Suppr超能文献

两种不同的痰液汇集方法对 GeneXpert MTB/RIF 检测结核分枝杆菌的影响。

Effect of two alternative methods of pooling sputum prior to testing for tuberculosis with genexpert MTB/RIF.

机构信息

Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, 298 Kim Ma street, Ba Dinh district, Ha Noi, Vietnam.

Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

出版信息

BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Apr 27;19(1):347. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-3778-9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Pooling sputum specimens is one potential strategy for reducing the cost of using Xpert MTB/RIF, a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based test, for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. We sought to compare the sensitivity of two alternative method of pooling.

METHODS

Patients referred for assessment for TB, whose initial sputum was Xpert MTB positive, were recruited and their sputum specimens were pooled for analysis with sputum specimens that were Xpert MTB negative. Two alternative pooling strategies were employed: one in which the concentration of sample reagent (buffer) was maintained at 2:1 (standard), in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, and another in which the concentration of sample reagent was reduced to 1:1.

RESULTS

We tested 101 Xpert MTB positive sputum specimens. Among these, 96% of valid test results (95% confidence interval (CI) 89-99%) were positive using the "standard buffer method". Using the "reduced buffer pooling" method 94% of valid test results (95% CI 87-98%) were positive. McNemar's test for the difference in paired proportions did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.56).

CONCLUSION

We have confirmed that pooling of two sputum specimens for testing in a single cartridge is a valid method of reducing the number of cartridges required when using Xpert MTB to detect pulmonary tuberculosis. Two alternative pooling strategies tested here yielded similar results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present study was conducted within the Active Casefinding in Tuberculosis (ACT3) Trial. The ACT3 Trial had been registered with Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register on 8th April, 2014. The trial registration number is ACTRN12614000372684 . (Retrospectively registered).

摘要

背景

将痰标本混合是降低使用 Xpert MTB/RIF(一种基于快速聚合酶链反应的检测方法)检测肺结核成本的一种潜在策略。我们试图比较两种替代混合方法的敏感性。

方法

招募了因疑似结核病而接受评估的患者,其初始痰标本 Xpert MTB 阳性,将其痰标本与 Xpert MTB 阴性的痰标本混合进行分析。采用了两种替代的混合策略:一种是按照制造商的说明,保持样本试剂(缓冲液)的浓度为 2:1(标准),另一种是将样本试剂的浓度降低至 1:1。

结果

我们测试了 101 份 Xpert MTB 阳性的痰标本。在这些标本中,使用“标准缓冲液方法”,96%(95%置信区间 89-99%)的有效检测结果为阳性。使用“减少缓冲液混合”方法,94%(95%置信区间 87-98%)的有效检测结果为阳性。配对比例差异的 McNemar 检验未达到统计学意义(P=0.56)。

结论

我们已经证实,将两个痰标本混合在一个试剂盒中进行检测是一种有效的方法,可以减少使用 Xpert MTB 检测肺结核时所需的试剂盒数量。这里测试的两种替代混合策略产生了相似的结果。

试验注册

本研究是在活动性结核病病例发现(ACT3)试验中进行的。ACT3 试验于 2014 年 4 月 8 日在澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册中心注册。试验注册编号为 ACTRN12614000372684(回顾性注册)。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

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