Performance Evaluation of the Luminex Aries C. difficile Assay in Comparison to Two Other Molecular Assays within a Multihospital Health Care Center.

在多医院医疗中心内,对 Luminex Aries C. difficile 检测方法与其他两种分子检测方法的性能进行评估

阅读:5
作者:Juretschko Stefan, Manji Ryhana, Khare Reeti, Das Shubhagata, Dunbar Sherry
Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remain a serious issue in the United States. Fast and accurate diagnosis of CDI is paramount to achieve immediate infection control initiation, triaging, and isolation, as well as appropriate antibiotic treatment. However, both, over- and underdiagnosis can lead to adverse patient outcomes, such as unnecessary administration of antibiotics or unwanted spread of spores in any hospital setting, respectively. In this prospective study, we evaluated the FDA-cleared Aries C. difficile assay and compared its performance and workflow characteristics to those of the BD Max Cdiff and Xpert C. difficile/Epi assays. Out of 302 samples tested, 55 (18.2%) samples were positive, and 234 (77.5%) samples were negative for C. difficile by all three testing methods. Comparison results showed a positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA, respectively) between the Aries and Xpert assays of 95.2% (59/62) and 99.2% (238/240), respectively. The PPA and NPA between the Aries and BD Max assays were 91.8% (56/61) and 96.6% (230/238), respectively. Invalid result rates were determined to be 2.6% for the BD Max assay, 1.0% for the Aries assay, and 0% for the Xpert assay. Hands-on time (HoT) and total turnaround time (TAT) varied considerably depending on the sample number and instrument throughput. The HoT ranged from 1.2 to 3.5 min per sample, and the TAT was 1 to 2.3 h. Overall, the results demonstrated that the Aries assay is a rapid and sensitive method for the diagnosis of CDI in clinical laboratories.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。