scholarly journals Clinical Performance of (1,3) Beta-D Glucan for the Diagnosis of Pneumocystis Pneumonia (PCP) in Cancer Patients Tested With PCP Polymerase Chain Reaction

2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (8) ◽  
pp. 1303-1309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sejal Morjaria ◽  
John Frame ◽  
Alexandra Franco-Garcia ◽  
Alexander Geyer ◽  
Mini Kamboj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Reference Method ◽  
Pneumocystis Pneumonia ◽  
Clinical Syndrome ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
High Risk Cancer

Abstract Background Serum (1,3)-beta-D glucan (BDG) is increasingly used to guide the management of suspected Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). BDG lacks specificity for PCP, and its clinical performance in high-risk cancer patients has not been fully assessed. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for PCP detection is highly sensitive, but cannot differentiate between colonization and infection. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of serum BDG in conjunction with PCP PCR on respiratory samples in patients with cancer and unexplained lung infiltrates. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients evaluated for PCP at our institution from 2012 to 2015, using serum BDG and PCP PCR. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the serum BDG at different thresholds were evaluated using PCP PCR alone or in conjunction with clinical presentation in PCP PCR–positive patients. Results With PCP PCR alone as the reference method, BDG (≥80 pg/mL) had a sensitivity of 69.8%, specificity of 81.2%, PPV of 34.6%, and NPV of 95.2% for PCP. At ≥200 pg/mL in patients with a positive PCR and a compatible PCP clinical syndrome, BDG had a sensitivity of 70%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 52.0% for PCP. Conclusions Patients negative by both BDG and PCR were unlikely to have PCP. In patients with a compatible clinical syndrome for PCP, higher BDG values (>200 pg/mL) were consistently associated with clinically-significant PCP infections among PCP PCR–positive oncology patients.

scholarly journals EXPRESS: Clinical performance of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 combined in an algorithm with two specific anti-IgG immunoassays for the evaluation of the serological response of patients with COVID-19 in a population with a high prevalence of infection

2021 ◽  
pp. 000456322110380
Author(s):  
Xavier Gabaldó-Barrios ◽  
Simona Iftimie ◽  
Anna Hernández-Aguilera ◽  
Isabel Pujol ◽  
Frederic Ballester ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Response ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction Test ◽  
Serological Response ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Automated Assay ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Polymerase Chain

Background: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have been used in the study of the immune response in infected patients. However, differences in sensitivity and specificity have been reported, depending on the method of analysis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an algorithm in which a high-throughput automated assay for total antibodies was used for screening and two semi-automated IgG-specific methods were used to confirm the results, and also to correlate the analytical results with the clinical data and the time elapsed since infection. Methods: We studied 306 patients, some hospitalized and some outpatients, belonging to a population with a high prevalence of COVID-19. One-hundred and ten patients were classified as SARS-CoV-2 negative and 196 as positive by polymerase chain reaction. Results: The algorithm and automated assay alone had a specificity and a positive predictive value of 100%, although the sensitivity and negative predictive value of the algorithm was higher. Both methods showed a good sensitivity from day 11 of the onset of symptoms in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. The absorbance of the total antibodies was significantly higher in severely symptomatic than in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients, which suggests the antibody level was higher. We found 15 patients that did not present seroconversion at 12 days from the onset of symptoms or the first polymerase chain reaction test. Conclusion: This study highlights the proper functioning of algorithms in the diagnosis of the immune response to COVID-19, which can help to define testing strategies against this disease.

scholarly journals Assessment of Clinical Diagnosis, Microscopy, Rapid Diagnostic Tests, and Polymerase Chain Reaction in the Diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum in Nigeria

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olusola Ojurongbe ◽  
Olunike Olayeni Adegbosin ◽  
Sunday Samuel Taiwo ◽  
Oyebode Armstrong Terry Alli ◽  
Olugbenga Adekunle Olowe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Plasmodium Falciparum ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Reference Method ◽  
Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Polymerase Chain

This study compares the performance of clinical diagnosis and three laboratory diagnostic methods (thick film microscopy (TFM), rapid diagnostic test (RDT), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)) for the diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum in Nigeria. Using clinical criteria, 217 children were recruited into the study out of which 106 (48.8%) were positive by TFM, 84 (38.7%) by RDT, and 125 (57.6%) by PCR. Using a composite reference method generated from the three diagnostic methods, 71 (32.7%) patients were found to be truly infected and 90 (41.5%) truly uninfected, while 56 (25.8%) were misidentified as infected or noninfected. When each of the 3 diagnostic methods was compared with the composite reference, PCR had sensitivity of 97.3%, specificity of 62.5%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 56.8%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.8%; microscopy had sensitivity of 77.2%, specificity of 72%, PPV of 66.9%, and NPV of 81.1%, while RDT had sensitivity of 62.3%, specificity of 87.4%, PPV of 67.7%, and NPV of 84.5%. PCR test performed best among the three methods followed by TFM and RDT in that order. The result of this study shows that clinical diagnosis cannot be relied upon for accurate diagnosis of P. falciparum in endemic areas.

scholarly journals A meta-analysis of accuracy and sensitivity of chest CT and RT-PCR in COVID-19 diagnosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Khatami ◽  
Mohammad Saatchi ◽  
Seyed Saeed Tamehri Zadeh ◽  
Zahra Sadat Aghamir ◽  
Alireza Namazi Shabestari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Reverse Transcriptase ◽  
Ct Scan ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chest Ct ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Chest Ct Scan

AbstractNowadays there is an ongoing acute respiratory outbreak caused by the novel highly contagious coronavirus (COVID-19). The diagnostic protocol is based on quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and chests CT scan, with uncertain accuracy. This meta-analysis study determines the diagnostic value of an initial chest CT scan in patients with COVID-19 infection in comparison with RT-PCR. Three main databases; PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and EMBASE were systematically searched for all published literature from January 1st, 2019, to the 21st May 2020 with the keywords "COVID19 virus", "2019 novel coronavirus", "Wuhan coronavirus", "2019-nCoV", "X-Ray Computed Tomography", "Polymerase Chain Reaction", "Reverse Transcriptase PCR", and "PCR Reverse Transcriptase". All relevant case-series, cross-sectional, and cohort studies were selected. Data extraction and analysis were performed using STATA v.14.0SE (College Station, TX, USA) and RevMan 5. Among 1022 articles, 60 studies were eligible for totalizing 5744 patients. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of chest CT scan compared to RT-PCR were 87% (95% CI 85–90%), 46% (95% CI 29–63%), 69% (95% CI 56–72%), and 89% (95% CI 82–96%), respectively. It is important to rely on the repeated RT-PCR three times to give 99% accuracy, especially in negative samples. Regarding the overall diagnostic sensitivity of 87% for chest CT, the RT-PCR testing is essential and should be repeated to escape misdiagnosis.

scholarly journals Peripheral Blood Leukocytes and Serum Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction Are Complementary Methods for Monitoring Active Cytomegalovirus Infection in Transplant Patients

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. e69-e74 ◽  
Author(s):  
PD Andrade ◽  
MT Fioravanti ◽  
EBV Anjos ◽  
C De Oliveira ◽  
DM Albuquerque ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Positive Predictive Value ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Cytomegalovirus Infection ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Peripheral Blood Leukocytes ◽  
Active Infection ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Blood Leukocytes ◽  
Polymerase Chain

BACKGROUND: Human cytomegalovirus is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Qualitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has proven to be a sensitive and effective technique in defining active cytomegalovirus infection, in addition to having low cost and being a useful test for situations in which there is no need for quantification. Real-time PCR has the advantage of quantification; however, the high cost of this methodology makes it impractical for routine use.OBJECTIVE: To apply a nested PCR assay to serum (sPCR) and to evaluate its efficiency to diagnose active cytomegalovirus infection compared with PCR of peripheral blood leukocytes (L-PCR).METHODS: Samples of 37 patients were prospectively evaluated. An internal control was created and applied to sPCR to exclude false-negative results.RESULTS: In total, 21 patients (57%) developed active cytomegalovirus infection. After analyzing the two methods for the diagnosis of active infection, higher sensitivity and negative predictive value of the L-PCR versus sPCR (100% versus 62%), and higher specificity and positive predictive value of sPCR versus L-PCR (81% versus 50% and 72%, respectively) were observed. Discordant results were observed in 11 patients who were L-PCR-positive but sPCR-negative for active cytomegalovirus infection, five of whom developed clinical symptoms of cytomegalovirus. Clinical symptoms were observed in 14 patients, 12 of whom were diagnosed with active infection by nested L-PCR (P=0.007) and seven by nested sPCR (P=0.02). Higher specificity and a positive predictive value for sPCR were observed.CONCLUSION: Nested L-PCR and sPCR were considered to be complementary methods for the diagnosis and management of symptomatic cytomegalovirus infection.

scholarly journals Performance of the Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test in the Liverpool asymptomatic testing pilot: population based cohort study

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n1637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta García-Fiñana ◽  
David M Hughes ◽  
Christopher P Cheyne ◽  
Girvan Burnside ◽  
Mark Stockbridge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Viral Load ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
High Viral Load ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Flow Test ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Lateral Flow Test

Abstract Objective To assess the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test (LFT) versus polymerase chain reaction testing in the asymptomatic general population attending testing centres. Design Observational cohort study. Setting Community LFT pilot at covid-19 testing sites in Liverpool, UK. Participants 5869 asymptomatic adults (≥18 years) voluntarily attending one of 48 testing sites during 6-29 November 2020. Interventions Participants were tested using both an Innova LFT and a quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test based on supervised self-administered swabbing at testing sites. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of LFT compared with RT-qPCR in an epidemic steady state of covid-19 among adults with no classic symptoms of the disease. Results Of 5869 test results, 22 (0.4%) LFT results and 343 (5.8%) RT-qPCR results were void (that is, when the control line fails to appear within 30 minutes). Excluding the void results, the LFT versus RT-qPCR showed a sensitivity of 40.0% (95% confidence interval 28.5% to 52.4%; 28/70), specificity of 99.9% (99.8% to 99.99%; 5431/5434), positive predictive value of 90.3% (74.2% to 98.0%; 28/31), and negative predictive value of 99.2% (99.0% to 99.4%; 5431/5473). When the void samples were assumed to be negative, a sensitivity was observed for LFT of 37.8% (26.8% to 49.9%; 28/74), specificity of 99.6% (99.4% to 99.8%; 5431/5452), positive predictive value of 84.8% (68.1% to 94.9%; 28/33), and negative predictive value of 93.4% (92.7% to 94.0%; 5431/5814). The sensitivity in participants with an RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) of <18.3 (approximate viral loads >10 6 RNA copies/mL) was 90.9% (58.7% to 99.8%; 10/11), a Ct of <24.4 (>10 4 RNA copies/mL) was 69.4% (51.9% to 83.7%; 25/36), and a Ct of >24.4 (<10 4 RNA copies/mL) was 9.7% (1.9% to 23.7%; 3/34). LFT is likely to detect at least three fifths and at most 998 in every 1000 people with a positive RT-qPCR test result with high viral load. Conclusions The Innova LFT can be useful for identifying infections among adults who report no symptoms of covid-19, particularly those with high viral load who are more likely to infect others. The number of asymptomatic adults with lower Ct (indicating higher viral load) missed by LFT, although small, should be considered when using single LFT in high consequence settings. Clear and accurate communication with the public about how to interpret test results is important, given the chance of missing some cases, even at high viral loads. Further research is needed to understand how infectiousness is reflected in the viral antigen shedding detected by LFT versus the viral loads approximated by RT-qPCR.

Diagnosis of pneumocystis pneumonia in a 2-year-old King Charles Cavalier Spaniel using the polymerase chain reaction

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 146-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayeley A. K. Okine ◽  
Seth Chapman ◽  
Roger A. Hostutler ◽  
Robert Livingston
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Pneumocystis Pneumonia ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Polymerase Chain
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document