Suppr超能文献

秘鲁无创性细胞刷 PCR 检测用于美国皮肤利什曼病的诊断和致病种鉴定。

Non-invasive cytology brush PCR for the diagnosis and causative species identification of American cutaneous leishmaniasis in Peru.

机构信息

Instituto de Medicina Tropical Alexander von Humboldt, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (UPCH), Lima, Peru.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049738. Epub 2012 Nov 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Traditional methods of detecting Leishmania from cutaneous lesions involve invasive diagnostic procedures, such as scrapings, which cause discomfort, require technical expertise, and carry risks of invasive procedures. We compared the performance of 2 novel, molecular-based non-invasive methods for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL).

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting to the Leishmania Clinic at the Hospital Nacional Cayetano Heredia were enrolled. PCR was performed on filter paper lesion impressions (FPLIs), cytology brushes, and lancets for detection of Leishmania DNA. Smears from lesion scrapings and leishmanin skin test were also performed. Outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity. Composite reference standard was any 2 of 5 tests positive. Species identification was performed by PCR assays of positive specimens.

RESULTS

Ninety patients with 129 lesions were enrolled, 117 of which fulfilled reference criteria for a diagnosis of CL. Of these 117 lesions, 113 were positive by PCR of lancets used for lesion scrapings versus 116 by PCR of FPLIs (p=0.930) or 116 by PCR of cytology brushes (p=0.930). Sensitivity and specificity of PCR on lancets were 96.6% [95% CI 93.3-99.9%] and 100%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of FPLI PCR were 99.1% [95% CI 97.4-100%] and 100%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of cytology brush PCR were 99.1% [95% CI 97.4-100%] and 100%, respectively. Giemsa-stained lesion smear and leishmanin skin test had inferior sensitivities at 47.9% [95% CI 38.9-57.0%] and 82.3% [95% CI 73.9-90.7%], respectively, compared to PCR of invasive or non-invasive specimens (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cytology brush PCR constitutes a sensitive and specific alternative to traditional diagnostic assays performed on invasive specimens such as lesion scrapings. It performs comparatively to non-invasive FPLI PCR. This novel, rapid, and well-tolerated method has the potential for widespread use in the field and in pediatric populations where traditional specimen collection is difficult.

摘要

背景

传统的检测皮肤病变中利什曼原虫的方法包括刮取等有创性诊断程序,这些方法会引起不适,需要技术专业知识,并且存在有创性程序的风险。我们比较了两种新型的、基于分子的非侵入性方法在诊断皮肤利什曼病(CL)方面的性能。

方法

连续入组到国家 C 医院利什曼病诊所就诊的患者。对滤纸病变印痕(FPLI)、细胞学刷和柳叶刀上的样本进行 PCR 检测,以检测利什曼原虫 DNA。也对病变刮取物和利什曼菌素皮肤试验的涂片进行了检测。主要观察指标为敏感性和特异性。复合参考标准是任意两种 5 种检测方法中的 2 种阳性。通过对阳性标本进行 PCR 检测来进行种属鉴定。

结果

90 名患者共 129 处病变入组,其中 117 处病变符合 CL 的参考诊断标准。在这 117 处病变中,113 处用柳叶刀刮取病变处的样本进行 PCR 检测为阳性,而 116 处用 FPLI-PCR 检测为阳性(p=0.930),或 116 处用细胞学刷-PCR 检测为阳性(p=0.930)。柳叶刀 PCR 的敏感性和特异性分别为 96.6%(95%CI 93.3%-99.9%)和 100%。FPLI-PCR 的敏感性和特异性分别为 99.1%(95%CI 97.4%-100%)和 100%。细胞学刷 PCR 的敏感性和特异性分别为 99.1%(95%CI 97.4%-100%)和 100%。吉氏染色病变涂片和利什曼菌素皮肤试验的敏感性分别为 47.9%(95%CI 38.9%-57.0%)和 82.3%(95%CI 73.9%-90.7%),与侵袭性或非侵袭性标本的 PCR 检测相比,敏感性均显著降低(p<0.001)。

结论

细胞学刷 PCR 是一种敏感和特异的替代传统诊断方法,适用于病变刮取等侵袭性标本。它与非侵袭性的 FPLI-PCR 相比具有可比性。这种新型的、快速的、耐受性良好的方法具有广泛应用于现场和儿科人群的潜力,在这些人群中传统的标本采集较为困难。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8aa8/3504088/4371d72c1669/pone.0049738.g001.jpg

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