Suppr超能文献

Xpert MTB/RIF检测法与实时荧光定量PCR检测结核分枝杆菌的比较

Comparison of the Xpert MTB/RIF Assay and Real-time PCR for the Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

作者信息

Kim Min Jin, Nam You Sun, Cho Sun Young, Park Tae Sung, Lee Hee Joo

机构信息

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea Seegene Medical Foundation, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Department of Biomedical Science, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2015 Spring;45(3):327-32.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

We compared the Xpert MTB/RIF assay with a real-time PCR assay using samples from culture-positive patients with TB. In addition, drug susceptibility test results were compared to evaluate the usefulness of these methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-two clinical specimens were analyzed by standard smear-microscopy, mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT) culture, solid culture, MGIT drug-susceptibility testing, TB real-time PCR, and the Xpert MTB/RIF assay.

RESULTS

Diagnostic sensitivity of AdvanSure TB/NTM real-time PCR was 80.0%. As shown from smear positive and negative specimens, sensitivities were 87.5% and 75.9%, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF assay was 75.5%, and from smear positive and negative specimens, sensitivities were 93.8% and 65.5%, respectively. There were 10 cases with discrepant results between two methods. 2 cases were found resistant to rifampin, although Xpert MTB/RIF assay was able to detect rifampin resistance in only one specimen.

DISCUSSION

Xpert MTB/RIF assay is an easier method to conduct and while its ability to detect rifampin resistance simultaneously is a benefit, its sensitivity from smear negative-culture positive specimens was lower than Advansure TB/NTM real-time PCR. Further investigation to increase the sensitivity and detect other drug resistances by kit-based assays is required for the rapid and accurate diagnosis of tuberculosis.

摘要

引言

我们使用来自结核培养阳性患者的样本,将Xpert MTB/RIF检测法与实时PCR检测法进行了比较。此外,还比较了药敏试验结果,以评估这些方法的实用性。

材料与方法

通过标准涂片显微镜检查、分枝杆菌生长指示管(MGIT)培养、固体培养、MGIT药敏试验、结核实时PCR以及Xpert MTB/RIF检测法对52份临床标本进行了分析。

结果

AdvanSure TB/NTM实时PCR的诊断敏感性为80.0%。从涂片阳性和阴性标本来看,敏感性分别为87.5%和75.9%。Xpert MTB/RIF检测法的诊断敏感性为75.5%,从涂片阳性和阴性标本来看,敏感性分别为93.8%和65.5%。两种方法之间有10例结果不一致的情况。有2例对利福平耐药,尽管Xpert MTB/RIF检测法仅在一份标本中检测出利福平耐药。

讨论

Xpert MTB/RIF检测法操作更简便,虽然其能够同时检测利福平耐药性是一个优点,但其对涂片阴性培养阳性标本的敏感性低于AdvanSure TB/NTM实时PCR。为了快速准确地诊断结核病,需要进一步研究以提高敏感性,并通过基于试剂盒的检测方法检测其他耐药性。

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