Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 7:15:3549-3559.
doi: 10.2147/IDR.S364525. eCollection 2022.

The Value of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Hematological Malignancy Patients with Febrile Neutropenia After Empiric Antibiotic Treatment Failure

Meng Zhang #  1   2 , Zhao Wang #  2 , Jiaxi Wang  1 , Hairong Lv  2 , Xia Xiao  2 , Wenyi Lu  2 , Xin Jin  2 , Juanxia Meng  2 , Yedi Pu  2 , MingFeng Zhao  2
Affiliations

The Value of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Hematological Malignancy Patients with Febrile Neutropenia After Empiric Antibiotic Treatment Failure

Meng Zhang et al. Infect Drug Resist. .

Abstract

Background: It was crucial to use empirical antibiotics in febrile neutropenia (FN) patients. However, most patients still died from infection due to poor efficacy. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is a rapid microbiological diagnostic method. The value of mNGS in patients with FN remains to be studied, especially after empiric antibiotic treatment.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the differences between mNGS and the traditional methods in 192 patients with hematological malignancies who have received empiric antibiotic treatment. Samples were collected when patient had chills or half an hour before peak body temperature. And we compared the differences between FN and non-FN patients, mainly including types of pathogens and the diagnostic value of different pathogens.

Results: Despite receiving empirical treatment, the pathogen detection rate of mNGS was significantly higher than the traditional method (80.21% vs 25.00%, P<0.001). And it has obvious advantages in detecting mixed pathogens infection (80.21% vs 4.17%, P<0.001). Then, we found that mNGS saw more pathogens in the FN than in the non-FN group, especially fungus. 21/33 (63.63%) of FN patients was diagnosed with fungal infections. The fungal detection rate in FN was significantly higher than non-FN group (32.35% vs 12.22%, P=0.001). Besides, the sensitivity of mNGS was higher than the traditional methods in both FN and non-FN group (P<0.001), but no significant difference in specificity (P>0.05). In the FN group, empiric antibiotic treatment of 46/102 (45.10%) patients did not treat all the pathogens detected by mNGS. After adjusting the antimicrobial regimen according to the results of mNGS, the effective rate at 72 hours and 7 days was 22/46 (47.83%) and 24/102 (52.17%), respectively.

Conclusion: mNGS had a significant impact on the diagnosis of infection and the second-line antimicrobial therapy in FN. mNGS plays a more important role in FN patients, especially in the diagnosis of fungal infections.

Purpose: Firstly, we compared the difference between mNGS and the traditional methods in the diagnosis of infection. Secondly, we assessed the value of mNGS in FN patients by comparing it with non-FN patients, including types of pathogens and the diagnostic value of different pathogens. In order to show that mNGS plays a more important role in FN.

Keywords: empiric antibiotic treatment; febrile neutropenia; fever; infection; metagenomic next-generation sequencing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of pathogenic detected by mNGS in FN patients.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of pathogenic detected by mNGS in non-FN patients.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The difference between mNGS and traditional method.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Keng MK, Sekeres MA. Febrile neutropenia in hematologic malignancies. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2013;8(4):370–378. doi:10.1007/s11899-013-0171-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Freifeld A, Bow E, Sepkowitz K, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(4):e56–e93. doi:10.1093/cid/cir073 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yan C, Wang Y, Mo X, et al. Incidence, risk factors, microbiology and outcomes of pre-engraftment bloodstream infection after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and comparison with HLA-identical sibling transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:S162–S173. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy658 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mikulska M, Viscoli C, Orasch C, et al. Aetiology and resistance in bacteraemias among adult and paediatric haematology and cancer patients. J Infect. 2014;68(4):321–331. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2013.12.006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fenollar F, Raoult D. Molecular diagnosis of bloodstream infections caused by non-cultivable bacteria. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007;S7–15. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.06.024 - DOI - PubMed