4.7 Article

Diagnostic Molecular Mycobacteriology in Regions With Low Tuberculosis Endemicity: Combining Real-time PCR Assays for Detection of Multiple Mycobacterial Pathogens With Line Probe Assays for Identification of Resistance Mutations

期刊

EBIOMEDICINE
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 228-237

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.06.016

关键词

Real-time PCR; Line probe assay; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Nontuberculous mycobacteria; Drug susceptibility

资金

  1. University of Zurich, Switzerland
  2. Federal Office of Public Health, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular assays have not yet been able to replace time-consuming culture-based methods in clinical mycobacteriology. Using 6875 clinical samples and a study period of 35 months we evaluated the use of PCR-based assays to establish a diagnostic workflow with a fast time-to-result of 1-2 days, for 1. detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTB), 2. detection and identification of nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), and 3. identification of drug susceptible MTB. MTB molecular-based detection and culture gave concordant results for 97.7% of the specimens. NTM PCR-based detection and culture gave concordant results for 97.0% of the specimens. Defining specimens on the basis of combined laboratory data as true positives or negatives with discrepant results resolved by clinical chart reviews, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for PCR-based MTB detection as 84.7%, 100%, 100%, and 98.7%; the corresponding values for culture-based MTB detection were 86.3%, 100%, 100%, and 98.8%. PCR-based detection of NTM had a sensitivity of 84.7% compared to 78.0% of that of culture-based NTM detection. Molecular drug susceptibility testing (DST) by line-probe assay was found to predict phenotypic DST results in MTB with excellent accuracy. Our findings suggest a diagnostic algorithmto largely replace lengthy culture-based techniques by rapid molecular- based methods. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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