使用潜在类分析确定艰难梭菌毒素a和B的新诊断试验的性能。

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Pub Date : 2025-05-14 Epub Date: 2025-03-31 DOI:10.1128/jcm.01807-24
Jeremy Li, Nandini Dendukuri, Yves Longtin, Alice Banz, Charles Frenette, Philippe Gervais, Mark A Miller, Anne-Marie Bourgault, Noah L Dawang, Vivian G Loo
{"title":"使用潜在类分析确定艰难梭菌毒素a和B的新诊断试验的性能。","authors":"Jeremy Li, Nandini Dendukuri, Yves Longtin, Alice Banz, Charles Frenette, Philippe Gervais, Mark A Miller, Anne-Marie Bourgault, Noah L Dawang, Vivian G Loo","doi":"10.1128/jcm.01807-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The diagnosis of <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection (CDI) remains challenging. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) targeting the <i>C. difficile</i> (CD) toxin B gene suffer from suboptimal specificity for CDI due to CD asymptomatic colonization. Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) that detect the presence of CD toxins are more specific for CDI but suffer from low sensitivity. To address this challenge, assays detecting CD toxins were developed using single-molecule array (SIMOA) technology, which have much lower limits of toxin detection than conventional EIAs. In this study, stool specimens from 708 symptomatic patients were aliquoted for testing by cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA), toxigenic culture, NAAT, conventional CD toxin EIA, and SIMOA CD toxin EIAs. Using latent class analysis, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of each of these diagnostic tests for detecting, separately, the presence of CD bacterium, CD toxin gene, and CD toxin. We estimated that the prevalence of CDI in our cohort was 14% (95% credible interval [CI]: 0.11-0.17). While the specificity of NAAT for detecting the presence of CD toxin was 95% (95% CI: 0.94-0.97), its positive predictive value was poor due to the low prevalence of CDI. The specificity of the conventional CD toxin EIA for CDI was excellent, but the sensitivity was only 48% (95% CI: 0.41-0.55). In comparison, the sensitivities of the SIMOA toxins A and B EIAs were 76% (95% CI: 0.67-0.84) and 77% (95% CI: 0.67-0.84), respectively, while maintaining excellent specificity. We conclude that SIMOA CD toxin EIAs are significantly more sensitive than conventional CD toxin EIAs.</p><p><strong>Importance: </strong><i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection (CDI) is the most important infectious cause of hospital-associated diarrhea worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) targeting the <i>C. difficile</i> (CD) toxin B gene have suboptimal specificity due to the presence of CD asymptomatic colonization, while enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) that detect the toxin itself are much more specific but are limited by low sensitivity. New assays for detecting CD toxins were developed using single-molecule array (SIMOA) technology, which have much lower limits of toxin detection than conventional EIAs, potentially improving the sensitivity of these conventional EIAs while remaining highly specific. In this study, we use latent class analysis to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of different diagnostic tests for CD, including the novel SIMOA toxin assays, in detecting the different CD targets: the presence of CD bacterium, the presence of CD toxin gene, and the presence of CD toxin.</p>","PeriodicalId":15511,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":" ","pages":"e0180724"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12077097/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determination of the performance of a novel diagnostic test for <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> toxins A and B using latent class analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy Li, Nandini Dendukuri, Yves Longtin, Alice Banz, Charles Frenette, Philippe Gervais, Mark A Miller, Anne-Marie Bourgault, Noah L Dawang, Vivian G Loo\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/jcm.01807-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The diagnosis of <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection (CDI) remains challenging. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) targeting the <i>C. difficile</i> (CD) toxin B gene suffer from suboptimal specificity for CDI due to CD asymptomatic colonization. Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) that detect the presence of CD toxins are more specific for CDI but suffer from low sensitivity. To address this challenge, assays detecting CD toxins were developed using single-molecule array (SIMOA) technology, which have much lower limits of toxin detection than conventional EIAs. In this study, stool specimens from 708 symptomatic patients were aliquoted for testing by cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA), toxigenic culture, NAAT, conventional CD toxin EIA, and SIMOA CD toxin EIAs. Using latent class analysis, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of each of these diagnostic tests for detecting, separately, the presence of CD bacterium, CD toxin gene, and CD toxin. We estimated that the prevalence of CDI in our cohort was 14% (95% credible interval [CI]: 0.11-0.17). While the specificity of NAAT for detecting the presence of CD toxin was 95% (95% CI: 0.94-0.97), its positive predictive value was poor due to the low prevalence of CDI. The specificity of the conventional CD toxin EIA for CDI was excellent, but the sensitivity was only 48% (95% CI: 0.41-0.55). In comparison, the sensitivities of the SIMOA toxins A and B EIAs were 76% (95% CI: 0.67-0.84) and 77% (95% CI: 0.67-0.84), respectively, while maintaining excellent specificity. We conclude that SIMOA CD toxin EIAs are significantly more sensitive than conventional CD toxin EIAs.</p><p><strong>Importance: </strong><i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection (CDI) is the most important infectious cause of hospital-associated diarrhea worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) targeting the <i>C. difficile</i> (CD) toxin B gene have suboptimal specificity due to the presence of CD asymptomatic colonization, while enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) that detect the toxin itself are much more specific but are limited by low sensitivity. New assays for detecting CD toxins were developed using single-molecule array (SIMOA) technology, which have much lower limits of toxin detection than conventional EIAs, potentially improving the sensitivity of these conventional EIAs while remaining highly specific. In this study, we use latent class analysis to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of different diagnostic tests for CD, including the novel SIMOA toxin assays, in detecting the different CD targets: the presence of CD bacterium, the presence of CD toxin gene, and the presence of CD toxin.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e0180724\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12077097/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01807-24\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/31 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.01807-24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

艰难梭菌感染(CDI)的诊断仍然具有挑战性。针对艰难梭菌(CD)毒素B基因的核酸扩增试验(NAAT)由于CD无症状定植而对CDI的特异性不理想。检测CD毒素存在的酶免疫测定法(EIAs)对CDI更具特异性,但灵敏度较低。为了解决这一挑战,使用单分子阵列(SIMOA)技术开发了检测CD毒素的分析方法,该技术的毒素检测限比传统的eia低得多。本研究对708例有症状患者的粪便标本进行了细胞毒性中和试验(CCNA)、产毒培养、NAAT、常规CD毒素EIA和SIMOA CD毒素EIA的检测。使用潜在分类分析,我们计算了每种诊断测试分别检测乳糜泻细菌、乳糜泻毒素基因和乳糜泻毒素的敏感性和特异性。我们估计我们队列中CDI的患病率为14%(95%可信区间[CI]: 0.11-0.17)。虽然NAAT检测CD毒素的特异性为95% (95% CI: 0.94-0.97),但由于CDI的患病率较低,其阳性预测值较低。常规CD毒素EIA对CDI的特异性很好,但敏感性仅为48% (95% CI: 0.41-0.55)。相比之下,SIMOA毒素A和B eia的敏感性分别为76% (95% CI: 0.67-0.84)和77% (95% CI: 0.67-0.84),同时保持了良好的特异性。我们得出结论,SIMOA CD毒素环境影响因子明显比传统CD毒素环境影响因子更敏感。重要性:艰难梭菌感染(CDI)是世界范围内医院相关性腹泻最重要的感染原因,但其诊断仍然具有挑战性。由于存在CD无症状定植,针对艰难梭菌(CD)毒素B基因的核酸扩增试验(NAATs)具有次优特异性,而检测毒素本身的酶免疫测定(EIAs)具有更高的特异性,但受低灵敏度的限制。利用单分子阵列(SIMOA)技术开发了检测CD毒素的新方法,该方法的毒素检测限比传统的环评方法低得多,有可能提高这些传统环评方法的灵敏度,同时保持高度特异性。在这项研究中,我们使用潜在类分析来评估不同的乳糜泻诊断测试的敏感性和特异性,包括新型SIMOA毒素检测,检测不同的乳糜泻目标:是否存在乳糜泻细菌、是否存在乳糜泻毒素基因和是否存在乳糜泻毒素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Determination of the performance of a novel diagnostic test for Clostridioides difficile toxins A and B using latent class analysis.

The diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains challenging. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) targeting the C. difficile (CD) toxin B gene suffer from suboptimal specificity for CDI due to CD asymptomatic colonization. Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) that detect the presence of CD toxins are more specific for CDI but suffer from low sensitivity. To address this challenge, assays detecting CD toxins were developed using single-molecule array (SIMOA) technology, which have much lower limits of toxin detection than conventional EIAs. In this study, stool specimens from 708 symptomatic patients were aliquoted for testing by cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA), toxigenic culture, NAAT, conventional CD toxin EIA, and SIMOA CD toxin EIAs. Using latent class analysis, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of each of these diagnostic tests for detecting, separately, the presence of CD bacterium, CD toxin gene, and CD toxin. We estimated that the prevalence of CDI in our cohort was 14% (95% credible interval [CI]: 0.11-0.17). While the specificity of NAAT for detecting the presence of CD toxin was 95% (95% CI: 0.94-0.97), its positive predictive value was poor due to the low prevalence of CDI. The specificity of the conventional CD toxin EIA for CDI was excellent, but the sensitivity was only 48% (95% CI: 0.41-0.55). In comparison, the sensitivities of the SIMOA toxins A and B EIAs were 76% (95% CI: 0.67-0.84) and 77% (95% CI: 0.67-0.84), respectively, while maintaining excellent specificity. We conclude that SIMOA CD toxin EIAs are significantly more sensitive than conventional CD toxin EIAs.

Importance: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is the most important infectious cause of hospital-associated diarrhea worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) targeting the C. difficile (CD) toxin B gene have suboptimal specificity due to the presence of CD asymptomatic colonization, while enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) that detect the toxin itself are much more specific but are limited by low sensitivity. New assays for detecting CD toxins were developed using single-molecule array (SIMOA) technology, which have much lower limits of toxin detection than conventional EIAs, potentially improving the sensitivity of these conventional EIAs while remaining highly specific. In this study, we use latent class analysis to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of different diagnostic tests for CD, including the novel SIMOA toxin assays, in detecting the different CD targets: the presence of CD bacterium, the presence of CD toxin gene, and the presence of CD toxin.

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