Suppr超能文献

对疑似COVID-19住院患者进行逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)与即时检测宿主反应的联合检测:一项前瞻性诊断准确性研究。

Combined RT-PCR and Host Response Point-of-Care Testing in Patients Hospitalised with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

作者信息

Brendish Nathan J, Tanner Alex R, Poole Stephen, Beard Kate R, Naidu Vasanth V, Mansbridge Christopher T, Norton Nicholas J, Wheeler Helen, Presland Laura, Clark Tristan W

机构信息

School of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Department of Infection, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.

出版信息

Infect Dis Ther. 2022 Jun;11(3):1267-1280. doi: 10.1007/s40121-022-00646-4. Epub 2022 May 9.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

RT-PCR has suboptimal sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. A composite reference standard comprising RT-PCR plus radiological and clinical features has been recommended for diagnostic accuracy studies. The FebriDx finger prick point-of-care test detects an antiviral host response protein (MxA) in 10 min. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx and RT-PCR compared to a composite reference standard.

METHODS

Adults presenting to hospital with suspected COVID-19 were tested by FebriDx and RT-PCR. A composite reference standard was used to classify patients as having COVID-19 based on RT-PCR positivity, or RT-PCR negativity with COVID-19 radiological findings or other clinical criteria. Measures of accuracy were calculated for MxA alone, RT-PCR alone, and both combined. This study is registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN14966673) and has completed.

RESULTS

A total of 478 patients were tested, with valid results in 475. Of these 475 patients, 222 (46.7%) were classified as having COVID-19; 192 (40.4%) were RT-PCR positive, and 30 (6.3%) were RT-PCR negative and diagnosed on radiological/clinical criteria. Sensitivity of FebriDx MxA vs the composite reference standard was 186/222 (83.8%, 95% CI 78.3-88.4) and was similar to the sensitivity of RT-PCR (192/222 (86.5%, 95% CI 81.3-90.7), (difference of 2.7%, 95% CI - 3.9 to 9.3, p = 0.42). The sensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR was 208/222 (93.7%) which was superior to both RT-PCR alone (difference of 9.9, 95% CI 4.1-15.9; p = 0.001) and FebriDx MxA alone (difference of 7.2, 95% CI 1.6-12.9; p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Sensitivity of combined FebriDx and RT-PCR testing was superior to each alone for the detection of COVID-19 in hospital and may improve infection control and treatment decisions.

摘要

引言

逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)在2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)诊断中的敏感性欠佳。对于诊断准确性研究,已推荐采用包含RT-PCR以及影像学和临床特征的综合参考标准。FebriDx指尖即时检测可在10分钟内检测到一种抗病毒宿主反应蛋白(Mx蛋白A)。我们将FebriDx和RT-PCR与综合参考标准进行比较,评估了它们的诊断准确性。

方法

对因疑似COVID-19到医院就诊的成人进行FebriDx和RT-PCR检测。采用综合参考标准,根据RT-PCR阳性,或RT-PCR阴性但有COVID-19影像学表现或其他临床标准,将患者分类为患有COVID-19。分别计算单独检测Mx蛋白A、单独检测RT-PCR以及两者联合检测的准确性指标。本研究已在国际标准随机对照试验编号注册库(ISRCTN,编号:ISRCTN14966673)注册并已完成。

结果

共检测了478例患者,475例结果有效。在这475例患者中,222例(46.7%)被分类为患有COVID-19;192例(40.4%)RT-PCR呈阳性,30例(6.3%)RT-PCR呈阴性但根据影像学/临床标准被诊断为COVID-19。FebriDx Mx蛋白A检测相对于综合参考标准的敏感性为186/222(83.8%,95%置信区间78.3 - 88.4),与RT-PCR的敏感性相似(192/222,86.5%,95%置信区间81.3 - 90.7),差异为2.7%(95%置信区间 - 3.9至9.3,p = 0.42)。FebriDx和RT-PCR联合检测的敏感性为208/222(93.7%),优于单独的RT-PCR检测(差异为9.9,95%置信区间4.1 - 15.9;p = 0.001)和单独的FebriDx Mx蛋白A检测(差异为7.2,95%置信区间1.6 - 12.9;p = 0.011)。

结论

在医院中,FebriDx和RT-PCR联合检测对COVID-19的检测敏感性优于单独检测,可能有助于改善感染控制和治疗决策。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f18a/9124277/b9b5765c8869/40121_2022_646_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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