The Comparison of Two Different Multiplex Respiratory PCR Panels and The Evaluation of the Viral and Bacterial Agents

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective: Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in children worldwide. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of two multiplex PCR (MT-PCR) panels, 7-pathogen and 24- pathogen, for detecting viral and bacterial pathogens in pediatric patients having upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) symptoms. Methods: The study was conducted between January and July 2024. A total of 61 pediatric patients aged 0-16 years and admitted to Kafkas University Health Research and Application Hospital were enrolled. Nasopharyngeal swab samples were collected and analyzed using MT-PCR panels. The 7- pathogen panel detected ADV, INF A/B, HRV, RSV A/B, SARS-CoV-2, and S. pyogenes, while the 24- pathogen panel included an extended range of pathogens, such as HCoV, HPIV, HBoV, S. pneumoniae, and H. influenzae. Comparative analyses focused on positivity rates, co-infections, and pathogen distribution. Results: Pathogens were detected in 96.7% of the samples using the 24-pathogen panel compared to 83.6% with the 7-pathogen panel. Viral pathogens dominated the infections, with RSV A/B (10.3%) being the most frequently detected pathogen in 24- pathogen panel and INF-B (27.1%) in 7-pathogen panel. The 24-pathogen panel identified more bacterial pathogens, notably S. pneumoniae (22.4%). Co-infections were significantly higher with the 24-pathogen panel (62.3%) compared to the 7-pathogen panel (18.3%). Conclusion: The 24-pathogen MT-PCR panel demonstrated superior diagnostic capabilities, highlighting the importance of comprehensive pathogen detection for accurate diagnosis and effective treatment of URTIs. This study underlines the necessity of using advanced molecular diagnostic tools to improve clinical outcomes and support public health strategies in managing respiratory tract infections among pediatric populations.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.