4.6 Article

Diagnostic Performance and Clinical Utility of Conventional PCR Assay in Early Diagnosis of COVID-19 Associated Rhino-Orbito-Cerebral Mucormycosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
卷 8, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof8080844

关键词

mucormycosis; nasal biopsy; endonasal swabs; KOH plus CFW smear; PCR assay; mixed infection

资金

  1. MGM foundation, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India [25050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early diagnosis and treatment of ROCM are crucial, however, mixed infections pose a diagnostic challenge. This study found that PCR is effective in detecting mixed infections and diagnosing ROCM, with nasal biopsies having higher fungal detection rates compared to endonasal swabs.
Early diagnosis and treatment of rhino-orbital-cerebral mucormycosis (ROCM) are crucial. Potassium hydroxide with Calcofluorwhite (KOH + CFW) smears can demonstrate the fungal hyphae, but mixed infections caused by both mucorales and non-mucorales pose a diagnostic challenge. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can detect mixed infections and differentiate mucorales from non-mucorales. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of a single reaction PCR in the diagnosis of ROCM and the efficacy of nasal biopsy and endonasal swab in the detection of fungus. Sixty-six clinical samples were collected from 33 patients and were subjected to KOH + CFW smear, culture and PCR. PCR was performed using pan-fungal primers targeting the 28S large subunit rRNA gene, and the amplified products were further sequenced to identify the fungi. KOH + CFW smear, culture and PCR detected mucorales in 54.6%, 27.3% and 63.6% patients, respectively. PCR detected mixed infection in 51.5% patients compared to 9.1% by KOH + CFW smear. PCR detected fungus in 90% of nasal biopsies and 77.8% of endonasal swabs. Rhizopus spp. was the most common fungi identified in 43.2% of PCR-positive samples. PCR is effective in detecting mixed infection and in the diagnosis of ROCM. Nasal biopsies had better fungal detection rates than endonasal swabs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据