Department of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
J Clin Microbiol. 2024 Jul 16;62(7):e0052424. doi: 10.1128/jcm.00524-24. Epub 2024 Jun 27.
This study compared the performance of two commercial molecular assays, the STANDARD M10 assay (M10) and the Xpert assay (Xpert), for detecting toxigenic in stool specimens. A total of 487 consecutive stool specimens submitted for routine testing between June and November 2023 were included. Following routine testing using C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC), M10 and Xpert were tested in parallel, alongside toxigenic culture (reference standard). Additionally, two-step algorithms, using QCC on the first step and either M10 or Xpert on the second step, were assessed. Both M10 and Xpert demonstrated a sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. M10 exhibited significantly higher specificity and positive predictive value (PPV; 91.9% and 64.2%, respectively) than Xpert (90.3% and 59.8%, respectively). Both two-step algorithms showed a sensitivity and NPV of 98.4% and 99.8%, respectively. The specificity and PPV of the two-step algorithm using M10 (95.2% and 75.0%, respectively) were slightly higher than those of the one using Xpert (94.8% and 73.2%, respectively), without statistical significance. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, assessing the predictive ability of cycle threshold (Ct) values for the detection of free toxin, exhibited an area under the curve of 0.825 for M10 and 0.843 for Xpert. This indicates the utility of Ct values as predictors for the detection of free toxin in both assays. In conclusion, M10 proves to be an effective diagnostic tool with performance comparable to Xpert, whether utilized independently or as part of a two-step algorithm.
这项研究比较了两种商业分子检测方法,即 STANDARD M10 检测(M10)和 Xpert 检测(Xpert),用于检测粪便标本中的产毒。共纳入 2023 年 6 月至 11 月期间连续提交的 487 份常规检测粪便标本。在使用 C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC) 进行常规检测后,M10 和 Xpert 平行进行检测,同时进行产毒培养(参考标准)。此外,还评估了两步算法,即第一步使用 QCC,第二步使用 M10 或 Xpert。M10 和 Xpert 的敏感性和阴性预测值(NPV)均为 100%。M10 的特异性和阳性预测值(PPV)显著高于 Xpert(分别为 91.9%和 64.2%,90.3%和 59.8%)。两种两步算法的敏感性和 NPV 分别为 98.4%和 99.8%。使用 M10 的两步算法的特异性和 PPV(分别为 95.2%和 75.0%)略高于使用 Xpert 的两步算法(分别为 94.8%和 73.2%),但无统计学意义。评估循环阈值(Ct)值对游离毒素检测的预测能力的受试者工作特征曲线分析显示,M10 的曲线下面积为 0.825,Xpert 的曲线下面积为 0.843。这表明 Ct 值可作为两种检测方法中游离毒素检测的预测因子。总之,M10 是一种有效的诊断工具,性能与 Xpert 相当,无论是单独使用还是作为两步算法的一部分。