Evaluation of a multiplex real-time PCR kit Amplidiag® Bacterial GE in the detection of bacterial pathogens from stool samples

Diagnostic accuracy of multiplex nucleic acid amplification tests for Campylobacter infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Campylobacter infection is one of the most frequently reported foodborne diseases with approximately 230,000 and 1.5 million cases each year in Europe and the USA, respectively. Culture methods are the reference for the diagnosis of Campylobacter infections; however, these methods are complex and time-consuming. Multiplex nucleic acid amplification test is favored due to its rapidity, automatization in the procedure followed and the quick simultaneous testing of numerous foodborne pathogens. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of these tests for the diagnosis of Campylobacter infection. Scopus, Science Direct, PubMed, Web of Science, and Mendeley were searched for peer-reviewed articles. The split component synthesis method with the use of the inverse variance heterogeneity model was chosen for the quantitative meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed by age category and index test. The literature search found 34 studies involving 28,105 patients with suspected gastroenteritis. The sensitivity and specificity were 95.3% (92.3; 97.1) and 97.1% (95.1; 98.3), respectively, and AUC (area under the curve) was 0.963 (0.947; 0.974). Pediatric patients had a lower sensitivity (87.4, 48.2; 98.1) and higher specificity (99.2, 91.6; 99.9) estimate compared to all ages category (sensitivity 95.3, 91.3; 97.5, specificity 96.7, 93.7; 98.3). Among the various index tests, Seeplex/Allplex and Amplidiag/Novodiag had the lowest estimate for sensitivity (88.9, 73.8; 95.8) and specificity (95.2, 86; 98.4), respectively. BDMax had the highest (sensitivity 98.1, 96.1; 99 and specificity 98.5, 97; 99.3). Multiplex nucleic acid tests showed excellent accuracy and could play an influential role in diagnosing Campylobacter infections.

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Commercial Tests for Detection of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Rapid detection of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) enables appropriate monitoring and treatment. We synthesized available evidence to compare the performance of enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and PCR tests for the detection of STEC.

METHODS

We searched published and gray literature for studies of STEC EIA and/or PCR diagnostic test accuracy relative to reference standards including at least one nucleic acid amplification test. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality with the second version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Bivariate random effects models were used to meta-analyze the clinical sensitivity and specificity of commercial EIA and PCR STEC diagnostic tests, and summary receiver operator characteristic curves were constructed. We evaluated the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

We identified 43 articles reflecting 25 260 specimens. Meta-analysis of EIA and PCR accuracy included 25 and 22 articles, respectively. STEC EIA pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.681 (95% CI, 0.571-0.773; very low certainty of evidence) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.998-1.00; moderate certainty of evidence), respectively. STEC PCR pooled sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.904-1.00; low certainty of evidence) and 0.999 (95% CI, 0.997-0.999; low certainty of evidence), respectively. Certainty of evidence was downgraded because of high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

PCR tests to identify the presence of STEC are more sensitive than EIA tests, with no meaningful loss of specificity. However, given the low certainty of evidence, our results may overestimate the difference in performance.

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Noninvasive Test for Detection of Helicobacter pylori and Resistance to Clarithromycin in Stool by the Amplidiag H. pylori+ClariR Real-Time PCR Assay

The noninvasive detection of Helicobacter pylori and its resistance to clarithromycin could revolutionize the management of H. pylori-infected patients by tailoring eradication treatment without any need for endoscopy when histology is not necessary. Several real-time PCR tests performed on stools have been proposed, but their performances were either poor or they were tested on too few patients to be properly evaluated. We conducted a prospective, multicenter study including 1,200 adult patients who were addressed for gastroduodenal endoscopy with gastric biopsies and who were naive for eradication treatment in order to evaluate the performance of the Amplidiag H. pylori+ClariR assay recently developed by Mobidiag (Espoo, Finland). The results of the Amplidiag H. pylori+ClariR assay performed on DNA from stools (automatic extraction with the EasyMag system [bioMérieux]) were compared with those of culture/Etest and quadruplex real-time PCRs performed on two gastric biopsy samples (from the antrum and corpus) to detect the H. pylori glmM gene and mutations in the 23S rRNA genes conferring clarithromycin resistance. The sensitivity and specificity of the detection of H. pylori were 96.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92 to 98%) and 98.7% (95% CI, 97 to 99%), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were evaluated to be 92.2% (95% CI, 92 to 98%) and 99.3% (95% CI, 98 to 99%), respectively. In this cohort, 160 patients (14.7%) were found to be infected (positive by culture and/or PCR). The sensitivity and specificity for detecting resistance to clarithromycin were 100% (95% CI, 88 to 100%) and 98.4% (95% CI, 94 to 99%), respectively.

Evaluation of the GeneFields® EHEC/SS PCR dipstick DNA chromatography kit for the detection of enteric bacterial pathogens in stool specimens of healthy humans

We developed a new GeneFields® EHEC/SS PCR dipstick DNA chromatography kit for the simultaneously detection of invA, ipaH, and stx genes in Salmonella enterica (56 strains), Shigella spp. (44), and enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) (28), respectively, and evaluated the sensitivity and specificity with other bacteria (57) by this kit. The sensitivity and specificity were 100%, respectively. The detection limit of various methods was determined using 5% (w/v) stool suspensions spiked with each bacterium. The detection limit of the GeneFields® EHEC/SS kit ranged from approximately 10²-10³ CFU/g. Additionally, the relative sensitivities and specificities of the GeneFields® EHEC/SS kit vs two commercially available real-time PCR kits were >85.0% and >90.0%, respectively. These results indicate that the GeneFields® EHEC/SS kit can be used for genetic screening of S. enterica, Shigella spp., and EHEC in human stool specimens with sensitivities and specificities similar to those of the commercially available real-time PCR kits.

External Quality Assessment in the Evaluation of Laboratory Performance of Faecal Culture

In Finland, all laboratories carrying out diagnostics of infectious diseases in humans are approved by the Regional State Administrative Agencies and are obligated to participate in External Quality Assurance rounds. Performance in these rounds is thought to reflect the quality of laboratory work. In the 6-year study period, 17 Finnish laboratories received 48 simulated faecal specimens for the culturing of diarrhoeal pathogens, yielding altogether 586 faecal culture External Quality Control specimens and 581 reports. The results were correct in 92% of all reports and in 67% of all specimens. False-negative Salmonella results were given for 2 of the 18 specimens, one with biochemically atypical Salmonella strain and the other with a low count of Salmonella cells. False-negative Shigella report was given for 6 of the 7 specimens in some participating laboratory. Detection of all common faecal pathogens is especially relevant to patient safety, public health, and epidemiological surveillance.