Despite some limitations, current molecular diagnostic methods have a great potential to include targets useful in the rapid identification of microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance, to analyse directly unprocessed samples and to obtain quantitative results in pneumonia, an entity of complex microbiological diagnosis due to the features of the pathogens commonly implicated.
by Dr A. Camporese
A change in culture without culture?
Developing accurate methods for diagnosing respiratory tract infections has long been a challenge for the clinical microbiology laboratory [1].
The current semi-quantitative agar-plate based culture method used in most clinical microbiology laboratories for analysing specimens from patients with suspected community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), although adequate for recovering and identifying a wide variety of bacterial species from respiratory specimens, is slow, and cannot differentiate between colonization and infection. Moreover, results may be misleading, particularly if a Gram stain is not performed in parallel to ascertain the adequacy of expectorated sputum samples or endotracheal aspirates [2].
As the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) CAP guideline notes, one of the problems with diagnostic tests for respiratory tract infections “is driven by the poor quality of most sputum microbiological samples and the low yield of positive culture results” [3]. Moreover, the highest predictive value of a culture occurs only when Gram stain shows a predominant morphotype, and the culture yields predominant growth of a single recognized respiratory pathogen of that morphotype (e.g., Streptococcus pneumoniae) [2].
Unfortunately, such concordance decreases rapidly when specimens are collected after the initiation of antimicrobial therapy or when their arrival at the microbiology laboratory is significantly delayed.
One approach that may improve the diagnosis of respiratory tract infections and shorten the time necessary to place patients on appropriate therapy is the use of nucleic acid amplification methods.
Straight ahead toward molecular assays
Today clinical microbiologists appear to be on the threshold of a potentially important transition, with a substantial increase in the use of molecular diagnostic tests to replace or augment the century-old methods of culture, as many experts now view traditional microbiology as slow and antiquated, especially when compared with newer technologies used in other areas of laboratory medicine [4].
Traditional methods demonstrated poor sensitivity and specificity for detecting specific pathogens, particularly when the specimen being cultured is from a non-sterile anatomical compartment, such as the respiratory tract.
For this reason, molecular methods are becoming more widely used also for the detection of respiratory pathogens, in part because of their superior sensitivity, relatively rapid turnaround time, and ability to identify pathogens that are slow growing or difficult to culture.
However, to have a positive impact on patient management, molecular tests will need to be easy to use, and provide clear, definitive results that will give physicians the data necessary to start, or in some cases withhold, antimicrobial agents [5].
Further, to be really successful, industry must determine which combination of molecular targets [Table 1] and clinical specimens will produce results that will effectively guide anti-infective therapy regimens for patients with pneumonia or other respiratory tract diseases.
Another key challenge for industry will be to develop assays that are not only rapid, but also readily accessible, because development of an assay that is rapid, but unavailable on evening or night shifts, or at weekends, because of its technical complexity, limits the clinical value of the test.
Moreover, to be successful, molecular assays will need to be perceived by health care systems as cost-effective, but cost-effectiveness should be determined not only by comparison to the costs of performing slower, conventional methods in the laboratory, but also by consideration of the cost savings achieved from optimized antimicrobial therapy, decreased use of additional diagnostic tests, and shorter hospital stays [2].
To address issues on these topics, the IDSA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) co-sponsored a workshop on molecular diagnostic testing for respiratory tract infections in November 2009, with the participation of the FDA, industry, authorities in microbiology, statisticians and others. Respiratory tract infections were selected because this is the site of most infections treated with antibiotics in paediatric and adult practice, and they also represent a group of infections in which an etiologic agent is seldom identified in non-research settings [4].
The IDSA believes that patient care could be improved by accurate and rapid identification of pathogens, which would promote more judicious use of antibiotics, permit pathogen directed therapy, and provide potentially important
epidemiologic information.
Thus, the IDSA strongly desires development and implementation of molecular diagnostic tests that are easy, rapid, technically uncomplicated, applicable to specimens that are readily obtained, reasonably priced, sensitive and specific, because such tests will greatly improve antimicrobial stewardship, thereby helping to reduce the spread and impact of antibiotic resistance. Such tests will also facilitate conduct of clinical trials supporting the approval of new antibacterial agents [4].
Respiratory samples suitable for molecular assays
A variety of respiratory samples are amenable to molecular testing, including expectorated sputum, bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs), protected bronchial brushes, and endotracheal aspirates [2, 5, 6]. Of these, expectorated sputum samples are by far the most common respiratory samples submitted to the clinical microbiology laboratory, but are also the poorest in overall quality.
Endotracheal aspirates from ventilated patients are often of better quality than that of expectorated sputum obtained from patients with CAP/HAP, but may still be contaminated with upper respiratory tract flora.
Therefore, obtaining specimens from the site of infection that are not contaminated with upper respiratory tract flora remains to date a real and constant problem. BALs and protected brush samples seem more likely to yield samples from the site of infection, but require significantly more effort to obtain, and thus offer a much smaller market for a new molecular test.
Moreover, there is a significant gap in our knowledge as to how well molecular tests for bacterial pathogens would perform on expectorated sputum samples, compared with performance on BALs or protected brush samples from the same patient collected within a similar period [2].
This knowledge gap is also a barrier to test development, because a molecular test that cannot be performed on expectorated sputum (given all the problems with specimen quality) may not have broad enough appeal among physicians to make it a financially viable product (from the industry perspective).
Technology perspectives
There are a wide array of emerging technologies for the detection and quantification of respiratory pathogens directly from clinical specimens. Some of these technologies, such as real-time PCR, have potential for high-throughput testing, and others will allow rapid near patient testing, but more studies are needed to fully determine their performance characteristics and determine their ideal clinical application [6,7].
Molecular assays may target either a single pathogen or multiple respiratory pathogens in a single assay. There are merits to both single-pathogen and multiplex approaches. Certain bacterial respiratory pathogens cause such distinct clinical syndromes that assays that target them individually still have clinical utility. These include already many organisms, such as Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, or Bordetella pertussis [Table 1].
Moreover, some multiplex assays for respiratory tract disease already include many targets for a rapid diagnosis of CAP, HAP, and VAP, but, in designing new assays, it will be critical to understand whether an assay for a determined number of bacterial pathogens will meet physicians’ needs and provide adequate data for initiating or altering anti-infective therapy [7, 8].
Potential and currently available targets for multiplex or individual molecular assays for respiratory tract samples in immunocompetent and/or immunocompromised patients with CAP, HAP, or VAP are presented in Table 1 [7].
Further, in this age of multidrug resistance, expanding the target selection to include key antimicrobial resistance genes that would alter existing therapy or guide empirical therapy, should also be considered [Table 1].
Lastly, if molecular-based diagnostic methods currently available are helpful in detecting single and multiple bacterial pathogens simultaneously, including the most frequent cause of CAP/HAP/VAP, the real-time PCR is also well known for its ability to quantify targets.
Where available, the application of quantitative molecular tests for the detection of key pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, both in sputum and in blood, defining a threshold for classification, such as a colonizer or as an invasive pathogen, might be relevant in CAP patients, mainly in whom antibiotic therapy has been initiated, and might be a useful tool for severity assessment [9, 10].
Conclusion
Significant progress exists on the development and improvement of molecular-based methods feasible to be applied to the diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infection.
Multiplex assays, user-friendly formats, results in a few hours, high sensitivity and specificity in pathogen identification, detection of antibiotic resistance genes and target quantification, among others, are some of the contributions of novel molecular-based diagnosis approaches.
Developing new molecular tests for other bacterial respiratory pathogens, particularly microorganisms that can be both asymptomatic colonizers and overt pathogens of the respiratory tract, detection of pathogens and new key antimicrobial resistance genes in unprocessed samples, and determination of the microbial load by quantitative multi-pathogen tests will be some of the future challenges of molecular diagnosis in CAP/HAP/VAP.
References
1. Bartlett JG. Decline in microbial studies for patients with pulmonary infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 170–172.
2. Tenover FC. Developing molecular amplification methods for rapid diagnosis of respiratory tract infections caused by bacterial pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52(S4): S338–S345.
3. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44(S2): S27–S72.
4. Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA). An unmet medical need: rapid molecular diagnostics tests for respiratory tract infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52(S4): S384–S395.
5. Caliendo AM. Multiplex PCR and emerging technologies for the detection of respiratory pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52(S4): S326–S330.
6. Lung M and Codina G. Molecular diagnosis in HAP/VAP. Curr Opin Crit Care 2012; 18: 487–494.
7. Camporese A. Impact of recent advances in molecular techniques on diagnosing lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). Infez Med 2012; 4: 237–244.
8. Johansson N, Kalin M, Tiveljung-Lindell A, et al. Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia: increased microbiological yield with new diagnostic methods. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50: 202–209.
9. Werno AM, Anderson TP, Murdoch DR. Association between pneumococcal load and disease severity in adults with pneumonia. J Med Microbiol 2012; 61: 1129–1135.
10. Woodhead M, Blasi F, Ewig S, et al. Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections-Full version. Clin Microbiol Infect 2011; 17(S6): E1–E59.
The author
Alessandro Camporese MD
Clinical Microbiology and Virology Department
S. Maria degli Angeli Regional Hospital, Pordenone, Italy
E-mail: alessandro.camporese@aopn.fvg.it
Diamond White Glass microscope slides
, /in Featured Articles /by 3wmediaIndiko and Indiko Plus analyzers
, /in Featured Articles /by 3wmediaHEMOSTASIS – Testing Process Automation
, /in Featured Articles /by 3wmediaLateral Flow Rapid Tests
, /in Featured Articles /by 3wmediaYour IVD partner for instruments and reagents
, /in Featured Articles /by 3wmediaSTA Compact Max
, /in Featured Articles /by 3wmediaTest smarter. Run faster.
, /in Featured Articles /by 3wmediaOsmomat 3000 – freezing point osmometer
, /in Featured Articles /by 3wmediaRecent advances and perspectives in the molecular diagnosis of pneumonia
, /in Featured Articles /by 3wmediaDespite some limitations, current molecular diagnostic methods have a great potential to include targets useful in the rapid identification of microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance, to analyse directly unprocessed samples and to obtain quantitative results in pneumonia, an entity of complex microbiological diagnosis due to the features of the pathogens commonly implicated.
by Dr A. Camporese
A change in culture without culture?
Developing accurate methods for diagnosing respiratory tract infections has long been a challenge for the clinical microbiology laboratory [1].
The current semi-quantitative agar-plate based culture method used in most clinical microbiology laboratories for analysing specimens from patients with suspected community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), although adequate for recovering and identifying a wide variety of bacterial species from respiratory specimens, is slow, and cannot differentiate between colonization and infection. Moreover, results may be misleading, particularly if a Gram stain is not performed in parallel to ascertain the adequacy of expectorated sputum samples or endotracheal aspirates [2].
As the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) CAP guideline notes, one of the problems with diagnostic tests for respiratory tract infections “is driven by the poor quality of most sputum microbiological samples and the low yield of positive culture results” [3]. Moreover, the highest predictive value of a culture occurs only when Gram stain shows a predominant morphotype, and the culture yields predominant growth of a single recognized respiratory pathogen of that morphotype (e.g., Streptococcus pneumoniae) [2].
Unfortunately, such concordance decreases rapidly when specimens are collected after the initiation of antimicrobial therapy or when their arrival at the microbiology laboratory is significantly delayed.
One approach that may improve the diagnosis of respiratory tract infections and shorten the time necessary to place patients on appropriate therapy is the use of nucleic acid amplification methods.
Straight ahead toward molecular assays
Today clinical microbiologists appear to be on the threshold of a potentially important transition, with a substantial increase in the use of molecular diagnostic tests to replace or augment the century-old methods of culture, as many experts now view traditional microbiology as slow and antiquated, especially when compared with newer technologies used in other areas of laboratory medicine [4].
Traditional methods demonstrated poor sensitivity and specificity for detecting specific pathogens, particularly when the specimen being cultured is from a non-sterile anatomical compartment, such as the respiratory tract.
For this reason, molecular methods are becoming more widely used also for the detection of respiratory pathogens, in part because of their superior sensitivity, relatively rapid turnaround time, and ability to identify pathogens that are slow growing or difficult to culture.
However, to have a positive impact on patient management, molecular tests will need to be easy to use, and provide clear, definitive results that will give physicians the data necessary to start, or in some cases withhold, antimicrobial agents [5].
Further, to be really successful, industry must determine which combination of molecular targets [Table 1] and clinical specimens will produce results that will effectively guide anti-infective therapy regimens for patients with pneumonia or other respiratory tract diseases.
Another key challenge for industry will be to develop assays that are not only rapid, but also readily accessible, because development of an assay that is rapid, but unavailable on evening or night shifts, or at weekends, because of its technical complexity, limits the clinical value of the test.
Moreover, to be successful, molecular assays will need to be perceived by health care systems as cost-effective, but cost-effectiveness should be determined not only by comparison to the costs of performing slower, conventional methods in the laboratory, but also by consideration of the cost savings achieved from optimized antimicrobial therapy, decreased use of additional diagnostic tests, and shorter hospital stays [2].
To address issues on these topics, the IDSA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) co-sponsored a workshop on molecular diagnostic testing for respiratory tract infections in November 2009, with the participation of the FDA, industry, authorities in microbiology, statisticians and others. Respiratory tract infections were selected because this is the site of most infections treated with antibiotics in paediatric and adult practice, and they also represent a group of infections in which an etiologic agent is seldom identified in non-research settings [4].
The IDSA believes that patient care could be improved by accurate and rapid identification of pathogens, which would promote more judicious use of antibiotics, permit pathogen directed therapy, and provide potentially important
epidemiologic information.
Thus, the IDSA strongly desires development and implementation of molecular diagnostic tests that are easy, rapid, technically uncomplicated, applicable to specimens that are readily obtained, reasonably priced, sensitive and specific, because such tests will greatly improve antimicrobial stewardship, thereby helping to reduce the spread and impact of antibiotic resistance. Such tests will also facilitate conduct of clinical trials supporting the approval of new antibacterial agents [4].
Respiratory samples suitable for molecular assays
A variety of respiratory samples are amenable to molecular testing, including expectorated sputum, bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs), protected bronchial brushes, and endotracheal aspirates [2, 5, 6]. Of these, expectorated sputum samples are by far the most common respiratory samples submitted to the clinical microbiology laboratory, but are also the poorest in overall quality.
Endotracheal aspirates from ventilated patients are often of better quality than that of expectorated sputum obtained from patients with CAP/HAP, but may still be contaminated with upper respiratory tract flora.
Therefore, obtaining specimens from the site of infection that are not contaminated with upper respiratory tract flora remains to date a real and constant problem. BALs and protected brush samples seem more likely to yield samples from the site of infection, but require significantly more effort to obtain, and thus offer a much smaller market for a new molecular test.
Moreover, there is a significant gap in our knowledge as to how well molecular tests for bacterial pathogens would perform on expectorated sputum samples, compared with performance on BALs or protected brush samples from the same patient collected within a similar period [2].
This knowledge gap is also a barrier to test development, because a molecular test that cannot be performed on expectorated sputum (given all the problems with specimen quality) may not have broad enough appeal among physicians to make it a financially viable product (from the industry perspective).
Technology perspectives
There are a wide array of emerging technologies for the detection and quantification of respiratory pathogens directly from clinical specimens. Some of these technologies, such as real-time PCR, have potential for high-throughput testing, and others will allow rapid near patient testing, but more studies are needed to fully determine their performance characteristics and determine their ideal clinical application [6,7].
Molecular assays may target either a single pathogen or multiple respiratory pathogens in a single assay. There are merits to both single-pathogen and multiplex approaches. Certain bacterial respiratory pathogens cause such distinct clinical syndromes that assays that target them individually still have clinical utility. These include already many organisms, such as Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, or Bordetella pertussis [Table 1].
Moreover, some multiplex assays for respiratory tract disease already include many targets for a rapid diagnosis of CAP, HAP, and VAP, but, in designing new assays, it will be critical to understand whether an assay for a determined number of bacterial pathogens will meet physicians’ needs and provide adequate data for initiating or altering anti-infective therapy [7, 8].
Potential and currently available targets for multiplex or individual molecular assays for respiratory tract samples in immunocompetent and/or immunocompromised patients with CAP, HAP, or VAP are presented in Table 1 [7].
Further, in this age of multidrug resistance, expanding the target selection to include key antimicrobial resistance genes that would alter existing therapy or guide empirical therapy, should also be considered [Table 1].
Lastly, if molecular-based diagnostic methods currently available are helpful in detecting single and multiple bacterial pathogens simultaneously, including the most frequent cause of CAP/HAP/VAP, the real-time PCR is also well known for its ability to quantify targets.
Where available, the application of quantitative molecular tests for the detection of key pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, both in sputum and in blood, defining a threshold for classification, such as a colonizer or as an invasive pathogen, might be relevant in CAP patients, mainly in whom antibiotic therapy has been initiated, and might be a useful tool for severity assessment [9, 10].
Conclusion
Significant progress exists on the development and improvement of molecular-based methods feasible to be applied to the diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infection.
Multiplex assays, user-friendly formats, results in a few hours, high sensitivity and specificity in pathogen identification, detection of antibiotic resistance genes and target quantification, among others, are some of the contributions of novel molecular-based diagnosis approaches.
Developing new molecular tests for other bacterial respiratory pathogens, particularly microorganisms that can be both asymptomatic colonizers and overt pathogens of the respiratory tract, detection of pathogens and new key antimicrobial resistance genes in unprocessed samples, and determination of the microbial load by quantitative multi-pathogen tests will be some of the future challenges of molecular diagnosis in CAP/HAP/VAP.
References
1. Bartlett JG. Decline in microbial studies for patients with pulmonary infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 170–172.
2. Tenover FC. Developing molecular amplification methods for rapid diagnosis of respiratory tract infections caused by bacterial pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52(S4): S338–S345.
3. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44(S2): S27–S72.
4. Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA). An unmet medical need: rapid molecular diagnostics tests for respiratory tract infections. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52(S4): S384–S395.
5. Caliendo AM. Multiplex PCR and emerging technologies for the detection of respiratory pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52(S4): S326–S330.
6. Lung M and Codina G. Molecular diagnosis in HAP/VAP. Curr Opin Crit Care 2012; 18: 487–494.
7. Camporese A. Impact of recent advances in molecular techniques on diagnosing lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). Infez Med 2012; 4: 237–244.
8. Johansson N, Kalin M, Tiveljung-Lindell A, et al. Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia: increased microbiological yield with new diagnostic methods. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50: 202–209.
9. Werno AM, Anderson TP, Murdoch DR. Association between pneumococcal load and disease severity in adults with pneumonia. J Med Microbiol 2012; 61: 1129–1135.
10. Woodhead M, Blasi F, Ewig S, et al. Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections-Full version. Clin Microbiol Infect 2011; 17(S6): E1–E59.
The author
Alessandro Camporese MD
Clinical Microbiology and Virology Department
S. Maria degli Angeli Regional Hospital, Pordenone, Italy
E-mail: alessandro.camporese@aopn.fvg.it
Respiratory infections due to non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium species
, /in Featured Articles /by 3wmediaSome species of non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium bacteria are opportunistic pathogens responsible for lower respiratory tract infections primarily in immunocompromised patients or in patients with chronic respiratory diseases. In the last years an increasing number of reports have demonstrated their role as emerging pathogens causing pneumonia or exacerbations of chronic pulmonary diseases. Thus, these species should not always be considered as mere colonizers.
by Dr M. Díez-Aguilar, Dr R. Cantón, Dr M. A. Meseguer
Non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium species are considered to be colonizers of the skin, nasopharyngeal tract and mucous membranes. However, in the last decade there have been an increasing number of reports that recognize these microorganisms as opportunistic pathogens that can cause disease in certain circumstances [1–3]. Since the population of immunocompromised patients is constantly growing, due to AIDS, age, use of invasive devices and immunosuppressive regimens, e.g. after transplantation, the clinical relevance of these opportunistic pathogens is rising.
A broad range of infectious diseases caused by non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium species have been reported including endocarditis, bacteriemia, pneumonia, tracheobronchitis, necrotizing tracheitis, exudative pharyngitis, rhinosinusitis, osteitis, conjunctivitis, and skin and urinary tract infections.
Lower respiratory tract infection, typically occurs in the context of underlying immunosuppressive conditions (such as diabetes, malignancy, corticoid therapy) and in patients with pre-existing pulmonary diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bronchiectasis and cystic fibrosis. In these patients non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium species can cause pneumonia and acute exacerbations of COPD. Previous hospitalization, wide-ranged antibiotic therapy and presence of multiple medical devices are risk factors for acquiring non-diphtheriae corynebacterial infection. Nosocomial outbreak of infection or colonization has been also observed [4]. Nevertheless, community acquired bronchitis in elderly patients with COPD have been reported.
Typically, Corynebacterium pseudodiphtheriticum, Corynebacterium striatum, and Corynebacterium propinquum are the species more frequently involved in lower respiratory tract infections [1–4]. The role of other Corynebacterium species in lower respiratory tract infections could have been underestimated, as only a few cases have been reported. The various non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium species that have been involved as responsible for respiratory tract infections are shown in Table 1. After appropriate antibiotic treatment a favourable outcome was achieved in most patients.
Pathogenesis
The respiratory tract damage caused by these microorganisms is probably the result of their opportunistic overgrowth and their possible virulence factors in patients with immune impairment and/or compromised pulmonary function.
Patients with chronic respiratory infections, such as obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis are predisposed to a persistent and non-innocent colonization of the lower respiratory tract by several non-pathogenic microorganisms. The high density of microorganisms covering the surface of the bronchial mucosa results in consistent pathogenic effects throughout the respiratory epithelium. Such effects include reduction of the supply of oxygen, water and organic nutrients to cells of the bronchial epithelium, as well as the liberation of potentially bioactive molecules which induce pro-inflammatory processes leading to accumulation of immune inflammatory cells. Defective pulmonary defences (impaired mucociliary clearance, airway inflammation and permanent dilatation within the bronchial wall), periodic infectious exacerbations caused by other respiratory infecting pathogens, and local immune disorders can cause a ‘vicious cycle’ of infection and inflammation of the airway. In these conditions the replacement of the pharyngeal resident microbiota with the opportunistic overgrowth and predominance of corynebacterial organisms in the respiratory tract can take place resulting in disease.
However, these microorganisms could express virulence factors that would contribute to the infection. Still, the virulence factors of non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium infection remain poorly understood, but recent in vitro studies on Corynebacterium pseudodiphtheriticum behaviour with epithelial cells have demonstrated the capacity for adherence, internalization, intracellular survival and persistence of the organism [5]. Therefore, in vivo C. pseudodiphtheriticum not only multiplies at and remains on the surface of the epithelial host cells, but also could reach the cytoplasm. This ability of C. pseudodiphtheriticum to survive within host cells highlights the potential capacity of other non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium to act as opportunistic pathogens.
Microbiological diagnosis
The key for the microbiological diagnosis of respiratory tract infection caused by non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium species is the microscopic observation of the predominant presence of Corynebacterium morphotype in a Gram stained purulent respiratory sample [Fig. 1], together with an abundant growth in the culture [6]. To determine the quality of the sputum it is important to follow the scoring system of Washington and Murray, which assesses a good quality of samples when there are more than 25 leukocytes and less than 10 squamous epithelial cells per field.
Identification of Coryneform bacteria
It is important to correctly identify Coryneform bacteria to the species level in order to reach the microbiological diagnosis, but also to detect unsuspected species, investigate potential pathogenicity and describe new species that could be clinically relevant.
Phenotypic characteristics such as colony size, pigmentation, catalase, and motility are useful for establishing the genus. For identification to the species level, biochemical testing performed using commercially available identification systems such as API Coryne, API CH50 plus, API 20 E and Rap IDCB Plus method, as well as automated systems such as Vitek2 (bioMèriux) and Biology systems could be employed. However, these methods are unreliable for some species (Corynebacterium accolens, C. striatum).
Nowadays an accurate and definitive identification is reached by the use of sequence-based identification techniques: 16s RNA and rpoB gene are the two approaches used for the characterization of non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium species. In fact, in recent years, many new species of the Corynebacterium genus have been described thanks to molecular biology techniques [7]. The use of mass spectrometry technology like MALDI-TOF MS is acquiring an increasingly important role in identifying and detecting these microorganisms [8]. This technology requires neither extensive training nor cost and it has been reported that it provides identification to genus and species level with an accuracy that approaches that of genetic methods.
Antimicrobial susceptibility
It is essential to test the antimicrobial susceptibility in all clinically relevant isolates due to the variable susceptibility of these microorganisms. Overall, non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium species are constitutively resistant to macrolides, lincosamides and type B streptogramins; susceptible to cefotaxime, amoxicillin/clavulanate, rifampin, and vancomycin (the recommended drug to treat severe infections) and have variable susceptibility to other antibiotics. C. striatum is the species which exhibits the highest resistance pattern.
According to CLSI (Clinical and laboratory Standard Institute) guidelines the reference method is the broth microdilution technique. This committee provides interpretive criteria for penicillin and erythromycin based on minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values following testing by this method, and for cephalosporin and linezolid the criteria are currently adapted from those from Streptoccocus and Enteroccocus, respectively, and remaining criteria are adapted from those from Staphyloccocus.
Although some laboratories use the disc diffusion method for susceptibility testing, the interpretative categories for zone diameters need to be established. The diffusion gradient tests (i.e. Etest) showed a good correlation of MICs with the broth microdilution method.
Conclusion and future perspectives
It is clear that due to the increasing number of immunocompromised patients and those with pre-existing pulmonary diseases, non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium species should be considered as an emerging cause of lower respiratory tract infection. A rapid and accurate laboratory detection, identification and assessment of these opportunistic microorganisms are critical for the correct diagnosis, taking into consideration that some of them are resistant to multiple antibiotics. Although more studies are need to enhance the understanding of the clinical significance of these microorganisms, clinicians should be aware of the potential pathogenic role of these species in the context of immunosuppression or chronic respiratory disease and they should not be always considered as mere colonizers.
References
1. Díez-Aguilar M, Ruiz-Garbajosa P, Fernández-Olmos A, Guisado P, Del Campo R, Quereda C, Cantón R, Meseguer MA. Non-diphtheriae Corynebacterium species: an emerging respiratory pathogen. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2012; doi: 10.1007/s10096-012-1805-5.
2. Nhan TX, Parienti JJ, Badiou G, Leclercq R, Cattoir V. Microbiological investigation and clinical significance of Corynebacterium spp. in respiratory specimens. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2012; 74(3): 236–241.
3. Otsuka Y, Ohkusu K, Kawamura Y, Baba S, Ezaki T, Kimura S. Emergence of multidrug-resistant Corynebacterium striatum as a nosocomial pathogen in long-term hospitalized patients with underlying diseases. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2006; 54(2): 109–114.
4. Renom F, Garau M, Rubí M, Ramis F, Galmés A, Soriano JB. Nosocomial outbreak of Corynebacterium striatum infection in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45(6): 2064–2067.
5. Souza MC, Santos LS, Gomes DL, Sabbadini PS, Santos CS, Camello TC, Asad LM, Rosa AC, Nagao PE, Hirata Júnior R, Guaraldi AL. Aggregative adherent strains of Corynebacterium pseudodiphtheriticum enter and survive within HEp-2 epithelial cells. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 2012;107(4): 486–93.
6. Funke G, von Graevenitz A, Clarridge JE 3rd, Bernard KA. Clinical microbiology of coryneform bacteria.Clin Microbiol Rev 1997; 10(1): 125–159.
7. Bernard K. The genus corynebacterium and other medically relevant coryneform-like bacteria. J Clin Microbiol. 2012; 50(10): 3152–3158.
8. Gomila M, Renom F, Gallegos Mdel C, Garau M, Guerrero D, Soriano JB, Lalucat J. Identification and diversity of multiresistant Corynebacterium striatum clinical isolates by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry and by a multigene sequencing approach. BMC Microbiol 2012;12: 52.
The authors
María Díez-Aguilar* MD; Rafael Cantón MD, PhD; and María Antonia Meseguer MD, PhD
Department of Clinical Microbiology, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
*Corresponding author
E-mail: maria_diez_aguilar@hotmail.com