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
. 2025 Spring;25(1):24-33.
doi: 10.31486/toj.24.0101.

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of the T2Resistance Panel (Research Use Only) in Patients With Possible Bacterial Bloodstream Infections

Affiliations

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of the T2Resistance Panel (Research Use Only) in Patients With Possible Bacterial Bloodstream Infections

Deborah Ashcraft et al. Ochsner J. 2025 Spring.

Erratum in

  • ERRATUM.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Ochsner J. 2025 Summer;25(2):74. doi: 10.31486/toj.25.5054. Ochsner J. 2025. PMID: 40538603 Free PMC article.

Abstract

Background: Early identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of bloodstream pathogens are important for promptly determining the appropriate therapy. Currently, positive blood culture results (identification and AST) are reported in 2 to 4 days. The T2Resistance (T2R) Panel (T2 Biosystems, Inc) uses DNA amplification with magnetic resonance from 3 mL of whole blood for direct detection of 13 antibiotic resistance genes: bla KPC, bla NDM, bla VIM, bla IMP, bla OXA-48, bla CTX-M-14/15, AmpC bla CMY/DHA, vanA/B, and mecA/C. We compared the accuracy of T2R testing to AST for positive blood cultures.

Methods: This investigator-sponsored, single-center study prospectively enrolled 802 patients with a standard of care blood culture. Five hundred forty-seven patients had adequate blood for culture and T2R testing. Blood cultures with positive isolates were identified, and AST was performed. Blood samples with positive blood cultures were tested with the T2R Panel.

Results: Blood cultures were positive for 58/547 (10.6%) patients. Contaminants (18/547 [3.3%]) were excluded. T2R testing results (n=31) showed 2 bla CTX-M-14/15 genes with 100% sensitivity; the remaining gram-negative resistance genes were not detected, so sensitivity could not accurately be determined. Specificity was 100% for the 16 gram-negative bacilli. Three enterococci and 2 Staphylococcus aureus showed 100% sensitivity/specificity. However, 10 coagulase-negative staphylococci showed 17% sensitivity/100% specificity. Antibiotic resistance genes identified were 2 bla CTX-M-14/15, 2 mecA/C, and 1 vanA/B. T2R testing results were obtained in an average of 7 hours.

Conclusion: T2R testing is highly specific (100%) for the 13 antibiotic resistance genes on the panel. Sensitivity was 100% for the genes detected but was low (17%) for coagulase-negative staphylococci. T2R testing has the potential to diagnose certain antibiotic resistance genes from bacterial bloodstream infections in hours vs the days required for a positive blood culture with AST. Additional studies that include larger numbers of samples with antimicrobial resistance genes are needed.

Keywords: Drug resistance–microbial; genes–MDR; rapid diagnostic tests.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Portions of these data were presented at the ASM Microbe meeting, Washington, DC, June 12, 2022. The authors thank T2 Biosystems for providing the T2Resistance Panels (research use only) for this investigator-initiated study and Azenta, Inc for performing the next-generation sequencing and analysis on the 9 bacterial isolates from blood cultures that tested negative with the T2R Panel. The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the subject matter of this article.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.
T2Resistance Panel results compared to simultaneously drawn blood culture results from patients with a possible bloodstream infection. aNone detected=no target genes were detected with T2R testing. bBlood culture had 3 bacterial species: Enterococcus faecium (vancomycin resistant); Escherichia coli (ampicillin-sulbactam, amoxicillin-clavulanate, cefazolin, cefepime, and ceftriaxone resistant); and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE). T2R Panel results were positive for vanA/B and positive for blaCTX-M-14/15. cBlood culture had 3 bacterial species: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus haemolyticus (oxacillin susceptible), and Staphylococcus capitis (oxacillin resistant). In the T2R Panel results, a mecA/C gene was not detected. dPatients having a negative simultaneous blood culture but a different positive blood culture collected within 48 hours of the original simultaneous blood culture/T2R sample had their original negative simultaneous blood culture tested with the T2R Panel. BC, blood culture; E cloacae, Enterobacter cloacae; E coli, Escherichia coli; E faecalis, Enterococcus faecalis; E faecium, Enterococcus faecium; h, hour; K pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MRSE, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis; MSSA, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus; MSSE, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus epidermidis; neg, negative; P aeruginosa, Pseudomonas aeruginosa; P mirabilis, Proteus mirabilis; P shigelloides, Plesiomonas shigelloides; R ornithinolytica, Raoultella ornithinolytica; S aureus, Staphylococcus aureus; S capitis, Staphylococcus capitis; S cohnii, Staphylococcus cohnii; S haemolyticus; Staphylococcus haemolyticus; T2R, T2Resistance Panel.

References

    1. World Health Organization. Global Report on the Epidemiology and Burden of Sepsis: Current Evidence, Identifying Gaps and Future Directions. Published September 9, 2020. Accessed March 2, 2025. who.int/publications/i/item/9789240010789
    1. Fabre V, Carroll KC, Cosgrove SE. Blood culture utilization in the hospital setting: a call for diagnostic stewardship. J Clin Microbiol. 2022;60(3):e0100521. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01005-21 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nieman AE, Savelkoul PHM, Beishuizen A, et al. A prospective multicenter evaluation of direct molecular detection of blood stream infection from a clinical perspective. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:314. doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-1646-4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sweeney TE, Liesenfeld O, May L. Diagnosis of bacterial sepsis: why are tests for bacteremia not sufficient? Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2019;19(11):959-962. doi: 10.1080/14737159.2019.1660644 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Samuel L. Direct-from-blood detection of pathogens: a review of technology and challenges. J Clin Microbiol. 2023;61(7):e0023121. doi: 10.1128/jcm.00231-21 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources