Barbara DeBurger, Sarah Hanna, Eleanor A Powell, Cindi Ventrola, Joel E Mortensen
{"title":"利用BD MAX™肠道细菌检测板检测直肠拭子中的粪便病原体。","authors":"Barbara DeBurger, Sarah Hanna, Eleanor A Powell, Cindi Ventrola, Joel E Mortensen","doi":"10.1186/s12907-017-0043-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel (BDM-EBP) is designed and FDA-cleared to detect <i>Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter,</i> and Shiga toxin genes <i>stx1/2</i> from stool samples. However, rectal swabs, which are not FDA-cleared for clinical testing with the BDM-EBP, are common specimens received from pediatric patients for enteric pathogen testing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of the BDM-EBP to detect stool pathogens from rectal swabs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Routine cultures, Shiga toxin testing, and molecular testing with BDM-EBP were performed on 272 sequential rectal swabs collected from August 2015 to December 2015. Discrepant test results were resolved using Verigene® Enteric Pathogens Nucleic Acid Test (EP). 36 challenge samples (13 <i>Salmonella</i> spp., 3 <i>Shigella</i> spp., 10 <i>Campylobacter</i> spp., and 10 Shiga toxin positive <i>Escherichia coli</i>) were tested using reference strains (American Type Culture Collection) and previous patient isolates diluted to10<sup>3</sup>-10<sup>4</sup> cfu/ml in saline then added to Sample Buffer Tube (SBT) with negative stool matrix delivered via a swab. Limit of detection testing was performed by serial 10 fold dilutions in saline then added to SBT with negative stool matrix provided via a swab.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 272 rectal swab specimens were evaluated and 89 were positive by culture and/or MAX EBP. All discrepant results were BDM-EBP positive and culture negative. 21 of 31 (68%) of the apparent false positive BDM-EBP discrepant results resolved as positive with Nanosphere's Verigene® EP. After resolution of the discordant results, the Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) are as follows for each target: <i>Salmonella</i> (<i>n</i> = 4) 100%, PPA and 100%, NPA; <i>Shigella</i> (<i>n</i> = 79) 100%, PPA and 95.3%, NPA; <i>Campylobacter</i> (<i>n</i> = 4) 100%, PPA and 99.6%, NPA; and Shiga toxin producing organisms (<i>n</i> = 2) 100%, PPA and 100%, NPA. 8.8% of the patient samples did not initially yield a result on the BDM-System. Upon repeat, half of the problematic samples resolved, and 4.4% of the total specimen tested did not yield a result. All organisms in the challenge samples were detected. Limits of detection for BDM-EBP testing of rectal swabs were as follows (in cfu/ml in SBT): <i>Salmonella</i>-1.44 × 10<sup>2</sup>; <i>Shigella</i>-5.10 × 10<sup>0</sup>; <i>Campylobacter</i>-1.51 × 10<sup>1</sup>; and Shiga Toxin-1.13 ×10<sup>3</sup>.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Rectal swabs are acceptable samples for detecting <i>Salmonella</i>, <i>Shigella</i>, <i>Campylobacter</i>, and Shiga toxin using BDM-EBP.</p>","PeriodicalId":35804,"journal":{"name":"BMC Clinical Pathology","volume":"17 ","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12907-017-0043-2","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utilizing BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel to Detect Stool Pathogens from Rectal Swabs.\",\"authors\":\"Barbara DeBurger, Sarah Hanna, Eleanor A Powell, Cindi Ventrola, Joel E Mortensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12907-017-0043-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel (BDM-EBP) is designed and FDA-cleared to detect <i>Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter,</i> and Shiga toxin genes <i>stx1/2</i> from stool samples. However, rectal swabs, which are not FDA-cleared for clinical testing with the BDM-EBP, are common specimens received from pediatric patients for enteric pathogen testing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of the BDM-EBP to detect stool pathogens from rectal swabs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Routine cultures, Shiga toxin testing, and molecular testing with BDM-EBP were performed on 272 sequential rectal swabs collected from August 2015 to December 2015. Discrepant test results were resolved using Verigene® Enteric Pathogens Nucleic Acid Test (EP). 36 challenge samples (13 <i>Salmonella</i> spp., 3 <i>Shigella</i> spp., 10 <i>Campylobacter</i> spp., and 10 Shiga toxin positive <i>Escherichia coli</i>) were tested using reference strains (American Type Culture Collection) and previous patient isolates diluted to10<sup>3</sup>-10<sup>4</sup> cfu/ml in saline then added to Sample Buffer Tube (SBT) with negative stool matrix delivered via a swab. Limit of detection testing was performed by serial 10 fold dilutions in saline then added to SBT with negative stool matrix provided via a swab.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 272 rectal swab specimens were evaluated and 89 were positive by culture and/or MAX EBP. All discrepant results were BDM-EBP positive and culture negative. 21 of 31 (68%) of the apparent false positive BDM-EBP discrepant results resolved as positive with Nanosphere's Verigene® EP. After resolution of the discordant results, the Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) are as follows for each target: <i>Salmonella</i> (<i>n</i> = 4) 100%, PPA and 100%, NPA; <i>Shigella</i> (<i>n</i> = 79) 100%, PPA and 95.3%, NPA; <i>Campylobacter</i> (<i>n</i> = 4) 100%, PPA and 99.6%, NPA; and Shiga toxin producing organisms (<i>n</i> = 2) 100%, PPA and 100%, NPA. 8.8% of the patient samples did not initially yield a result on the BDM-System. Upon repeat, half of the problematic samples resolved, and 4.4% of the total specimen tested did not yield a result. All organisms in the challenge samples were detected. Limits of detection for BDM-EBP testing of rectal swabs were as follows (in cfu/ml in SBT): <i>Salmonella</i>-1.44 × 10<sup>2</sup>; <i>Shigella</i>-5.10 × 10<sup>0</sup>; <i>Campylobacter</i>-1.51 × 10<sup>1</sup>; and Shiga Toxin-1.13 ×10<sup>3</sup>.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Rectal swabs are acceptable samples for detecting <i>Salmonella</i>, <i>Shigella</i>, <i>Campylobacter</i>, and Shiga toxin using BDM-EBP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Clinical Pathology\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12907-017-0043-2\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Clinical Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12907-017-0043-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Clinical Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12907-017-0043-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Utilizing BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel to Detect Stool Pathogens from Rectal Swabs.
Background: The BD MAX™ Enteric Bacterial Panel (BDM-EBP) is designed and FDA-cleared to detect Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, and Shiga toxin genes stx1/2 from stool samples. However, rectal swabs, which are not FDA-cleared for clinical testing with the BDM-EBP, are common specimens received from pediatric patients for enteric pathogen testing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of the BDM-EBP to detect stool pathogens from rectal swabs.
Methods: Routine cultures, Shiga toxin testing, and molecular testing with BDM-EBP were performed on 272 sequential rectal swabs collected from August 2015 to December 2015. Discrepant test results were resolved using Verigene® Enteric Pathogens Nucleic Acid Test (EP). 36 challenge samples (13 Salmonella spp., 3 Shigella spp., 10 Campylobacter spp., and 10 Shiga toxin positive Escherichia coli) were tested using reference strains (American Type Culture Collection) and previous patient isolates diluted to103-104 cfu/ml in saline then added to Sample Buffer Tube (SBT) with negative stool matrix delivered via a swab. Limit of detection testing was performed by serial 10 fold dilutions in saline then added to SBT with negative stool matrix provided via a swab.
Results: A total of 272 rectal swab specimens were evaluated and 89 were positive by culture and/or MAX EBP. All discrepant results were BDM-EBP positive and culture negative. 21 of 31 (68%) of the apparent false positive BDM-EBP discrepant results resolved as positive with Nanosphere's Verigene® EP. After resolution of the discordant results, the Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) are as follows for each target: Salmonella (n = 4) 100%, PPA and 100%, NPA; Shigella (n = 79) 100%, PPA and 95.3%, NPA; Campylobacter (n = 4) 100%, PPA and 99.6%, NPA; and Shiga toxin producing organisms (n = 2) 100%, PPA and 100%, NPA. 8.8% of the patient samples did not initially yield a result on the BDM-System. Upon repeat, half of the problematic samples resolved, and 4.4% of the total specimen tested did not yield a result. All organisms in the challenge samples were detected. Limits of detection for BDM-EBP testing of rectal swabs were as follows (in cfu/ml in SBT): Salmonella-1.44 × 102; Shigella-5.10 × 100; Campylobacter-1.51 × 101; and Shiga Toxin-1.13 ×103.
Conclusion: Rectal swabs are acceptable samples for detecting Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, and Shiga toxin using BDM-EBP.
期刊介绍:
BMC Clinical Pathology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of histopathology, haematology, clinical biochemistry, and medical microbiology (including virology, parasitology, and infection control). BMC Clinical Pathology (ISSN 1472-6890) is indexed/tracked/covered by PubMed, CAS, EMBASE, Scopus and Google Scholar.