基于 LAMP 的两种产前快速检测 B 群链球菌阴道定植技术的性能

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials Pub Date : 2024-04-25 DOI:10.1186/s12941-024-00695-2
Rym Charfi, Cécile Guyonnet, Meiggie Untrau, Gaëlle Giacometti, Thierry Paper, Claire Poyart, Céline Plainvert, Asmaa Tazi
{"title":"基于 LAMP 的两种产前快速检测 B 群链球菌阴道定植技术的性能","authors":"Rym Charfi, Cécile Guyonnet, Meiggie Untrau, Gaëlle Giacometti, Thierry Paper, Claire Poyart, Céline Plainvert, Asmaa Tazi","doi":"10.1186/s12941-024-00695-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is the leading cause of invasive infections in newborns. The prevention of GBS neonatal disease relies on the administration of an intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to GBS-colonized women. In recent years, rapid intrapartum detection of GBS vaginal colonization using real-time nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) emerged as an alternative to antenatal culture screening methods. We compared the performances of two loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) tests, the Ampliflash® GBS and the PlusLife® GBS tests, to standard culture for GBS detection in vaginal specimens from pregnant women. The study was conducted from April to July 2023 in a French hospital of the Paris area. A total of 303 samples were analyzed, including 85 culture-positive samples (28.1%). The Ampliflash® GBS test and the PlusLife® GBS tests gave a result for 100% and 96.3% tests, respectively. The performances of the tests were as follows: sensitivity 87.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.3–92.6) and 98.7% (95% CI 93.0-99.8), specificity 99.1% (95% CI 96.7–99.8), and 91.9% (95% CI 87.3–95.0), respectively. False negative results of the Ampliflash® GBS test correlated with low-density GBS cultures. Time-to-results correlated with GBS culture density only for the PlusLife® GBS test (p < 0.001). Both techniques provide excellent analytical performances with high sensitivity and specificity together with a short turnaround time and results available in 10 to 35 min. Their potential to further reduce the burden of GBS neonatal disease compared with antenatal culture screening needs to be assessed in future clinical studies.","PeriodicalId":8052,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performances of two rapid LAMP-based techniques for the intrapartum detection of Group B Streptococcus vaginal colonization\",\"authors\":\"Rym Charfi, Cécile Guyonnet, Meiggie Untrau, Gaëlle Giacometti, Thierry Paper, Claire Poyart, Céline Plainvert, Asmaa Tazi\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12941-024-00695-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is the leading cause of invasive infections in newborns. The prevention of GBS neonatal disease relies on the administration of an intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to GBS-colonized women. In recent years, rapid intrapartum detection of GBS vaginal colonization using real-time nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) emerged as an alternative to antenatal culture screening methods. We compared the performances of two loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) tests, the Ampliflash® GBS and the PlusLife® GBS tests, to standard culture for GBS detection in vaginal specimens from pregnant women. The study was conducted from April to July 2023 in a French hospital of the Paris area. A total of 303 samples were analyzed, including 85 culture-positive samples (28.1%). The Ampliflash® GBS test and the PlusLife® GBS tests gave a result for 100% and 96.3% tests, respectively. The performances of the tests were as follows: sensitivity 87.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.3–92.6) and 98.7% (95% CI 93.0-99.8), specificity 99.1% (95% CI 96.7–99.8), and 91.9% (95% CI 87.3–95.0), respectively. False negative results of the Ampliflash® GBS test correlated with low-density GBS cultures. Time-to-results correlated with GBS culture density only for the PlusLife® GBS test (p < 0.001). Both techniques provide excellent analytical performances with high sensitivity and specificity together with a short turnaround time and results available in 10 to 35 min. Their potential to further reduce the burden of GBS neonatal disease compared with antenatal culture screening needs to be assessed in future clinical studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-024-00695-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-024-00695-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

B 组链球菌(GBS)是导致新生儿侵入性感染的主要原因。预防 GBS 新生儿疾病主要依靠对 GBS 定植的产妇进行产前抗生素预防。近年来,使用实时核酸扩增试验(NAATs)快速检测产前 GBS 阴道定植成为产前培养筛查方法的一种替代方法。我们比较了 Ampliflash® GBS 和 PlusLife® GBS 这两种环路介导等温扩增(LAMP)检验与标准培养法在孕妇阴道标本中检测 GBS 的性能。这项研究于 2023 年 4 月至 7 月在巴黎地区的一家法国医院进行。共分析了 303 份样本,包括 85 份培养阳性样本(28.1%)。Ampliflash® GBS 检测试剂盒和 PlusLife® GBS 检测试剂盒的检测结果分别为 100% 和 96.3%。这两种检测方法的灵敏度分别为 87.1%(95% 置信区间为 78.3-92.6)和 98.7%(95% 置信区间为 93.0-99.8),特异性分别为 99.1%(95% 置信区间为 96.7-99.8)和 91.9%(95% 置信区间为 87.3-95.0)。Ampliflash® GBS 检验的假阴性结果与低密度 GBS 培养相关。只有 PlusLife® GBS 检验的结果出现时间与 GBS 培养密度相关(p < 0.001)。这两种技术都具有出色的分析性能,灵敏度和特异性高,周转时间短,可在 10 至 35 分钟内得到结果。与产前培养筛查相比,这两种技术在进一步减少新生儿 GBS 疾病负担方面的潜力需要在未来的临床研究中进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Performances of two rapid LAMP-based techniques for the intrapartum detection of Group B Streptococcus vaginal colonization
Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is the leading cause of invasive infections in newborns. The prevention of GBS neonatal disease relies on the administration of an intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to GBS-colonized women. In recent years, rapid intrapartum detection of GBS vaginal colonization using real-time nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) emerged as an alternative to antenatal culture screening methods. We compared the performances of two loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) tests, the Ampliflash® GBS and the PlusLife® GBS tests, to standard culture for GBS detection in vaginal specimens from pregnant women. The study was conducted from April to July 2023 in a French hospital of the Paris area. A total of 303 samples were analyzed, including 85 culture-positive samples (28.1%). The Ampliflash® GBS test and the PlusLife® GBS tests gave a result for 100% and 96.3% tests, respectively. The performances of the tests were as follows: sensitivity 87.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.3–92.6) and 98.7% (95% CI 93.0-99.8), specificity 99.1% (95% CI 96.7–99.8), and 91.9% (95% CI 87.3–95.0), respectively. False negative results of the Ampliflash® GBS test correlated with low-density GBS cultures. Time-to-results correlated with GBS culture density only for the PlusLife® GBS test (p < 0.001). Both techniques provide excellent analytical performances with high sensitivity and specificity together with a short turnaround time and results available in 10 to 35 min. Their potential to further reduce the burden of GBS neonatal disease compared with antenatal culture screening needs to be assessed in future clinical studies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials considers good quality, novel and international research of more than regional relevance. Research must include epidemiological and/or clinical information about isolates, and the journal covers the clinical microbiology of bacteria, viruses and fungi, as well as antimicrobial treatment of infectious diseases. Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials is an open access, peer-reviewed journal focusing on information concerning clinical microbiology, infectious diseases and antimicrobials. The management of infectious disease is dependent on correct diagnosis and appropriate antimicrobial treatment, and with this in mind, the journal aims to improve the communication between laboratory and clinical science in the field of clinical microbiology and antimicrobial treatment. Furthermore, the journal has no restrictions on space or access; this ensures that the journal can reach the widest possible audience.
期刊最新文献
Concomitant parasite infections influence tuberculosis immunopathology and favor rapid sputum conversion of pulmonary tuberculosis patients. Epidemiological and molecular characteristics of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae from pediatric patients in Henan, China. Usefulness of sonication in the microbiological diagnosis of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections: systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Clinical characteristics of patients with granulomatous lobular mastitis associated with Corynebacterium parakroppenstedtii infection and drug sensitivity analysis of the isolated strains. Clinical features and antifungal treatment of invasive Scedosporium boydii infection: report of a case and literature overview.
×
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