Suppr超能文献

粪便标本中抗原和毒素的检测:快速检测全酶免疫测定法与GeneXpert聚合酶链反应测定法的比较

Detection of antigen and toxin in stool specimens: Comparison of the quik chek complete enzyme immunoassay and GeneXpert polymerase chain reaction assay.

作者信息

Senok Abiola C, Aldosari Kamel M, Alowaisheq Rayan A, Abid Othman A, Alsuhaibani Khalid A, Khan Mohammad A, Somily Ali M

机构信息

Department of Basic Science, College of Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Microbiology Laboratory, Prince Mohammed Bin Abdulaziz Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jul-Aug;23(4):259-262. doi: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_80_17.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Accurate and rapid laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) remains a significant challenge. A two-step algorithm for detection of toxigenic C. difficile in stool based on initial screening for glutamate dehydrogenase assay followed by confirmation by toxin A+B detection using an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or molecular assay has been proposed. We aimed to evaluate the C. difficile Quik Chek Complete® (QCC-EIA) versus the GeneXpert® C. difficile polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay in this two-step algorithm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred and ten liquid stool samples obtained between June 2014 and June 2015 from patients suspected of CDI were tested by the QCC-EIA and GeneXpert PCR assay. The GeneXpert assay was used as the reference standard to calculate the QCC-EIA sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

RESULTS

Of the 210 stool samples tested, 43 (20.5%) were positive by QCC-EIA, while 31 (14.8%) were positive by GeneXpert assay. The sensitivity and specificity of the QCC-EIA were found to be 100 and 93%, respectively; the PPV and NPV were 72 and 100%, respectively. The binary toxin was detected in 12 (38.7%) and tcdC gene deletion in 3 (9.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The low specificity of QCC-EIA makes it less reliable as a confirmatory test for CDI diagnosis. This test may be used as a screening test in a two-step algorithm when combined with a molecular assay or another confirmatory test.

摘要

背景/目的:艰难梭菌感染(CDI)的准确快速实验室诊断仍然是一项重大挑战。有人提出了一种两步算法,用于检测粪便中产毒素艰难梭菌,首先通过谷氨酸脱氢酶检测进行初步筛查,然后使用酶免疫测定(EIA)或分子检测方法检测毒素A+B进行确认。我们旨在评估在这种两步算法中,艰难梭菌快速检测完整试剂盒(QCC-EIA)与GeneXpert®艰难梭菌聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测方法的效果。

材料与方法

对2014年6月至2015年6月期间从疑似CDI患者处获得的210份液体粪便样本进行QCC-EIA和GeneXpert PCR检测。以GeneXpert检测作为参考标准,计算QCC-EIA的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)。

结果

在检测的210份粪便样本中,QCC-EIA检测出43份(20.5%)呈阳性,而GeneXpert检测出31份(14.8%)呈阳性。发现QCC-EIA的敏感性和特异性分别为100%和93%;PPV和NPV分别为72%和100%。检测到12份(38.7%)存在二元毒素,3份(9.6%)存在tcdC基因缺失。

结论

QCC-EIA的低特异性使其作为CDI诊断的确证试验可靠性较低。当与分子检测或其他确证试验联合使用时,该检测可作为两步算法中的筛查试验。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

5
infections in Saudi Arabia: Where are we standing?沙特阿拉伯的感染情况:我们目前处于什么状况?
Saudi Pharm J. 2020 Sep;28(9):1118-1121. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2020.07.013. Epub 2020 Aug 3.

本文引用的文献

4
Optimizing the Laboratory Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection.优化艰难梭菌感染的实验室诊断
Clin Lab Med. 2015 Jun;35(2):299-312. doi: 10.1016/j.cll.2015.02.003. Epub 2015 Mar 18.
7
Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections.艰难梭菌感染的诊断、治疗和预防指南。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Apr;108(4):478-98; quiz 499. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.4. Epub 2013 Feb 26.

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