首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Yield of Stool Culture with Isolate Toxin Testing versus a Two-Step Algorithm Including Stool Toxin Testing for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile
【2h】

Yield of Stool Culture with Isolate Toxin Testing versus a Two-Step Algorithm Including Stool Toxin Testing for Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile

机译:粪便培养的分离毒素测试与包含粪便毒素测试的两步算法(用于检测产毒性艰难梭菌)的产率

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

We examined the incremental yield of stool culture (with toxin testing on isolates) versus our two-step algorithm for optimal detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile. Per the two-step algorithm, stools were screened for C. difficile-associated glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen and, if positive, tested for toxin by a direct (stool) cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA). In parallel, stools were cultured for C. difficile and tested for toxin by both indirect (isolate) CCNA and conventional PCR if the direct CCNA was negative. The “gold standard” for toxigenic C. difficile was detection of C. difficile by the GDH screen or by culture and toxin production by direct or indirect CCNA. We tested 439 specimens from 439 patients. GDH screening detected all culture-positive specimens. The sensitivity of the two-step algorithm was 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 84%), and that of culture was 87% (95% CI, 80 to 92%). PCR results correlated completely with those of CCNA testing on isolates (29/29 positive and 32/32 negative, respectively). We conclude that GDH is an excellent screening test and that culture with isolate CCNA testing detects an additional 23% of toxigenic C. difficile missed by direct CCNA. Since culture is tedious and also detects nontoxigenic C. difficile, we conclude that culture is most useful (i) when the direct CCNA is negative but a high clinical suspicion of toxigenic C. difficile remains, (ii) in the evaluation of new diagnostic tests for toxigenic C. difficile (where the best reference standard is essential), and (iii) in epidemiologic studies (where the availability of an isolate allows for strain typing and antimicrobial susceptibility testing).
机译:我们检查了粪便培养物的增量产量(对分离物进行了毒素测试),对比了我们的两步法来优化检测产毒性艰难梭菌。按照两步法,对粪便进行艰难梭菌相关谷氨酸脱氢酶(GDH)抗原的筛查,如果阳性,则通过直接(粪便)细胞培养细胞毒性中和试验(CCNA)检测毒素。平行地,粪便培养艰难梭菌,如果直接CCNA阴性,则通过间接(分离)CCNA和常规PCR检测毒素。产毒性艰难梭菌的“黄金标准”是通过GDH筛查或通过直接或间接CCNA的培养和毒素产生来检测艰难梭菌。我们测试了439位患者的439个标本。 GDH筛选检测到所有培养阳性样本。两步算法的敏感度为77%(95%置信区间[CI],70至84%),而培养的敏感度为87%(95%CI,80至92%)。 PCR结果与分离株的CCNA检测结果完全相关(分别为29/29阳性和32/32阴性)。我们得出的结论是,GDH是一项出色的筛选测试,采用分离CCNA测试的培养可检测到直接CCNA遗漏的另外23%的艰难梭菌。由于培养是乏味的,并且还可以检测到非毒性的艰难梭菌,因此我们得出结论,培养是最有用的(i)当直接CCNA阴性但临床上高度怀疑有毒性的艰难梭菌时,(ii)在评估新的诊断测试时(iii)在流行病学研究中(其中分离物的可用性允许进行菌株分型和抗微生物药敏性测试)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号