Chalmers Rachel M, Atchison Christina, Barlow Katrina, Young Yvonne, Roche Anita, Manuel Rohini
National Cryptosporidium Reference Unit, Public Health Wales Microbiology, Singleton Hospital, Swansea SA2 8QA, UK.
South West London Health Protection Team, Public Health England, London SE1 6LH, UK.
J Med Microbiol. 2015 Jul;64(7):688-693. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.000089. Epub 2015 May 14.
To assess the level of practice consistent with UK national standards for Cryptosporidium testing, an audit was performed of 156 publicly funded clinical microbiology laboratories in England and Wales between August 2013 and April 2014. Responses were received from 85 (54 %) laboratories. First line diagnostic methods used were mainly microscopy with modified Ziehl-Neelsen (mZN) or auramine phenol (AP) staining (68/85, 80 %), enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (16/85, 19 %) or in-house PCR (1/85, 1 %). The use of EIAs was more widespread than reported previously. Various methods were used for confirmation of positive EIA reactions and laboratories frequently resorted to sending samples to the national reference laboratory for this purpose, indicating that guidance is required for performance monitoring and confirmation of positive reactions. Laboratory positivity rates were related to the diagnostic test used, with highest median rates reported by those using PCR, EIAs or AP microscopy, and the lowest by those using mZN microscopy. One-third of responding laboratories (28/85, 33 %) routinely tested all stools for Cryptosporidium. However, 16 (19 %) laboratories used stool consistency to decide whether to test for this parasite. Other selection criteria included patient age (n = 18; 21 % laboratories), history or clinical details (n = 40; 47 %), duration of hospitalization (n = 18; 21 %) or clinician requests (n = 25; 29 %). To encourage laboratories to test all stools submitted for the investigation of diarrhoeal illness for Cryptosporidium, revision of the guidance in the national standards is under way. This will enable improved assessment of the burden of illness and ability to monitor outbreaks, and measure changes in reported cases.
为评估与英国隐孢子虫检测国家标准相符的实践水平,于2013年8月至2014年4月间对英格兰和威尔士的156家公共资助的临床微生物学实验室进行了一次审核。收到了85家(54%)实验室的回复。所使用的一线诊断方法主要是改良齐-尼氏(mZN)或金胺酚(AP)染色的显微镜检查(68/85,80%)、酶免疫测定(EIA)(16/85,19%)或内部聚合酶链反应(PCR)(1/85,1%)。EIA的使用比之前报道的更为广泛。采用了多种方法来确认EIA阳性反应,并且实验室经常为此将样本送至国家参考实验室,这表明在性能监测和阳性反应确认方面需要指导。实验室阳性率与所使用的诊断测试相关,使用PCR、EIA或AP显微镜检查的实验室报告的中位数率最高,而使用mZN显微镜检查的实验室报告的中位数率最低。三分之一的回复实验室(28/85,33%)常规检测所有粪便中的隐孢子虫。然而,16家(19%)实验室根据粪便的稠度来决定是否检测这种寄生虫。其他选择标准包括患者年龄(n = 18;21%的实验室)、病史或临床细节(n = 40;47%)、住院时间(n = 18;21%)或临床医生的要求(n = 25;29%)。为鼓励实验室对提交用于腹泻病调查的所有粪便进行隐孢子虫检测,国家标准中的指南正在修订。这将有助于更好地评估疾病负担以及监测疫情的能力,并衡量报告病例的变化。