Sarishna Singh, Mae Newton-Foot, Pieter Nel, Colette Pienaar
{"title":"南非艰难梭菌商业检测方法与两步法的比较。","authors":"Sarishna Singh, Mae Newton-Foot, Pieter Nel, Colette Pienaar","doi":"10.4102/ajlm.v11i1.1809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong><i>Clostridioides difficile</i> is the number one cause of hospital-acquired diarrhoea. Accurate diagnosis of <i>C. difficile</i> is of utmost importance as it guides patient management and infection control practices. Studies evaluating the performance of commercially available nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) versus algorithms are lacking in resource-limited settings.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study assessed the performance of three commercially available tests and a two-step approach for the diagnosis of <i>C. difficile</i> infection using toxigenic culture (TC) as the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hundred and twenty-three non-duplicate loose stool samples were submitted to the National Health Laboratory Service Microbiology Laboratory at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, from October 2017 to October 2018. The samples were tested in parallel using the <i>C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE</i> enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and two NAATs (Xpert <i>C. difficile</i> and BD MAX Cdiff), and the results were compared to TC. The performance of a two-step approach consisting of the <i>C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE</i> followed by the Xpert <i>C. difficile</i> was also determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 223 faecal specimens tested, 37 (16.6%) were TC-positive. The sensitivity and specificity of the <i>C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE</i> were 54.1% and 98.9%; Xpert <i>C. difficile</i>, 86.4% and 96.8%; BD MAX Cdiff, 89.2% and 96.8%; and two-step approach, 89.2% and 96.2%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The <i>C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE</i>, in a two-step approach with the Xpert <i>C. difficile</i>, performed similarly to the NAATs on their own and offer advantages in terms of cost and workflow in low-resource settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":45412,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Laboratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9575369/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of commercial assays and two-step approach to detect <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> in South Africa.\",\"authors\":\"Sarishna Singh, Mae Newton-Foot, Pieter Nel, Colette Pienaar\",\"doi\":\"10.4102/ajlm.v11i1.1809\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong><i>Clostridioides difficile</i> is the number one cause of hospital-acquired diarrhoea. Accurate diagnosis of <i>C. difficile</i> is of utmost importance as it guides patient management and infection control practices. Studies evaluating the performance of commercially available nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) versus algorithms are lacking in resource-limited settings.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study assessed the performance of three commercially available tests and a two-step approach for the diagnosis of <i>C. difficile</i> infection using toxigenic culture (TC) as the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hundred and twenty-three non-duplicate loose stool samples were submitted to the National Health Laboratory Service Microbiology Laboratory at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, from October 2017 to October 2018. The samples were tested in parallel using the <i>C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE</i> enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and two NAATs (Xpert <i>C. difficile</i> and BD MAX Cdiff), and the results were compared to TC. The performance of a two-step approach consisting of the <i>C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE</i> followed by the Xpert <i>C. difficile</i> was also determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 223 faecal specimens tested, 37 (16.6%) were TC-positive. The sensitivity and specificity of the <i>C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE</i> were 54.1% and 98.9%; Xpert <i>C. difficile</i>, 86.4% and 96.8%; BD MAX Cdiff, 89.2% and 96.8%; and two-step approach, 89.2% and 96.2%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The <i>C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE</i>, in a two-step approach with the Xpert <i>C. difficile</i>, performed similarly to the NAATs on their own and offer advantages in terms of cost and workflow in low-resource settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45412,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9575369/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4102/ajlm.v11i1.1809\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/ajlm.v11i1.1809","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:艰难梭菌是医院获得性腹泻的头号原因。艰难梭菌的准确诊断至关重要,因为它指导患者管理和感染控制实践。在资源有限的环境下,缺乏评估市售核酸扩增检测(NAATs)与算法性能的研究。目的:本研究评估了以产毒培养(TC)为金标准的三种市售检测和两步法诊断艰难梭菌感染的性能。方法:于2017年10月至2018年10月向南非开普敦Tygerberg医院国家卫生实验室服务微生物实验室提交223份非重复松散粪便样本。采用C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE酶免疫测定法(EIA)和两种naat (Xpert C. difficile和BD MAX Cdiff)对样品进行平行检测,并将结果与TC进行比较。还确定了由C. DIFF QUIK check COMPLETE和Xpert艰难梭菌组成的两步方法的性能。结果:223份粪便标本中,tc阳性37份(16.6%)。C. DIFF QUIK check COMPLETE的敏感性和特异性分别为54.1%和98.9%;Xpert艰难梭菌分别为86.4%和96.8%;BD MAX Cdiff分别为89.2%和96.8%;两步法分别为89.2%和96.2%。结论:C. DIFF QUIK check COMPLETE,在Xpert艰难梭菌的两步法中,与naat本身的表现相似,并且在低资源环境下在成本和工作流程方面具有优势。
Comparison of commercial assays and two-step approach to detect Clostridioides difficile in South Africa.
Background: Clostridioides difficile is the number one cause of hospital-acquired diarrhoea. Accurate diagnosis of C. difficile is of utmost importance as it guides patient management and infection control practices. Studies evaluating the performance of commercially available nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) versus algorithms are lacking in resource-limited settings.
Objective: This study assessed the performance of three commercially available tests and a two-step approach for the diagnosis of C. difficile infection using toxigenic culture (TC) as the gold standard.
Methods: Two hundred and twenty-three non-duplicate loose stool samples were submitted to the National Health Laboratory Service Microbiology Laboratory at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, from October 2017 to October 2018. The samples were tested in parallel using the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and two NAATs (Xpert C. difficile and BD MAX Cdiff), and the results were compared to TC. The performance of a two-step approach consisting of the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE followed by the Xpert C. difficile was also determined.
Results: Of 223 faecal specimens tested, 37 (16.6%) were TC-positive. The sensitivity and specificity of the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE were 54.1% and 98.9%; Xpert C. difficile, 86.4% and 96.8%; BD MAX Cdiff, 89.2% and 96.8%; and two-step approach, 89.2% and 96.2%.
Conclusion: The C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE, in a two-step approach with the Xpert C. difficile, performed similarly to the NAATs on their own and offer advantages in terms of cost and workflow in low-resource settings.
期刊介绍:
The African Journal of Laboratory Medicine, the official journal of ASLM, focuses on the role of the laboratory and its professionals in the clinical and public healthcare sectors,and is specifically based on an African frame of reference. Emphasis is on all aspects that promote and contribute to the laboratory medicine practices of Africa. This includes, amongst others: laboratories, biomedical scientists and clinicians, medical community, public health officials and policy makers, laboratory systems and policies (translation of laboratory knowledge, practices and technologies in clinical care), interfaces of laboratory with medical science, laboratory-based epidemiology, laboratory investigations, evidence-based effectiveness in real world (actual) settings.