at a concentration of 2.9x10° CFU/mL) cross-react with the Fusobacterium nucleatum assay, and Shigella (at a concentration of 1x109 CFU/mL) cross-reacts with the Escherichia coli assay (off-panel organisms showing cross-reactivity are bolded in the tables below). See Table 56 for a summary of the on-panel strains tested and Tables 78-81 for a summary of off-panel strains tested.
Additional in silico analysis was performed to identify any off-panel gram-negative and grampositive organisms that may cross-react with the BCID-GN Panel (Tables 82-83).
Note: the performance of the ePlex BCID-GN Panel has not been established for organisms evaluated by in silico analysis alone.
{84}------------------------------------------------
Off-Panel Exclusivity
Table 78: Off-Panel Gram-Negative Organisms Assessed for Cross-reactivity with the ePlex BCID-GN Panel (Exclusivity)
| Gram Negative Organism | Strain ID |
|---|---|
| Acinetobacter haemolyticus | ATCC 19002 |
| Acinetobacter lwoffii | ATCC 15309 |
| Acinetobacter junii | ATCC 17908 |
| Acinetobacter anitratusA | ATCC 49139 |
| Aeromonas hydrophila | JMI 938982 |
| Aeromonas salmonicida | ATCC 33658 |
| Aeromonas sobria | ATCC 35993 |
| Bacteroides distasonis (Parabacteroides) | ATCC 8503 |
| Bacteroides merdae | ATCC 43184 |
| Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron | ATCC 29741 |
| Bacteroides vulgatus* | ATCC 8482 |
| Bacteroides caccae | ATCC 700189 |
| Bacteroides eggerthii | ATCC 27754 |
| Bacteroides ovatus* | ATCC BAA-1296 |
| Bacteroides ureolyticus* | ATCC 33387 |
| Bordetella pertussis | ATCC 9797 |
| Burkholderia cepacia | ATCC 25416 |
| Citrobacter amalonaticus | ATCC BAA-2563 |
| Citrobacter gillenii | ATCC 51640 |
| Citrobacter sedlakii | ATCC 51493 |
| Citrobacter farmer | ATCC 51112 |
| Citrobacter murliniae | ATCC 51642 |
| Edwardsiella tarda | ATCC 15947 |
| Enterobacter kobei | ATCC BAA-260 |
| Enterobacter cancerogenus | ATCC 35315 |
| Enterobacter cowaniiB | DSM-18146 |
| Escherichia albertii | DSM-17582 |
| Escherichia fergusonii | ATCC 35469 |
| Escherichia hermaniiC | ATCC 33650 |
| Ewingella americana* | ATCC 33853 |
| Eikenella corrodens | ATCC BAA-1152 |
| Fusobacterium naviforme* | ATCC 25832 |
| Fusobacterium gonidiaformans | ATCC 25563 |
| Fusobacterium necrogenes* | ATCC 25556 |
| Fusobacterium periodonticum*D | ATCC 33693 |
| Fusobacterium simiae*D | ATCC 33568 |
| Fusobacterium varium | ATCC 27725 |
| Fusobacterium russii* | ATCC 25533 |
| Fusobacterium ulcerans | ATCC 49186 |
| Haemophilus haemolyticus | ATCC 33390 |
| Haemophilus parahaemolyticus | ATCC 10014 |
| Hafnia alvei | ATCC 51815 |
| Kingella kingae* | ATCC 23331 |
| Gram Negative Organism | Strain ID |
| Kluyvera cochleae | ATCC 51609 |
| Legionella pneumoniae | ATCC 33823 |
| Leclercia adecarboxylata | ATCC 700325 |
| Methylobacterium mesophilicum* | ATCC 29983 |
| Neisseria gonorrhoeae | ATCC 19424 |
| Neisseria mucosa | ATCC 19695 |
| Neisseria sicca | ATCC 29193 |
| Neisseria flavecens | ATCC 13115 |
| Neisseria lactamica | ATCC 23970 |
| Neisseria perflava | ATCC 14799 |
| Ochrobactrum anthropi | ATCC BAA-749 |
| Pantoea agglomerans | ATCC 14537 |
| Pantoea ananatis | NRRL B-41502 |
| Pasteurella aerogenes | ATCC 27883 |
| Pasteurella multicida subsp multicide | ATCC 12945 |
| Prevotella intermedia | ATCC 15032 |
| Prevotella corporis* | ATCC 33547 |
| Prevotella oralis* | ATCC 33269 |
| Prevotella nigrescens* | ATCC 33563 |
| Providencia rettgeri | ATCC 9250 |
| Providencia stuartii | ATCC 33672 |
| Providencia alcalifaciens | ATCC 9886 |
| Pseudomonas fluorescens | ATCC 13525 |
| Pseudomonas putida | ATCC 49128 |
| Pseudomonas alcaligenes | ATCC 14909 |
| Ralstonia insidiosa | ATCC 49129 |
| Ralstonia pickettii | ATCC 27511 |
| Raoultella planticola (Klebsiella planticola) | ATCC 31900 |
| Raoultella ornithinolytica | CDC# 0134 |
| Raoultella terrigena (Klebsiella terrigena) | ATCC 55553 |
| Shigella boydiiE | ATCC 9207 |
| Shigella sonneiE | ATCC 25931 |
| Shigella flexneriE | ATCC 9199 |
| Vibrio furnissii | NCTC11218 |
| Vibrio alginolyticus | ATCC 17749 |
| Vibrio parahaemolyticus | ATCC 17802 |
| Yersinia enterocolitica subsp enterocolitica | ATCC 9610 |
| Yersinia ruckeri | ATCC 29473 |
| Yersinia kristensenii | ATCC 33639 |
A. Cross-reactivity seen with Acinetobacter baumanii at a concentration > 1x104 CFU/mL.
B. Cross-reactivity seen with Enterobacter cloacae complex at a concentration > 1x10° CFU/mL.
C. Cross-reactivity seen with Enterobacter (non-cloacae complex) at a concentration > 1x106 CFU/mL and Serration of > 1x10' CFU/mL.
D. Cross-reactivity seen with the Fusobacterium nucleatum assay.
E. Cross-reactivity seen with the Escherichia coli assay.
{85}------------------------------------------------
Table 79: Off-Panel Gram-Positive Organisms Assessed for Cross-reactivity with the ePlex BCID-GN Panel (Exclusivity)
| Gram Positive Organisms | Strain ID |
|---|---|
| Actinomyces odontolyticus | ATCC 17929 |
| Clostridium perfringens | ATCC 13124 |
| Corynebacterium jeikeium | ATCC BAA-949 |
| Corynebacterium renale | ATCC 19412 |
| Corynebacterium ulcerans | ATCC 51799 |
| Corynebacterium xerosis* | ATCC 373 |
| Corynebacterium durum | ATCC 33449 |
| Corynebacterium diphtheriae* | ATCC 13812 |
| Corynebacterium pseudodiphtheriticum | ATCC 10700 |
| Corynebacterium striatum* | ATCC 43735 |
| Corynebacterium urealyticum | ATCC 43044 |
| Lactobacillus casei | ATCC 39392 |
| Lactobacillus paracasei* | ATCC 25598 |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus* | ATCC 314 |
| Lactobacillus crispatus | ATCC 33197 |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus | ATCC 39595 |
| Lactococcus lactis | ATCC 49032 |
| Listeria innocua | ATCC 33090 |
| Listeria monocytogenes | ATCC 7644 |
| Micrococcus luteus | ATCC 10240 |
| Peptostreptococcus anaerobius | ATCC 27337 |
| Propionibacterium acnes | ATCC 11827 |
| Rothia mucilaginosa | ATCC 25296 |
{86}------------------------------------------------
| Fungal Pathogens | Strain ID | Concentration Tested |
|---|---|---|
| Aspergillus fumigatus* | ATCC 204305 | 2.50 x 106 CFU/mL |
| Candida orthopsilosis | ATCC 96139 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Candida metapsilosis | ATCC 96144 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Candida tropicalis | ATCC 1369 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Cryptococcus grubii | ATCC 208821 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Cryptococcus gattii | ATCC 76108 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Cryptococcus neoformans | ATCC 14116 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Geotrichum capitatum | ATCC 10663 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Histoplasma capsulatum | In silico | N/A |
| Penicillium marneffei | ATCC 200050 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Rhodotorula glutinis | ATCC 32765 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Rhodotorula mucilaginosa | ATCC 9449 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Rhodotorula minuta | ATCC 36236 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Saccharomyces cervisiae* | ATCC 18824 | 5.55 x 106 CFU/mL |
| Trichosporon dermatis | ATCC MYA-4294 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Trichosporon mucoides | ATCC 90046 | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
Table 80: Off-Panel Fungal Organisms Assessed for Cross-reactivity with the ePlex BCID-GN Panel (Exclusivity)
Table 81: Off-Panel Resistance Genes Assessed for Cross-reactivity with the ePlex BCID-GN Panel (Exclusivity)
| Antimicrobial Resistance Genes | Strain ID | Concentration Tested |
|---|---|---|
| FOX (Carried by Klebsiella oxytoca)*A | JMI 954306 | 8 x 108 CFU/mL |
| MOX (Carried by Aeromonas hydrophila) | JMI 938982 | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| SME (Carried by Serratia marcescens)A | CDC #0091 | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| SHV (Carried by Klebsiella pneumoniae)A | CDC #0087 | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| TEM (Carried by Escherichia coli)A | NCTC 13351 | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
A. The on-panel organism associated with the resistance gene was detected by the BCID-GN panel as expected
{87}------------------------------------------------
Table 82: Off-Panel Gram-Negative Organisms Assessed for Cross-Reactivity with the ePlex BCID-GN Panel based on In Silico Analysis
| Cross-reactive Organism | ePlex BCID-GN Target | No. ofSequences | Predicted Cross-Reactive Sequences*n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fusobacterium hwasookii | F. nucleatum | 10 | 5 (50%) |
| Haemophilus aegyptius | H. influenzae | 3 | 3 (100%) |
| Klebsiella michiganensis | Klebsiella oxytoca | 40 | 40 (100%) |
| Pseudomonas denitrificans | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 17 | 16 (94.1%) |
Table 83: Off-Panel Gram-Positive Organisms Assessed for Cross-Reactivity with the Pan Gram-Positive Assay based on In Silico Analysis
| Organism | Number ofSequences | Predicted Cross-ReactiveSequencesn (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Brevibacterium halotolerans | 3 | 3 (100%) |
| Domibacillus indicus | 1 | 1 (100%) |
| Domibacillus robiginosus | 1 | 1 (100%) |
| Salinibacillus aidingensis | 2 | 1 (50%) |
| Terribacillus aidingensis | 1 | 1 (100%) |
| Terribacillus halophilus | 2 | 1 (50%) |
| Terribacillus saccharophilus | 1 | 1 (100%) |
| Planomicrobium okeanokoites | 1 | 1 (100%) |
| Lactococcus chungangensis | 4 | 4 (100%) |
| Lactococcus laudensis | 1 | 1 (100%) |
| Lactococcus piscium | 18 | 18 (100%) |
| Lactococcus plantarum | 6 | 5 (83.8%) |
| Lactococcus raffinolactis | 49 | 46 (93.9%) |
| Okadaella gastrococcus | 4 | 4 (100%) |
{88}------------------------------------------------
Bottle Positivity
Several representative bacterial and fungal organisms were spiked into blood culture bottles along with the manufacturer's recommended volume of human whole blood and grown to positivity in a commercially-available continuously monitoring blood culture system. Bottles were removed from the incubator within two hours of being identified as positive as well as eight hours after bottle positivity. At least two independent positive blood culture replicates and three blood replicates were quantified for each organism on culture plates. Organisms tested and approximate bottle positivity concentrations are summarized in Table 84. Concentrations shown below represent approximate levels that may be observed in a clinical setting. All estimated bottle positivity concentrations are equivalent or greater than the established Limit of Detection (LOD) for each of the assays of the ePlex BCID-GP Panel. The following bottle types were used for the Bottle Positivity Study: BD BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F blood culture bottle (E. faecium, S. aureus, S.anginosus, A. baumannii, E. cloacae, E. coli, H. influenzae, K. oxytoca, N. meningitidis, P. auerginosa, and S. marcescens), BD BACTEC Lytic/10 Anaerobic/F (B. fragilis and F. nucleatum), and BD BACTEC Myco F/Lytic blood culture bottle (C. albicans).
| Organism | Strain ID | Mean Bottle PositivityConcentration | Mean Bottle Positivity+8 hours Concentration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gram-positive Organisms | |||
| Enterococcus faecium | ATCC BAA-2317 | $4.9 x 10^7 CFU/mL$ | $3.6 x 10^7 CFU/mL$ |
| Staphylococcus aureus | NRS 483 | $2.8 x 10^7 CFU/mL$ | $2.1 x 10^7 CFU/mL$ |
| Streptococcus anginosus | ATCC 33397 | $4.1 x 10^7 CFU/mL$ | $4.0 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ |
| Gram-negative Organisms | |||
| Acinetobacter baumannii | NCTC 13301 | $4.4 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ | $3.8 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ |
| Bacteroides fragilis | ATCC 700786 | $4.7 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ | $6.7 x 10^9 CFU/mL$ |
| Enterobacter cloacae | NCTC 13464 | $2.8 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ | $7.7 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ |
| Escherichia coli | NCTC 13476 | $2.3 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ | $1.5 x 10^9 CFU/mL$ |
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | ATCC 31647 | $6.5 x 10^7 CFU/mL$ | $4.9 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ |
| Haemophilus influenzae | ATCC 19418 | $6.9 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ | $1.2 x 10^9 CFU/mL$ |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | CDC #0147 | $9.3 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ | $1.5 x 10^9 CFU/mL$ |
| Neisseria meningitidis | ATCC 13102 | $3.2 x 10^7 CFU/mL$ | $2.1 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | NCTC 13476 | $1.6 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ | $8.4 x 10^8 CFU/mL$ |
| Serratia marcescens | ATCC 14041 | $1.2 x 10^9 CFU/mL$ | $2.2 x 10^9 CFU/mL$ |
| Fungal Organisms | |||
| Candida albicans | ATCC 90082 | $1.6 x 10^6 CFU/mL$ | $1.4 x 10^6 CFU/mL$ |
| Table 84: Bottle Positivity Concentrations | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | -------------------------------------------- |
{89}------------------------------------------------
Reproducibility
Three positive mixes including 11 on-panel organisms and 5 antibiotic resistance genes representing 17 targets at two concentrations and one negative mix including an off-panel organism were tested. Concentrations in the positive mixes reflected those observed at time of bottle positivity plus 8 hours and time of bottle positivity, and the negative mix contained Cutibacterium granulosum grown in BD BACTEC Lytic/10 Anaerobic/F blood culture bottles to bottle positivity and bottle positivity plus eight hours, which is expected to yield a negative result. Bottle concentrations used in this study are summarized in Table 85. Each of the three positive mixes at two concentrations and the one negative mix were tested a minimum of 108 times. Testing occurred at three sites, with two operators testing the mixes over six days using three cartridge lots. For the negative mix, agreement with the expected negative result was 100% for all targets in the ePlex BCID-GN Panel.
| Organism | Bottle PositivityConcentration | Bottle Positivity +8Hours Concentration |
|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii (OXA) | 1 x 108 CFU/mL | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| Enterobacter cloacae (CTX-M, KPC) | 1 x 108 CFU/mL | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| Escherichia coli (IMP) | 1 x 108 CFU/mL | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| Fusobacterium nucleatum | 1 x 107 CFU/mL | 1 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Haemophilus influenzae | 1 x 108 CFU/mL | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | 1 x 108 CFU/mL | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| Neisseria meningitidis | 3 x 107 CFU/mL | 3 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (VIM) | 1 x 108 CFU/mL | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| Serratia marcescens | 1 x 108 CFU/mL | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| Candida albicans (Pan Candida target) | 1 x 106 CFU/mL | 1 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Staphylococcus aureus (Pan Gram-Positive target) | 1 x 107 CFU/mL | 1 x 108 CFU/mL |
Table 85: Bottle Positivity Concentrations
The percent agreement of each target with the expected result is summarized in Tables 86-102. The ePlex BCID-GN assay demonstrates a high level of agreement (≥98%) with the expected results.
{90}------------------------------------------------
| Concentration of Acinetobacterbaumannii | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Negative | 1 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| 2 | 178/179 | 99.4 | (96.9-99.9) | |
| 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| All | 537/538 | 99.8 | (99.0-100) |
Table 86: Percent Agreement for Acinetobacter baumannii
CI=Confidence Interval
Table 87: Percent Agreement for Enterobacter cloacae complex
| Concentration ofEnterobacter cloacae | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/107 | 100 | (96.5-100) | |
| Negative | 1 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| 2 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| All | 539/539 | 100 | (99.3-100) |
{91}------------------------------------------------
| Concentration ofEscherichia coli | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/107* | 100 | (96.5-100) | |
| Negative | 1 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| 2 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| All | 539/539 | 100 | (99.3-100) |
Table 88: Percent Agreement for Escherichia coli
- Two samples had a false positive Bacteroides fragilis result.
Table 89: Percent Agreement for Fusobacterium nucleatum
| Concentration of Fusobacteriumnucleatum | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/107 | 100 | (96.5-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x107 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108* | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Negative | 1 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| 2 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| All | 539/539 | 100 | (99.3-100) |
- One sample had a false positive Fusobacterium necrophorum result.
{92}------------------------------------------------
| Concentration ofHaemophilus influenzae | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Negative | 1 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| 2 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| All | 538/538 | 100 | (99.3-100) |
Table 90: Percent Agreement for Haemophilus influenzae
Table 91: Percent Agreement for Klebsiella oxytoca
| Concentration ofKlebsiella oxytoca | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Negative | 1 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| 2 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| All | 538/538 | 100 | (99.3-100) |
{93}------------------------------------------------
| Concentration ofNeisseria meningitidis | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(3x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/107 | 100 | (96.5-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(3x107 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Negative | 1 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| 2 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| All | 539/539 | 100 | (99.3-100) |
Table 92: Percent Agreement for Neisseria meningitidis
Table 93: Percent Agreement for Pseudomonas aeruginosa
| Concentration of Pseudomonasaeruginosa | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/107 | 100 | (96.5-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Negative | 1 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| 2 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| All | 539/539 | 100 | (99.3-100) |
{94}------------------------------------------------
| Table 94: Percent Agreement for Serratia | ||
|---|---|---|
| Concentration ofSerratia marcescens | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) |
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | All | 107/107 | 100 | (96.5-100) |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 2 | 33/33 | 100 | (89.6-100) |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 3 | 33/33 | 100 | (89.6-100) |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | All | 102/102 | 100 | (96.4-100) |
| Negative | 1 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| Negative | 2 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| Negative | 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| Negative | All | 539/539 | 100 | (99.3-100) |
Table 95: Percent Agreement for Serratia marcescens
| Concentration ofSerratia marcescens | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/107 | 100 | ||
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | ||
| Negative | 1 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| 2 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| All | 539/539 | 100 |
{95}------------------------------------------------
| Concentration ofCandida albicans | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x10 $^{7}$ CFU/mL) | 1 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/107 | 100 | (96.5-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x10 $^{6}$ CFU/mL) | 1 | 35/36 | 97.2 | (85.8-99.5) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/108 | 99.1 | (94.9-99.8) | |
| Negative | 1 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) |
| 2 | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| All | 539/539 | 100 | (99.3-100) |
Table 96: Percent Agreement for Pan Candida
Table 97: Percent Agreement for Pan Gram-Positive
| Concentration of | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staphylococcus aureus | Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | |
| 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours | 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| (1x108 CFU/mL) | 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| l | 34/36 | 94.4 | (81.9-98.5) | |
| Bottle Positive | 2 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) |
| (1x107 CFU/mL) | 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| All | 105/107 | 98.1 | (93.4-99.5) | |
| l | 179/179 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| Negative | 2 | 179/180 | 99.4 | (96.9-99.9) |
| 3 | 180/180 | 100 | (97.9-100) | |
| All | 538/539 | 99.8 | (99.0-100) |
{96}------------------------------------------------
| Concentration of | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enterobacter cloacae(CTX-M+, KPC+) | Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | |
| 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours | 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| (1x109 CFU/mL) | 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| 1 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) | |
| Bottle Positive | 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| (1x108 CFU/mL) | 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| All | 107/107 | 100 | (96.5-100) | |
| 1 | 144/144 | 100 | (97.4-100) | |
| 2 | 143/143 | 100 | (97.4-100) | |
| Negative | 3 | 144/144 | 100 | (97.4-100) |
| All | 431/431 | 100 | (99.1-100) |
Table 98: Percent Agreement for CTX-M
Table 99: Percent Agreement for IMP
| Concentration ofEscherichia coli (IMP+) | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 35/36 | 97.2 | (85.8-99.5) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/108 | 99.1 | (94.9-99.8) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) | |
| 3 | 35/36 | 97.2 | (85.8-99.5) | |
| All | 106/107 | 99.1 | (94.9-99.8) | |
| Negative | 1 | 143/143 | 100 | (97.4-100) |
| 2 | 144/144 | 100 | (97.4-100) | |
| 3 | 144/144 | 100 | (97.4-100) | |
| All | 431/431 | 100 | (99.1-100) |
{97}------------------------------------------------
| Concentration ofEnterobacter cloacae(CTX-M+, KPC+) | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | ||
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/107 | 100 | (96.5-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.16-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/107 | 100 | (96.4-100) | |
| Negative | 1 | 144/144 | 100 | (97.4-100) |
| 2 | 143/143 | 100 | (97.4-100) | |
| 3 | 144/144 | 100 | (97.4-100) | |
| All | 431/431 | 100 | (99.1-100) |
Table 100: Percent Agreement for KPC
Table 101: Percent Agreement for OXA
| Concentration of | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumannii(OXA-23+) | Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | |
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Negative | 1 | 143/143 | 100 | (97.4-100) |
| 2 | 143/143 | 100 | (97.4-100) | |
| 3 | 144/144 | 100 | (97.4-100) | |
| All | 430/430 | 100 | (99.1-100) |
{98}------------------------------------------------
Table 102: Percent Agreement for VIM
| Concentration of | Site | Agreement with Expected Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa(VIM+) | Agreed / N | % | 95% CI | |
| Bottle Positive+ 8 Hours(1x109 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 35/35 | 100 | (90.1-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 107/107 | 100 | (96.5-100) | |
| Bottle Positive(1x108 CFU/mL) | 1 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) |
| 2 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| 3 | 36/36 | 100 | (90.4-100) | |
| All | 108/108 | 100 | (96.6-100) | |
| Negative | 1 | 143/1437 | 100 | (97.4-100) |
| 2 | 144/144 | 100 | (97.4-100) | |
| 3 | 144/144 | 100 | (97.4-100) | |
| All | 431/431 | 100 | (99.1-100) |
{99}------------------------------------------------
Interfering Substances and Sample Matrix Equivalency (Bottle Evaluation)
Three organism mixes consisting of 12 on-panel organisms representing 16 targets and negative blood matrix were used to assess potentially interfering substances and bottle types for interference. The concentration of each organism tested is summarized in Table 103.
Table 103: Organism Concentrations for Interfering Substance and Bottle Equivalencv Evaluations
| Organism | Concentration |
|---|---|
| Acinetobacter baumanii | 4 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Bacteroides fragilis | 4 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Enterobacter aerogenes | 2 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Enterobacter cloacae (CTX-M) | 2 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Escherichia coli (OXA) | 2 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Haemophilus influenzae | 6 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | 9 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Neisseria meningitidis | 3 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (IMP) | 1 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Serratia marcescens | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| Staphylococcus aureus (Pan Gram-Positive target) | 2 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Candida albicans (Pan Candida target) | 1 x 106 CFU/mL |
Interfering Substances
Eighteen substances were used to assess the ePlex BCID-GN Panel for potential interference. The organisms in Table 103 were spiked into negative blood matrix and tested in triplicate with and without each potentially interfering substance. Negative blood matrix was tested to control for potential positive interference. Potentially interfering substances are summarized in Table 104. None of the eighteen substances commonly found in blood culture specimens or as medications commonly used to treat skin or bloodstream infections were found to inhibit the ePlex BCID-GN Panel at clinically relevant concentrations. The effect of interfering substances has only been evaluated for the substances listed in Table 104. Interference due to substances other than those described in this section can lead to erroneous results.
{100}------------------------------------------------
| Endogenous Substances | Testing Concentration |
|---|---|
| Bilirubin | 60 µg/mL |
| Hemoglobin | 0.6 g/L |
| Human Genomic DNA | 6 x 105 copies/mL |
| Triglycerides | 1000 mg/dL |
| γ-globulin | 1.7 g/dL |
| Exogenous Substances | Testing Concentration |
| Amoxicillin/Clavulanate | 3.5 µg/mL |
| Amphotericin B | 2 µg/mL |
| Caspofungin | 5 µg/mL |
| Ceftriaxone | 0.23 mg/mL |
| Ciprofloxacin | 3 mg/L |
| Fluconazole | 25 mg/L |
| Flucytosine | 90 µg/mL |
| Gentamicin sulfate | 3 µg/mL |
| Heparin | 0.9 U/mL |
| Imipenem | 83 µg/mL |
| Sodium Polyanethol Sulfonate | 0.25% w/v |
| Tetracycline | 5 mg/L |
| Vancomycin | 30 mg/L |
| Table 104: Potentially Interfering Substances: Substance List | ||
|---|---|---|
Sample Matrix Equivalency (Bottle Evaluation)
Thirteen bottle types were tested for interference with each of the organisms listed in Table103.
Five replicates of each organism were tested in each of two bottle lots. Negative blood matrix was run as a negative control. Twelve bottle types tested showed no interference for any of the targets tested. One of three lots of the BACTEC™ Lytic Anaerobic bottles tested showed reduced sensitivity for some targets. A summary of the bottle types assessed and the study outcomes is found in Table 105.
{101}------------------------------------------------
| Manufacturer | Bottle Brand | Bottle Type | Study Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| BD | BACTECTM | Plus Aerobic | No interference observed |
| BD | BACTEC | Plus Anaerobic | No interference observed |
| BD | BACTEC | Standard Aerobic | No interference observed |
| BD | BACTEC | Standard Anaerobic | No interference observed |
| BD | BACTEC | Peds Plus™ | No interference observed |
| BD | BACTEC | Lytic Anaerobic* | False negative results were observed for PanCandida, Enterobacter cloacae, Escherichiacoli, CTX-M and OXA in one of three lots.* |
| bioMérieux | BACT/ALERT® | SA Standard Aerobic | No interference observed |
| bioMérieux | BACT/ALERT | SN Standard Anaerobic | No interference observed |
| bioMérieux | BACT/ALERT | FA Plus | No interference observed |
| bioMérieux | BACT/ALERT | FN Plus | No interference observed |
| bioMérieux | BACT/ALERT | PF Plus | No interference observed |
| Thermo Scientific™ | VersaTREK™ | REDOX™ 1 EZ Draw Aerobic | No interference observed |
| Thermo Scientific | VersaTREK | REDOX 2 EZ Draw Anaerobic | No interference observed |
| Table 105: Sample Matrix Equivalency (Bottle Evaluation) Bottle Types | ||
|---|---|---|
- 2/15 replicates were false negative for Pan Canades was false negative for Enterobacter cloacag; 1/15 replicates was false negative for Escherichia coli (OXA-48); 2/15 replicates were false negative for CTX-M
Carryover and Cross-Contamination
Carryover and cross-contamination were evaluated for the ePlex BCID-GN Panel within and between runs by alternating high positive and negative samples across multiple runs over 5 rounds of testing. A high-titer mix of OXA positive Escherichia coli, CTX-M and KPC positive Enterobacter cloacae, Salmonella enterica, and Enterococcus faecalis (a Pan Gram-Positive target organism) was prepared at 1 x 10° CFU/mL each as well as Candida krusei (a Pan Candida target organism) at 1x107 CFU/mL to simulate clinically relevant high positive samples for positive testing. Negative blood culture matrix was used to represent negative samples. Over 120 runs, all valid positive runs resulted in detection of Escherichia coli, Enterobacter cloacae complex, Salmonella, OXA, CTX-M, KPC, Pan Gram-Positive, and Pan Candida and no false positives were detected in the negative runs.
{102}------------------------------------------------
Competitive Inhibition Study
Competitive inhibition was evaluated for the ePlex BCID-GN Panel by pairing eight clinically relevant organisms (including a Pan Gram-Positive assay target and an off-panel gram-positive organism) in four simulated dual infection sample mixes. Each dual infection mix was tested in combination with each of the three other mixes, such that all organisms were tested at low titer (concentrations expected at bottle positivity) while in the presence of other organisms at higher titer (concentrations expected at 8 hours beyond bottle positivity, or ~ one log higher than that expected at bottle positivity). No competitive inhibition was observed in any replicates of the twelve testing conditions. A summary of the organisms assessed and testing concentrations is found in Table 106.
| Organism | HighConcentration | LowConcentration |
|---|---|---|
| Klebsiella pneumoniae | 1 x 109 CFU/mL | 9 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Escherichia coli (CTX-M+) | 1 x 109 CFU/mL | 2 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Enterobacter cloacae (VIM+) | 7 x 108 CFU/mL | 2 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Klebsiella oxytoca (KPC+) | 1 x 109 CFU/mL | 9 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa (IMP+) | 8 x 108 CFU/mL | 1 x 108 CFU/mL |
| Serratia marcescens | 2 x 109 CFU/mL | 1 x 109 CFU/mL |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 1 x 108 CFU/mL | 2 x 107 CFU/mL |
| Corynebacterium striatumA | 2 x 109 CFU/mL | 4 x 106 CFU/mL |
Table 106: Competitive Inhibition Organisms and Concentrations Tested
Off-panel organism A.
{103}------------------------------------------------
Please wait...
If this message is not eventually replaced by the proper contents of the document, your PDF viewer may not be able to display this type of document.
You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader for Windows®, Mac, or Linux® by visiting http://www.adobe.com/go/reader_download.
For more assistance with Adobe Reader visit http://www.adobe.com/go/acrreader.
Windows is either a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Mac is a trademark of Apple Inc., registered in the United States and other countries. Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.
§ 866.3365 Multiplex nucleic acid assay for identification of microorganisms and resistance markers from positive blood cultures.
(a)
Identification. A multiplex nucleic acid assay for identification of microorganisms and resistance markers from positive blood cultures is a qualitative in vitro device intended to simultaneously detect and identify microorganism nucleic acids from blood cultures that test positive by Gram stain or other microbiological stains. The device detects specific nucleic acid sequences for microorganism identification as well as for antimicrobial resistance. This device aids in the diagnosis of bloodstream infections when used in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings. However, the device does not replace traditional methods for culture and susceptibility testing.(b)
Classification. Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is FDA's guideline document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guideline: Multiplex Nucleic Acid Assay for Identification of Microorganisms and Resistance Markers from Positive Blood Cultures.” For availability of the guideline document, see § 866.1(e).