Suppr超能文献

临床实验室中采用多重检测算法检测艰难梭菌。

Clostridium difficile testing in the clinical laboratory by use of multiple testing algorithms.

机构信息

Southern California Permanente Medical Group, North Hollywood, California 91605, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Mar;48(3):889-93. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01801-09. Epub 2010 Jan 13.

Abstract

The incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has risen almost 3-fold in the United States over the past decade, emphasizing the need for rapid and accurate tests for CDI. The Cepheid Xpert C. difficile assay is an integrated, closed, nucleic acid amplification system that automates sample preparation and real-time PCR detection of the toxin B gene (tcdB). A total of 432 stool specimens from symptomatic patients were tested by a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) assay, a toxin A and B enzyme immunoassay (EIA), the Xpert C. difficile assay, and a cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCN). The results of these methods, used individually and in combination, were compared to those of toxigenic culture. Results for the Xpert C. difficile assay alone showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.4, 96.3, 84.0, and 98.8%, while the EIA alone gave corresponding values of 58.3, 94.7, 68.9, and 91.9%, respectively. An algorithm using the GDH assay and the EIA (plus the CCCN if the EIA was negative) showed corresponding values of 83.1, 96.7, 83.1, and 96.1%. The Xpert C. difficile assay was statistically superior to the EIA (P, <0.001 by Fisher's exact test) and to the GDH-EIA-CCCN algorithm (P, 0.0363). Combining the GDH and Xpert C. difficile assays lowered both the sensitivity and the NPV of the Xpert assay. The GDH-EIA-CCCN procedure required, on average, 2 days to complete testing on GDH-positive results, while testing by the Xpert C. difficile assay was completed, on average, in less than 1 h. Xpert C. difficile testing yielded the highest sensitivity and NPV, in the least amount of time, of the individual- and multiple-test algorithms evaluated in this study.

摘要

过去十年中,美国艰难梭菌感染(CDI)的发病率几乎增加了两倍,这强调了对 CDI 进行快速准确检测的必要性。Cepheid Xpert C. difficile 检测法是一种集成的、封闭的、核酸扩增系统,可自动进行样本制备和实时 PCR 检测毒素 B 基因(tcdB)。对 432 份来自有症状患者的粪便标本进行了谷氨酸脱氢酶(GDH)检测法、毒素 A 和 B 酶联免疫吸附试验(EIA)、Xpert C. difficile 检测法和细胞培养细胞毒性中和试验(CCCN)的检测。这些方法单独使用和联合使用的结果与产毒培养物的结果进行了比较。单独使用 Xpert C. difficile 检测法的结果显示,其敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值(NPV)分别为 94.4%、96.3%、84.0%和 98.8%,而单独使用 EIA 的结果分别为 58.3%、94.7%、68.9%和 91.9%。使用 GDH 检测法和 EIA 的算法(如果 EIA 为阴性,则加上 CCCN)的结果分别为 83.1%、96.7%、83.1%和 96.1%。Xpert C. difficile 检测法在统计学上优于 EIA(Fisher 确切检验 P<0.001)和 GDH-EIA-CCCN 算法(P=0.0363)。同时联合使用 GDH 和 Xpert C. difficile 检测法降低了 Xpert 检测法的敏感性和 NPV。GDH-EIA-CCCN 程序平均需要 2 天才能完成对 GDH 阳性结果的检测,而 Xpert C. difficile 检测法的检测平均不到 1 小时即可完成。在本研究中评估的单个和多个检测算法中,Xpert C. difficile 检测法在最短的时间内获得了最高的敏感性和 NPV。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

6
Clostridioides difficile Infection in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease.艰难梭菌感染与儿科炎症性肠病。
Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2023 Nov;25(11):316-322. doi: 10.1007/s11894-023-00890-9. Epub 2023 Aug 30.

本文引用的文献

2
Does my patient have Clostridium difficile infection?我的患者是否患有艰难梭菌感染?
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 4;151(3):176-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-3-200908040-00005.
9
Evaluation of repeat Clostridium difficile enzyme immunoassay testing.艰难梭菌酶免疫测定重复检测的评估
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Nov;46(11):3686-9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00931-08. Epub 2008 Sep 24.

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