Suppr超能文献

核酸扩增试验定量检测对艰难梭菌感染中毒素存在的预测价值。

Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Quantitation as Predictor of Toxin Presence in Clostridium difficile Infection.

机构信息

Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Feb 22;56(3). doi: 10.1128/JCM.01316-17. Print 2018 Mar.

Abstract

Multistep algorithmic testing in which a sensitive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) is followed by a specific toxin A and toxin B enzyme immunoassay (EIA) is among the most accurate methods for infection (CDI) diagnosis. The obvious shortcoming of this approach is that multiple tests must be performed to establish a CDI diagnosis, which may delay treatment. Therefore, we sought to determine whether a preliminary diagnosis could be made on the basis of the quantitative results of the first test in algorithmic testing, which provide a measure of organism burden. To do so, we retrospectively analyzed two large collections of samples ( = 2,669 and = 1,718) that were submitted to the laboratories of two Dutch hospitals for CDI testing. Both hospitals apply a two-step testing algorithm in which a NAAT is followed by a toxin A/B EIA. Of all samples, 208 and 113 samples, respectively, tested positive by NAAT. Among these NAAT-positive samples, significantly lower mean quantification cycle ( ) values were found for patients whose stool eventually tested positive for toxin, compared with patients who tested negative for toxin (mean values of 24.4 versus 30.4 and 26.8 versus 32.2; < 0.001 for both cohorts). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to investigate the ability of values to predict toxin status and yielded areas under the curve of 0.826 and 0.854. Using the optimal cutoff values, prediction of the eventual toxin A/B EIA results was accurate for 78.9% and 80.5% of samples, respectively. In conclusion, values can serve as predictors of toxin status but, due to the suboptimal correlation between the two tests, additional toxin testing is still needed.

摘要

多步骤算法检测中,先进行敏感核酸扩增检测(NAAT),然后进行特定的毒素 A 和毒素 B 酶免疫分析(EIA),这是诊断 感染(CDI)最准确的方法之一。这种方法的明显缺点是,为了确诊 CDI,必须进行多次检测,这可能会延误治疗。因此,我们试图确定是否可以根据算法检测中第一次检测的定量结果做出初步诊断,这些结果提供了一种衡量病原体负担的方法。为此,我们回顾性分析了来自两家荷兰医院的两个大型样本集(=2669 和=1718)(=2669 和=1718),这些样本均用于 CDI 检测。两家医院均采用两步检测算法,先进行 NAAT,然后进行毒素 A/B EIA。在所有样本中,分别有 208 和 113 个样本的 NAAT 检测呈阳性。在这些 NAAT 阳性样本中,粪便最终检测出毒素阳性的患者的平均定量循环()值明显低于毒素检测阴性的患者(均值分别为 24.4 和 30.4,26.8 和 32.2;两组均<0.001)。进行了受试者工作特征曲线分析,以研究 值预测毒素状态的能力,得到的曲线下面积分别为 0.826 和 0.854。使用最佳的 截断值,预测最终毒素 A/B EIA 结果的准确率分别为 78.9%和 80.5%的样本。总之,值可以作为毒素状态的预测因子,但由于两种检测方法的相关性不理想,仍需要进行额外的毒素检测。

相似文献

1
Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Quantitation as Predictor of Toxin Presence in Clostridium difficile Infection.
J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Feb 22;56(3). doi: 10.1128/JCM.01316-17. Print 2018 Mar.
3
Can a toxin gene NAAT be used to predict toxin EIA and the severity of infection?
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2017 Dec 19;6:127. doi: 10.1186/s13756-017-0283-z. eCollection 2017.
5
Evaluation of 4 molecular assays as part of a 2-step algorithm for the detection of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018 May;91(1):1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.12.018. Epub 2018 Jan 3.
8
Low sensitivity of fecal toxin A/B enzyme immunoassay for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection in immunocompromised patients.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 Nov;21(11):998.e9-998.e15. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.07.016. Epub 2015 Jul 29.
9
Repeat stool testing to diagnose Clostridium difficile infection using enzyme immunoassay does not increase diagnostic yield.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Aug;9(8):665-669.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.04.030. Epub 2011 May 13.

引用本文的文献

2
Diagnosis of infection and impact of testing.
J Med Microbiol. 2024 Dec;73(12). doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.001939.
3
Overview of current detection methods and microRNA potential in infection screening.
World J Gastroenterol. 2023 Jun 14;29(22):3385-3399. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i22.3385.
4
Rapid Quantification of Glutamate Dehydrogenase and Toxin B (TcdB) with a NanoBiT Split-Luciferase Assay.
Anal Chem. 2022 Jun 14;94(23):8156-8163. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c05206. Epub 2022 May 28.
6
South African Society of Clinical Microbiology infection diagnosis, management and infection prevention and control guideline.
S Afr J Infect Dis. 2020 Oct 28;35(1):219. doi: 10.4102/sajid.v35i1.219. eCollection 2020.
7
Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile diagnostic assay: an update meta-analysis.
Braz J Microbiol. 2021 Dec;52(4):1937-1949. doi: 10.1007/s42770-021-00563-7. Epub 2021 Aug 29.
8
Significance of a polymerase chain reaction method in the detection of Clostridioides difficile.
Rev Esp Quimioter. 2021 Apr;34(2):141-144. doi: 10.37201/req/010.2020. Epub 2021 Feb 19.
9
Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis of .
Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2020 Mar;33(2):73-81. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-3400476. Epub 2020 Feb 25.

本文引用的文献

1
Clostridium difficile PCR Cycle Threshold Predicts Free Toxin.
J Clin Microbiol. 2017 Sep;55(9):2651-2660. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00563-17. Epub 2017 Jun 14.
2
Detection of Clostridium difficile in Feces of Asymptomatic Patients Admitted to the Hospital.
J Clin Microbiol. 2017 Feb;55(2):403-411. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01858-16. Epub 2016 Nov 16.
5
European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 Aug;22 Suppl 4:S63-81. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2016.03.010. Epub 2016 Jul 25.
6
Reclassification of Clostridium difficile as Clostridioides difficile (Hall and O'Toole 1935) Prévot 1938.
Anaerobe. 2016 Aug;40:95-9. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.06.008. Epub 2016 Jun 28.
8
Clostridium difficile infection.
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016 Apr 7;2:16020. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2016.20.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验