Easy-to-Use Multiplexed
Fungal Pathogen Detection

Invasive Fungal Infection Panel

Current Problem

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) cause 1.5 million deaths annually worldwide[1]. There are 75,000 IFIs annually in the US, with an associated mortality between 20 – 50%[2,3,4]. IFIs can be effectively treated, the high mortality is due to delay in diagnosis, with current tests taking >2 days. Additionally, 50% of IFIs cannot be identified with current tests[5].

Properties of an ideal next-generation fungal diagnostics[6].

1) Short time to results

2) Non-tissue biopsy 

3) No specialized training 

4) Clear and definitive results for all possible fungal infections

Why Zepto can solve the problem

Zepto can solve the problem because GMR can detect single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and multiplex unlike current fluorescence methods.

Properties of Zepto’s Fungal Panel

1) Only 90 minutes to results because it replaces blood culture

2) Detects pathogens directly from plasma, removing the need for tissue biopsy

3) Fully automated, no specialized training

4) Clearly identifies fungal infections based on genus

Healthcare Benefit

Mortality reduces to 11% if diagnosed under 12 hours, saving thousands of lives annually[7,8].

Up to 50% reduction in hospital costs, for a potential savings of 2.25 billion annually[2,9].

Up to 30% reduction in length of hospital stays[9].

Reduction in antifungals, of which 80% are currently misused[10, 11].

Zepto’s Fungal Panel


  1. Bongomin F, Gago S, Oladele RO, Denning DW. Global and Multi-National Prevalence of Fungal Diseases-Estimate Precision. J fungi (Basel, Switzerland). 2017;3(4). doi:10.3390/jof3040057
  2. Benedict K, Jackson BR, Chiller T, Beer KD. Estimation of Direct Healthcare Costs of Fungal Diseases in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(11):1791-1797. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy776
  3. Horn DL, Neofytos D, Anaissie EJ, et al. Epidemiology and Outcomes of Candidemia in 2019 Patients: Data from the Prospective Antifungal Therapy Alliance Registry. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(12):1695-1703. doi:10.1086/599039
  4. Brown GD, Denning DW, Gow NAR, Levitz SM, Netea MG, White TC. Hidden killers: Human fungal infections. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(165). doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3004404
  5. Clancy CJ, Nguyen MH. Finding the “Missing 50%” of Invasive Candidiasis: How Nonculture Diagnostics Will Improve Understanding of Disease Spectrum and Transform Patient Care. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(9):1284-1292. doi:10.1093/cid/cit006
  6. Kozel TR, Wickes B. Fungal Diagnostics. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2014;4(4):a019299-a019299. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a019299
  7. Morrell M, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Delaying the Empiric Treatment of Candida Bloodstream Infection until Positive Blood Culture Results Are Obtained: a Potential Risk Factor for Hospital Mortality. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(9):3640-3645. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.9.3640-3645.2005
  8. Garey KW, Rege M, Pai MP, et al. Time to Initiation of Fluconazole Therapy Impacts Mortality in Patients with Candidemia: A Multi‐Institutional Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43(1):25-31. doi:10.1086/504810
  9. Arnold HM, Micek ST, Shorr AF, et al. Hospital Resource Utilization and Costs of Inappropriate Treatment of Candidemia. Pharmacotherapy. 2010;30(4):361-368. doi:10.1592/phco.30.4.361
  10. Pfaller MA, Wolk DM, Lowery TJ. T2MR and T2Candida: Novel technology for the rapid diagnosis of candidemia and invasive candidiasis. Future Microbiol. 2016;11(1):103-117. doi:10.2217/fmb.15.111
  11. Valerio M, Rodriguez-Gonzalez CG, Muñoz P, et al. Evaluation of antifungal use in a tertiary care institution: Antifungal stewardship urgently needed. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(7):1993-1999. doi:10.1093/jac/dku053

Invasive Fungal Infection Panel

How can we help you?

Send us a message.