Cristovam Elisabete, Almeida Dejanira, Caldeira Daniel, Ferreira Joaquim J, Marques Teresa
Laboratory of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Rua da Junqueira, 126, 1349-019 Lisbon, Portugal.
Laboratório de Farmacologia Clínica e Terapêutica, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1649-028 Lisbon, Portugal.
J Med Microbiol. 2017 Apr;66(4):485-489. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.000454.
Rapid and effective diagnosis of Legionnaires' disease (LD) cases is extremely important so that timely and appropriate therapy can be provided, thereby lowering the morbidity and mortality rates and reducing the health and economic costs associated with this disease.
Diagnosis is established solely by microbiological tests. There are several methods available, each with different performance, sensitivity and specificity characteristics, and further understanding is required. Our objective was to assess the accuracy of urinary antigen detection, direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) staining, serological testing and the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method versus culture analysis (the reference standard) in patients suspected of being infected with Legionella or patients with laboratory-confirmed LD. We performed a MEDLINE search in November 2014. Two authors independently assessed the trials and extracted data. Pooled analysis was performed through Meta-DiSc version 1.4.
The inclusion criteria were met by 11 studies. All the studies evaluated PCR and DFA tests to detect Legionella in clinical specimens, comparing them to culture techniques, and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for PCR were 83 % [95 % confidence interval (CI): 79-87 %] and 90 % (95 % CI: 88-92 %), respectively. DFA was evaluated in one study and the sensitivity and specificity of this test were 67 % (95 % CI: 30-93 %) and 100 % (95 % CI: 91-100 %), respectively. PCR had high sensitivity and specificity for early diagnosis of LD.
Culture analysis is deemed necessary for epidemiological studies, molecular strain typing and antibiotic sensibility evaluations; however, the performance of PCR in recent studies calls for additional, well-designed studies in order to achieve the best standard test, which will enable optimization of the Legionella infection diagnostic.
快速有效地诊断军团病(LD)病例极为重要,以便能提供及时且恰当的治疗,从而降低发病率和死亡率,并减少与此疾病相关的健康和经济成本。
诊断仅通过微生物学检测来确定。有多种方法可供使用,每种方法都有不同的性能、敏感性和特异性特征,需要进一步了解。我们的目的是评估尿抗原检测、直接荧光抗体(DFA)染色、血清学检测和聚合酶链反应(PCR)方法相对于培养分析(参考标准)在疑似感染军团菌的患者或实验室确诊的LD患者中的准确性。我们于2014年11月进行了MEDLINE检索。两位作者独立评估试验并提取数据。通过Meta-DiSc 1.4版进行汇总分析。
11项研究符合纳入标准。所有研究都评估了PCR和DFA检测在临床标本中检测军团菌的情况,并将其与培养技术进行比较,这些研究都纳入了荟萃分析。PCR的汇总敏感性和特异性分别为83%[95%置信区间(CI):79 - 87%]和90%(95%CI:88 - 92%)。在一项研究中评估了DFA,该检测的敏感性和特异性分别为67%(95%CI:30 - 93%)和100%(95%CI:91 - 100%)。PCR对LD的早期诊断具有高敏感性和特异性。
培养分析对于流行病学研究、分子菌株分型和抗生素敏感性评估而言被认为是必要的;然而,近期研究中PCR的表现需要更多精心设计的研究,以实现最佳标准检测,从而能够优化军团菌感染的诊断。