Culture and other direct detection methods to diagnose human granulocytic anaplasmosis.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 PATHOLOGY American journal of clinical pathology Pub Date : 2024-09-21 DOI:10.1093/ajcp/aqae126
Maria E Aguero-Rosenfeld, Lois Zentmaier, Dionysios Liveris, Paul Visintainer, Ira Schwartz, J Stephen Dumler, Gary P Wormser
{"title":"Culture and other direct detection methods to diagnose human granulocytic anaplasmosis.","authors":"Maria E Aguero-Rosenfeld, Lois Zentmaier, Dionysios Liveris, Paul Visintainer, Ira Schwartz, J Stephen Dumler, Gary P Wormser","doi":"10.1093/ajcp/aqae126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We sought to assess the performance of 3 laboratory tests on blood specimens for direct detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, the cause of human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA), in patients tested at a single medical institution in New York State.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Direct tests included microscopic blood smear examination for intragranulocytic inclusions, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and culture using the HL-60 cell line. The HGA cases testing positive by only 1 direct test were not included, unless HGA was confirmed by acute or convalescent serology using an indirect immunofluorescent assay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1997 to 2009, 71 patients with HGA were diagnosed by at least 1 of the 3 direct test methods. For the subgroup of 55 patients who were tested using all 3 methods, culture was positive for 90.9% (50/55) vs 81.8% (45/55) for PCR vs 63.6% (35/55) for blood smear (P =.002). Most cultures (79.3%) were detected as positive within 1 week of incubation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although using culture to detect A phagocytophilum is likely not amenable for implementation in most hospital laboratories, in our experience, culture had the highest yield among the direct tests evaluated.</p>","PeriodicalId":7506,"journal":{"name":"American journal of clinical pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of clinical pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqae126","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We sought to assess the performance of 3 laboratory tests on blood specimens for direct detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, the cause of human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA), in patients tested at a single medical institution in New York State.

Methods: Direct tests included microscopic blood smear examination for intragranulocytic inclusions, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and culture using the HL-60 cell line. The HGA cases testing positive by only 1 direct test were not included, unless HGA was confirmed by acute or convalescent serology using an indirect immunofluorescent assay.

Results: From 1997 to 2009, 71 patients with HGA were diagnosed by at least 1 of the 3 direct test methods. For the subgroup of 55 patients who were tested using all 3 methods, culture was positive for 90.9% (50/55) vs 81.8% (45/55) for PCR vs 63.6% (35/55) for blood smear (P =.002). Most cultures (79.3%) were detected as positive within 1 week of incubation.

Conclusions: Although using culture to detect A phagocytophilum is likely not amenable for implementation in most hospital laboratories, in our experience, culture had the highest yield among the direct tests evaluated.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用培养和其他直接检测方法诊断人类粒细胞无形体病。
目的:我们试图评估纽约州一家医疗机构对血液标本进行直接检测人类粒细胞无形体病(HGA)病原体噬细胞无形体的 3 种实验室检测方法的性能:直接检测包括显微镜血涂片检查粒细胞内包涵体、聚合酶链反应(PCR)和使用 HL-60 细胞系进行培养。仅通过一种直接检测呈阳性的 HGA 病例不包括在内,除非使用间接免疫荧光检测法通过急性期或恢复期血清学检查确认 HGA:结果:1997 年至 2009 年间,71 名 HGA 患者通过 3 种直接检测方法中的至少一种被确诊。在使用所有 3 种方法检测的 55 例患者中,培养阳性率为 90.9%(50/55),PCR 阳性率为 81.8%(45/55),血涂片阳性率为 63.6%(35/55)(P =.002)。大多数培养物(79.3%)在培养 1 周内检测出阳性:结论:尽管大多数医院实验室可能无法使用培养法检测噬细胞甲虫,但根据我们的经验,培养法在所评估的直接检测方法中检测率最高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
2.90%
发文量
367
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Clinical Pathology (AJCP) is the official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pathology and the Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists. It is a leading international journal for publication of articles concerning novel anatomic pathology and laboratory medicine observations on human disease. AJCP emphasizes articles that focus on the application of evolving technologies for the diagnosis and characterization of diseases and conditions, as well as those that have a direct link toward improving patient care.
期刊最新文献
Culture and other direct detection methods to diagnose human granulocytic anaplasmosis. Validation of monocyte CD169 expression as a valuable rapid diagnostic marker of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral infections. Site-discordant expression of myeloid cell nuclear differentiation antigen in blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm. Epstein-Barr virus–positive, primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma, with transformation: Case report and review of the literature RhD-positive red blood cell allocation practice to RhD-negative patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1