Suppr超能文献

使用VIDASR艰难梭菌毒素A II检测法快速检测粪便中的艰难梭菌。

Rapid detection of Clostridium difficile in stool using the VIDASR C. difficile Toxin A II assay.

作者信息

Lipson S M, Tortora G, Tempone A, Fedorko D P, Spitzer E D

机构信息

Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Laboratories, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11234, USA.

出版信息

Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2003 Feb;45(2):117-21. doi: 10.1016/s0732-8893(02)00520-5.

Abstract

A rapid laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) is important in patient management and in the administration of appropriate therapeutic modalities. The VIDAS(R) C. difficile Toxin A II (CDA 2) assay (bioMerieux, Inc., Hazelwood, MO) was compared with the cell culture cytotoxicity assay (CCA) for the rapid detection of C. difficile in stool from patients in whom C. difficile infection was suspected. Thirty-eight consecutively collected CCA-positive stool specimens, and 33 CCA-negative stool specimens were tested by the CDA 2 assay. Where appropriate, discordant specimens were repeated and/or tested by isolation utilizing cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar (CCFA). Among 12 discordant stool specimens, 7 were VIDAS(R)-/cytotoxicity+, 2 were VIDAS(R) equivocal (E)/cytotoxicity+, 2 were VIDAS(R) E/cytotoxicity-, and 1 was VIDAS(R)+/cytotoxicity-. One VIDAS(R) E/cytotoxicity+ lacked sufficient stool to be repeated. From the single VIDAS(R)+/cytotoxicity- specimen, C. sordelli was isolated. Specimens that were equivocal by VIDAS(R), were omitted from incorporation into this study's test parameters. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for the CDA 2 assay were 80.6, 96.8, 96.7, and 81.1%, respectively. The specimens which yielded false negative VIDAS(R) results had low levels of toxin based on endpoint titrations using the cytotoxicity assay. Although the CDA 2 assay displayed a reduced sensitivity compared with the CCA, the automated assay is rapid (results promulgated within 2 h), with computer generated readings obviating visual interpretations. Recognition of the CDA 2 assay's limitations is important to addressing this test's clinical utility.

摘要

艰难梭菌相关性腹泻(CDAD)的快速实验室诊断对于患者管理和适当治疗方式的应用至关重要。将VIDAS®艰难梭菌毒素A II(CDA 2)检测法(生物梅里埃公司,密苏里州黑兹尔伍德)与细胞培养细胞毒性检测法(CCA)进行比较,以快速检测疑似艰难梭菌感染患者粪便中的艰难梭菌。对38份连续收集的CCA阳性粪便标本和33份CCA阴性粪便标本进行CDA 2检测。在适当情况下,对不一致的标本进行重复检测和/或使用环丝氨酸-头孢西丁-果糖琼脂(CCFA)进行分离检测。在12份不一致的粪便标本中,7份为VIDAS®阴性/细胞毒性阳性,2份为VIDAS®结果不确定(E)/细胞毒性阳性,2份为VIDAS® E/细胞毒性阴性,1份为VIDAS®阳性/细胞毒性阴性。1份VIDAS® E/细胞毒性阳性标本因粪便量不足无法重复检测。从1份VIDAS®阳性/细胞毒性阴性标本中分离出了索氏梭菌。VIDAS®结果不确定的标本未纳入本研究的检测参数。CDA 2检测法的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为80.6%、96.8%、96.7%和81.1%。基于细胞毒性检测的终点滴定,产生VIDAS®假阴性结果的标本毒素水平较低。尽管CDA 2检测法与CCA相比敏感性有所降低,但该自动化检测法速度快(2小时内出结果),计算机生成读数无需目视判读。认识到CDA 2检测法的局限性对于评估该检测法的临床实用性很重要。

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