Effects of clinically achievable pulmonary antibiotic concentrations on the recovery of bacteria: comparison of the BioFire FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel versus conventional culture methods in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid.

Empiric antibiotics may affect bacterial pathogen recovery using conventional culture methods (CCMs), while PCR-based diagnostics are likely less affected. Herein, we conducted an study of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) inoculated with bacteria and clinically relevant antibiotic concentrations to compare the recovery between the BioFire FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel (Pn Panel) and CCMs. Remnant clinical BAL specimens were inoculated to ~10 cfu/mL using 12 clinical isolates. Isolates consisted of one wild-type (WT) and one or more resistant strains of: , , , , and . Piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, meropenem, levofloxacin, or vancomycin was added to achieve pulmonary epithelial lining fluid peak and trough concentrations. Post-exposure cfu/mL was quantified by CCMs and simultaneously tested by the PN Panel for identification and semi-quantitative genetic copies/mL. CCM results were categorized as significant growth (SG) (≥1 × 10), no significant growth (NSG) (≥1 × 10, <1 × 10), or no growth (NG) (<1 × 10). The PN Panel accurately identified all isolates, resistance genes, and reported ≥10 genetic copies/mL regardless of antibiotic exposure. The CCM also identified all strains exposed to vancomycin. For WT Gram-negative isolates exposed to antibiotics, SG, NSG, and NG were observed in 7/52 (13%), 18/52 (35%), and 27/52 (52%) of CCM experiments, respectively. For resistant Gram-negatives isolates, SG, NSG, and NG were observed in 62/88 (70%), 17/88 (19%), and 9/88 (10%), respectively. These data demonstrate that the PN Panel is able to identify Gram-negative pathogens in the presence of clinically significant antibiotic concentrations when CCM may not.