Table 5.
Studies that evaluated the usefulness of the Unyvero pneumonia cartridge for patients suspected of having lower respiratory tract infections
| Author, year [ref] | Study design | Population | Test | Specimen type | N specimens/N patients | Pathogen identification | Concordant resistance identification | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concordance* | Se/Sp | |||||||
| Schulte, 2014 [8] | Prospective observational, fresh samples | Adults with suspected HAP/VAP | Unyvero P50 | BALF, ETA, sputum | 739/NR | NR | 70.6%/95.2% | – |
| Jamal, 2014 [6] | Prospective observational, fresh samples | Children and adults with suspected HAP/VAP | Unyvero P50 | BALF, ETA, sputum | 49/49 | 23/49 (47%) | NR | NR |
| Kunze, 2015 [7] | Prospective observational, fresh samples | Adults with suspected HAP | Unyvero P50 | ETA, NPTA | 40/40 | 18/40 (45%) | 75%/43% | – |
| Personne, 2016 [9] | Prospective observational, fresh samples | Adults with suspected pneumonia | Unyvero P50 | NR | 90/NR | 59/90 (66%) | 95.7%/32.6% | 75.6% |
| Papan, 2018 [10] | Prospective observational, fresh samples | Children and neonates with suspected pneumonia | Unyvero P50 | BALF, ETA, pleural fluid | 79/79 | 48/80 (60%) | 73.1%/97.8% | 75% |
| Gadsby, 2019 [11] | Prospective observational, frozen samples | Adults with suspected VAP, CAP or HAP | Unyvero P55 | BALF | 74/74 | 57/99 (57.5%) | 56.9%/58.5% | 121/166 (72.9%) |
| This study | Prospective observational, fresh samples | Adults with suspected VAP and bacteria in BALF | Unyvero P55 and HPN | BALF | 93/83 | 71% | 77.4%/17.3% | 62/93 (67%) |
Se/Sp sensitivity/specificity, BALF bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, ETA endotracheal aspirate, NPTA nasopharyngeal tracheal aspirate, NR not reported, HAP hospital-acquired pneumonia, VAP ventilator-associated pneumonia, CAP community-acquired pneumonia, HPN hospitalised pneumonia
*Both concordant positive (correct pathogen identification by both methods) and concordant negative (no pathogen identification by both methods)