4.7 Article

Contribution of (1 -> 3)-beta-D-glucan chromogenic assay to diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of invasive aspergillosis in neutropenic adult patients: a comparison with serial screening for circulating galactomannan

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 43, Issue 1, Pages 299-305

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.43.1.299-305.2005

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two noninvasive diagnostic tests, (1-->3)-beta-D-glucan (BG) (Glucatell) and galactomannan (GM) (Platelia Aspergillus), were used retrospectively in a twice-weekly screening for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis (IA) in 40 treatment episodes (one hospital visit per patient) in 40 neutropenic adult patients at high risk for IA. Five proven IA cases, three probable IA cases, and three possible IA cases were diagnosed. Diagnostic levels of both BG and GM were detected in 100% of patients with proven IA cases and in 66% of patients with probable IA cases. The kinetics of both markers in patients with IA were similar. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for GM and BG were identical, namely, 87.5, 89.6, 70, and 96.3%, respectively. False-positive reactions occurred at a rate of 10.3% in both tests, but the patients showing false-positive results were different in each test. Both tests anticipated the clinical diagnosis, computed tomography abnormalities, and the initiation of antifungal therapy in most patients, but BG tended to become positive earlier than GM. A combination of the two tests improved the specificity (to 100%) and positive predictive value (to 100%) of each individual test without affecting the sensitivity and negative predictive values. In conclusion, BG and GM detection are useful tests for the diagnosis of IA in high-risk hematological patients, but a combination of the two tests was very useful to identify false-positive reactions by each test.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available