Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Department of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Feb 22;56(3). doi: 10.1128/JCM.01316-17. Print 2018 Mar.
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.
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。