首页> 外文期刊>Clinical microbiology and infection: European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases >Evaluation of six commercial assays for the rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxin and/or antigen in stool specimens.
【24h】

Evaluation of six commercial assays for the rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxin and/or antigen in stool specimens.

机译:快速检测粪便标本中艰难梭菌毒素和/或抗原的六种商业检测方法的评估。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate six commercially available assays for the detection of Clostridium difficile toxin and/or antigen in stool samples: one latex agglutination test (Culturette brand CDT, Becton Dickinson), two ELISAs (Culturette brand Toxin CD, Becton Dickinson, and Ridascreen C. difficile Toxin A/B, R-biopharm), two chromatographic assays (Clearview C. difficile A, Oxoid, and ColorPac Toxin A, Becton Dickinson) and one enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of C. difficile common antigen and toxin A (Triage C. difficile Panel, Biosite). METHODS: Over a period of 3 months, 366 liquid or semi-liquid stool samples were tested using cell-culture cytotoxin assay as standard, ethanol shock stool culture and latex agglutination (Culturette brand CDT). Of these, 78 samples, positive with at least one of these three methods, and 98 randomly selected negative samples were further evaluated using the other five kits. PCR was also performed on positive cultures to confirm the presence of toxin A and B genes. RESULTS: Triage C. difficile Panel had the best sensitivity (95%), followed by Clearview C. difficile and ColorPac Toxin A (both 89%), Culturette brand Toxin CD (73%), Ridascreen C. difficile Toxin A/B (57%) and Culturette brand CDT (23%). For Triage, the sensitivity of C. difficile antigen detection was 93%, and the sensitivity of toxin detection was lower (77%). Most false-positive results were obtained with the Triage C. difficile Panel (25 specimens) and Clearview C. difficile A (20 specimens). Culturette brand CDT had the best specificity (99%); followed by Ridascreen C. difficile Toxin A/B (97%), Culturette brand Toxin CD (95%), ColorPac Toxin A (89%), Clearview C. difficile A (83%) and Triage C. difficile Panel (75%). The positive predictive values ranged from 68% to 94%, and the negative predictive values from 83% to 98%. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity is much higher for Triage and the two new chromatographic assays than for the conventional EIAs. These tests also have a high negative predictive value. For Triage, C. difficile antigen-positive, toxin A-negative results can be obtained; the clinical value of these must be established by additional studies. Overall, the new-generation assays are still less sensitive than the cytotoxin assay; however, they provided same-day results, could be used as a screening test and may be useful in laboratories without tissue-culture facilities. Our results do not allow the recommendation of one single assay for the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. It remains the case that laboratory results must be correlated and interpreted with the clinical presentation of the patient.
机译:目的:评估六种可用于检测粪便样品中艰难梭菌毒素和/或抗原的测定方法:一项乳胶凝集试验(Culturette品牌CDT,Becton Dickinson),两种ELISA(Culturette品牌Toxin CD,Becton Dickinson和Ridascreen C艰难梭菌毒素A / B,R-生物制药),两种色谱分析法(Clearview C. difficile A,Oxoid和ColorPac毒素A,Becton Dickinson)和一种酶联免疫法可同时检测艰难梭菌常见抗原和毒素A(艰难梭菌分类,Biosite)。方法:在3个月的时间里,以细胞培养细胞毒素测定为标准,乙醇休克粪便培养和乳胶凝集(Culturette品牌CDT)测试了366份液体或半液体粪便样品。其中,使用其他五种试剂盒进一步评估了这三种方法中至少一种为阳性的78个样品和随机选择的98个阴性样品。还对阳性培养物进行PCR,以确认毒素A和B基因的存在。结果:Triage C. difficile Panel的敏感性最高(95%),其次是Clearview C. difficile和ColorPac毒素A(均为89%),Culturette品牌的毒素CD(73%),Ridascreen C. difficile毒素A / B( 57%)和Culturette品牌的CDT(23%)。对于Triage,艰难梭菌抗原检测的灵敏度为93%,毒素检测的灵敏度较低(77%)。 Triage艰难梭菌小组(25个样本)和Clearview艰难梭菌A(20个样本)获得了大多数假阳性结果。文化品牌CDT具有最高的特异性(99%);紧随其后的是Ridascreen艰难梭菌毒素A / B(97%),Culturette品牌毒素CD(95%),ColorPac毒素A(89%),Clearview艰难梭菌A(83%)和Triage艰难梭菌板(75%) )。阳性预测值从68%到94%不等,阴性预测值从83%到98%不等。结论:Triage和两种新的色谱分析方法的灵敏度比常规EIA高得多。这些测试也具有很高的阴性预测值。对于Triage,艰难梭菌抗原阳性,毒素A阴性结果。这些的临床价值必须通过进一步的研究来确定。总的来说,新一代的检测方法仍然不如细胞毒素检测方法敏感。但是,他们提供了当天的结果,可以用作筛选测试,并且在没有组织培养设备的实验室中可能有用。我们的结果不允许推荐一种单一的测定方法来诊断艰难梭菌相关性腹泻。仍然存在这样的情况,即实验室结果必须与患者的临床表现相关并进行解释。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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