Suppr超能文献

艰难梭菌感染的诊断指南。

Diagnostic Guidance for C. difficile Infections.

机构信息

Department of Medical Microbiology, Centre for Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.

ESCMID Study Group for C.difficile (ESGCD), Basel, Switzerland.

出版信息

Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1050:27-44. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-72799-8_3.

Abstract

Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) can be challenging. First of all, there has been debate on which of the two reference assays, cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) or toxigenic culture (TC) should be considered the gold standard for CDI detection. Although the CCNA suffers most from suboptimal storage conditions and subsequent toxin degradation, TC is reported to falsely increase CDI detection rates as it cannot differentiate CDI patients from patients asymptomatically colonised by toxigenic C. difficile. Several rapid assays are available for CDI detection and fall into three broad categories: (1) enzyme immunoassays for glutamate dehydrogenase, (2) enzyme immunoassays for toxins A/B and (3) nucleic acid amplification tests detecting toxin genes. All three categories have their own limitations, being suboptimal specificity and/or sensitivity or the inability to discern colonised patients from CDI patients. In light of these limitations, multi-step algorithmic testing has now been advocated by international guidelines in order to optimize diagnostic accuracy. Despite these recommendations, testing methods between hospitals vary widely, which impacts CDI incidence rates. CDI incidence rates are also influenced by sample selection criteria, as several studies have shown that if not all unformed stool samples are tested for CDI, many cases may be missed due to an absence of clinical suspicion. Since methods for diagnosing CDI remain imperfect, there has been a growing interest in alternative testing strategies like faecal biomarkers, immune modulating interleukins, cytokines and imaging methods. At the moment, these alternative methods might play an adjunctive role, but they are not suitable to replace conventional CDI testing strategies.

摘要

艰难梭菌感染 (CDI) 的诊断具有一定挑战性。首先,关于细胞细胞毒性中和检测 (CCNA) 和产毒培养 (TC) 这两种参考检测方法,哪一种应被视为 CDI 检测的金标准,一直存在争议。尽管 CCNA 最容易受到储存条件不佳和随后毒素降解的影响,但 TC 被报道会错误地增加 CDI 的检测率,因为它无法区分 CDI 患者和产毒艰难梭菌无症状定植患者。目前已有多种用于 CDI 检测的快速检测方法,可大致分为三类:(1)谷氨酸脱氢酶酶免疫测定法,(2)毒素 A/B 酶免疫测定法,(3)检测毒素基因的核酸扩增试验。所有这三种方法都有其自身的局限性,即特异性和/或灵敏度不佳,或无法区分定植患者和 CDI 患者。鉴于这些局限性,国际指南现在提倡采用多步骤算法检测,以优化诊断准确性。尽管有这些建议,但医院之间的检测方法差异很大,这会影响 CDI 的发病率。CDI 的发病率还受到样本选择标准的影响,因为多项研究表明,如果不是所有未成形的粪便样本都进行 CDI 检测,由于缺乏临床怀疑,许多病例可能会被遗漏。由于诊断 CDI 的方法仍然不完美,因此人们越来越关注替代检测策略,如粪便生物标志物、免疫调节白细胞介素、细胞因子和成像方法。目前,这些替代方法可能发挥辅助作用,但它们不适合替代传统的 CDI 检测策略。

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