对 STANDARD M10 和 Xpert 艰难梭菌检测法进行比较评估,以检测粪便标本中的毒性艰难梭菌。

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Pub Date : 2024-07-16 Epub Date: 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1128/jcm.00524-24
Hyun-Woo Lee, Hui-Jin Yu, Heejung Kim, Sun Ae Yun, Eunsang Suh, Minhee Kang, Tae Yeul Kim, Hee Jae Huh, Nam Yong Lee
{"title":"对 STANDARD M10 和 Xpert 艰难梭菌检测法进行比较评估,以检测粪便标本中的毒性艰难梭菌。","authors":"Hyun-Woo Lee, Hui-Jin Yu, Heejung Kim, Sun Ae Yun, Eunsang Suh, Minhee Kang, Tae Yeul Kim, Hee Jae Huh, Nam Yong Lee","doi":"10.1128/jcm.00524-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study compared the performance of two commercial molecular assays, the STANDARD M10 <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> assay (M10) and the Xpert <i>C. difficile</i> assay (Xpert), for detecting toxigenic <i>C. difficile</i> in stool specimens. A total of 487 consecutive stool specimens submitted for routine <i>C. difficile</i> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15511,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":" ","pages":"e0052424"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11250526/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and Xpert <i>C</i>. <i>difficile</i> assays for detection of toxigenic <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> in stool specimens.\",\"authors\":\"Hyun-Woo Lee, Hui-Jin Yu, Heejung Kim, Sun Ae Yun, Eunsang Suh, Minhee Kang, Tae Yeul Kim, Hee Jae Huh, Nam Yong Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/jcm.00524-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study compared the performance of two commercial molecular assays, the STANDARD M10 <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> assay (M10) and the Xpert <i>C. difficile</i> assay (Xpert), for detecting toxigenic <i>C. difficile</i> in stool specimens. A total of 487 consecutive stool specimens submitted for routine <i>C. difficile</i> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e0052424\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11250526/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00524-24\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00524-24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究比较了 STANDARD M10 艰难梭菌测定法(M10)和 Xpert 艰难梭菌测定法(Xpert)这两种商业分子测定法在检测粪便标本中毒性艰难梭菌方面的性能。在 2023 年 6 月至 11 月期间,共纳入了 487 份连续送检的艰难梭菌常规粪便标本。在使用 C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE (QCC) 进行常规检测后,M10 和 Xpert 与毒性培养(参考标准)同时进行检测。此外,还对两步法进行了评估,第一步使用 QCC,第二步使用 M10 或 Xpert。M10 和 Xpert 的灵敏度和阴性预测值 (NPV) 均为 100%。M10 的特异性和阳性预测值(PPV;分别为 91.9% 和 64.2%)明显高于 Xpert(分别为 90.3% 和 59.8%)。两种两步算法的灵敏度和 NPV 分别为 98.4% 和 99.8%。使用 M10 的两步法的特异性和 PPV(分别为 95.2% 和 75.0%)略高于使用 Xpert 的两步法(分别为 94.8% 和 73.2%),但无统计学意义。接受者操作特征曲线分析评估了周期阈值(Ct)对检测游离毒素的预测能力,结果显示 M10 的曲线下面积为 0.825,Xpert 为 0.843。这表明在这两种检测方法中,Ct 值都可以作为检测游离毒素的预测因子。总之,无论是独立使用还是作为两步算法的一部分,M10 都被证明是一种有效的诊断工具,其性能可与 Xpert 相媲美。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 and Xpert C. difficile assays for detection of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile in stool specimens.

This study compared the performance of two commercial molecular assays, the STANDARD M10 Clostridioides difficile assay (M10) and the Xpert C. difficile assay (Xpert), for detecting toxigenic C. difficile in stool specimens. A total of 487 consecutive stool specimens submitted for routine C. difficile 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Journal of Clinical Microbiology 医学-微生物学
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
347
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Microbiology® disseminates the latest research concerning the laboratory diagnosis of human and animal infections, along with the laboratory's role in epidemiology and the management of infectious diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信