Is the T2MR Candida Panel a suitable alternative to the SeptiFast for the rapid diagnosis of candidemia in routine clinical practice?

Abstract

ObjectivesThe diagnosis of invasive Candida infection remains challenging because of tests with slow turnaround times or mediocre performance. T2magnetic resonance imaging is a new diagnostic tool. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the T2Candida panel (T2) in comparison with blood culture (BC) and the SeptiFast (SF) for the detection of five different Candida species among high-risk intensive care unit patients with suspected candidemia. MethodsWe analysed blood samples collected from patients with suspected candidemia (177 samples from 138 patients) from August 2018 to April 2020. Blood samples were collected and analysed concurrently by BC, SF, and T2Candida. Subsequently, based on clinical and microbiological findings, patient samples were assigned to specific risk categories (proven, probable, and no candidemia). ResultsTwenty-two samples from 17 patients were classified as proven candidemia, and 15 samples from 14 patients were classified as probable candidemia. A sensitivity of 68.2% (95% CI, 45–86%) was observed for the BC and the SF, and a sensitivity of 63.6% (95% CI, 41–83%) was observed for the T2 when only cases with proven candidemia were evaluated. For proven and probable candidemia, the sensitivity was 40.5% (95% CI, 23–58%) for BC, 81.1% (95% CI, 65–92%) for SF, and 73.0% (95% CI, 56–86%) for T2. DiscussionThe diagnostic performance of SF and T2 was similar. For samples with proven/probable candidemia, SF and T2 had a higher sensitivity compared to BC. Used in conjunction with other diagnostic methods, T2 can replace the no longer available SF for the diagnosis of candidemia, enabling the timely initiation of targeted antifungal therapy.