ESCMID

ESCMID
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    方法:本指南的目的是为多重耐药革兰氏阳性菌(MDR-GPB)成人携带者住院手术前的去定植和围手术期抗生素预防(PAP)提供建议。
    方法:这些欧洲临床微生物学和传染病学会(ESCMID)/欧洲感染控制委员会(EUCIC)指南是在系统回顾已发表的针对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)的研究之后制定的,耐万古霉素肠球菌(VRE),耐甲氧西林凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌(MR-CoNS)和泛耐药(PDR)-GPB。关键结果是由定殖MDR-GPB和SSIs归因死亡率引起的手术部位感染(SSIs)的发生。重要的结果包括由任何病原体引起的SSIs的发生,医院获得性感染,全因死亡率,以及与干预措施相关的不良事件,包括对所用药物的耐药性发展和艰难梭菌感染的发生率。所有数据库的最后一次搜索是在11月1日,2023年。根据GRADE方法定义了每个建议的证据水平和强度。就最终建议清单达成了多学科专家小组的共识。包括抗菌药物管理方面的考虑。
    结论:指南小组审查了非殖民化的影响,有针对性的PAP,和联合干预措施(例如,非殖民化和有针对性的PAP)关于MDR-GPB携带者的SSIs和其他结果的风险,根据细菌类型和手术类型。我们建议在高风险手术前筛查金黄色葡萄球菌(SA),如心胸外科和骨科手术。建议在心胸和骨科手术前用SA定植的患者使用鼻内莫匹罗星进行或不进行洗必泰沐浴的去殖民地,并建议在其他手术中使用。对于心胸外科MRSA携带者,建议在标准预防中添加万古霉素。骨科手术,和神经外科。联合干预措施(例如,建议在接受心胸和骨科手术的MRSA携带者中进行去定植和针对性预防)。没有关于筛查的建议,非殖民化,由于缺乏数据,有针对性地预防VRE。没有找到MR-CoNS和PDR-GPB的证据。在实施筛查程序或对PAP政策进行更改之前,有必要仔细考虑实验室工作量和抗菌药物管理以及感染控制团队的参与。未来的研究应该集中在新的脱色技术上,关于监测对非殖民化剂和PAP方案的耐药性,以及高质量研究中的标准化组合干预措施。
    METHODS: The aim of these guidelines is to provide recommendations on decolonization and perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in multidrug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria (MDR-GPB) adult carriers before inpatient surgery.
    METHODS: These European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID)/European Committee on Infection Control (EUCIC) guidelines were developed following the systematic review of published studies targeting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci (MR-CoNS) and pan-drug-resistant (PDR)-GPB. Critical outcomes were the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) caused by the colonizing MDR-GPB and SSIs-attributable mortality. Important outcomes included the occurrence of SSIs caused by any pathogen, hospital-acquired infections, all-cause mortality, and adverse events associated with the interventions, including resistance development to the agents used and incidence of Clostridioides difficile infections. The last search of all databases was performed on November 1st, 2023. The level of evidence and strength of each recommendation were defined according to the GRADE approach. Consensus of a multidisciplinary expert panel was reached for the final list of recommendations. Antimicrobial stewardship considerations were included.
    CONCLUSIONS: The guideline panel reviewed the impact of decolonization, targeted PAP, and combined interventions (e.g., decolonization and targeted PAP) on the risk of SSIs and other outcomes in MDR-GPB carriers, according to the type of bacteria and type of surgery. We recommend screening for S. aureus (SA) before high-risk operations, such as cardiothoracic and orthopedic surgery. Decolonization with intranasal mupirocin with or without chlorhexidine bathing is recommended in patients colonized with SA before cardiothoracic and orthopedic surgery and suggested in other surgeries. Addition of vancomycin to standard prophylaxis is suggested for MRSA carriers in cardiothoracic surgery, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery. Combined interventions (e.g., decolonization and targeted prophylaxis) are suggested in MRSA carriers undergoing cardiothoracic and orthopedic surgery. No recommendation could be made regarding screening, decolonization, and targeted prophylaxis for VRE due to the lack of data. No evidence was retrieved for MR-CoNS and PDR-GPB. Careful consideration of the laboratory workload and involvement of antimicrobial stewardship as well as infection control teams are warranted before implementing screening procedures or performing changes in PAP policy. Future research should focus on novel decolonizing techniques, on the monitoring of resistance to decolonizing agents and PAP regimens, and on standardized combined interventions in high-quality studies.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    艰难梭菌(C.difficile)是一种主要的医院病原体,但在社区中也越来越被认为是一种重要的腹泻病原体,并不总是与抗生素有关。欧洲临床微生物学和传染病学会(ESCMID)艰难梭菌研究小组(ESGCD)是一组临床医生,科学家,以及来自许多欧洲国家和更远地区的其他人,他们对艰难梭菌有着共同的兴趣。研究组的目标集中在提高人类和动物的艰难梭菌感染(CDI)的形象,促进不同欧洲国家中心之间的合作,并提供一个讨论和传播信息的论坛。研究小组的主要目标之一是提高欧洲对艰难梭菌感染的认识。ESGCD对制定和传播欧洲预防指南特别感兴趣,诊断,和CDI的治疗。本章将讨论ESCMID研究组结构中的ESGCD组织,研究组的起源,目标,和小组的目标,并将重点介绍ESGCD过去和现在的一些活动。
    Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) is a major nosocomial pathogen but is also increasingly recognised as an important diarrhoeal pathogen in the community, not always associated with antibiotics. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for C. difficile (ESGCD) is a group of clinicians, scientists, and others from many European countries and further afield, who share a common interest in C. difficile. The aims of the Study Group are centred around raising the profile of  C. difficile infection (CDI) in humans and animals, fostering collaboration amongst centres in different European countries and providing a forum for discussing and disseminating information. One of the principal aims of the Study Group is to raise awareness of C. difficile infections in Europe. ESGCD has a particular interest in the development and dissemination of European guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CDI. This chapter will discuss the organisation of ESGCD within the ESCMID Study Group structure, the origins of the Study Group, the aims, and objectives of the group, and will highlight some of the past and present activities of ESGCD in relation to these.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Letter
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:治疗指南是艰难梭菌感染(CDI)处方实践的关键驱动因素,但是关于最佳实践的建议可能会有所不同。我们进行了成本效用分析,以比较欧洲临床微生物学和传染病学会(ESCMID)指南推荐的治疗途径与美国国家健康与护理卓越研究所(NICE)指南提出的途径。从英国国民健康服务(NHS)的角度来看。
    方法:采用决策树建模方法来反映ESCMID和NICE指南中概述的CDI治疗途径。经历CDI感染的患者每次感染接受多达三种治疗以实现应答,并且随后可能经历多达两次复发。患者人口统计数据,治疗反应,复发,公用事业,CDI相关的死亡率和费用取自已发表的文献。
    结果:与NICE治疗途径相比,ESCMID治疗途径具有成本效益,每获得质量调整生命年(QALY)阈值为20,000英镑,增量成本效益比(ICER)为4931英镑。成本效益由指标感染建议的差异驱动(ESCMID建议非达霉素作为一线治疗,而NICE建议万古霉素)。模型结果对情景和敏感性分析中调查的输入变化具有鲁棒性,和概率敏感性分析(PSA)表明,与NICE治疗策略相比,ESCMID指南治疗策略具有100%的成本效益可能性.
    结论:与NICE指南相比,从英国NHS的角度来看,ESCMID指南中关于CDI指数治疗的建议代表了最具成本效益的医疗资源使用.
    OBJECTIVE: Treatment guidelines are key drivers of prescribing practice in the management of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), but recommendations on best practice can vary. We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare the treatment pathway recommended by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guideline with the pathway proposed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.
    METHODS: A decision tree modelling approach was adopted to reflect the treatment pathway for CDI as outlined in ESCMID and NICE guidelines. Patients experiencing a CDI infection received up to three treatments per infection to achieve a response and could subsequently experience up to two recurrences. Data on patient demographics, treatment response, recurrence, utilities, CDI-related mortality, and costs were taken from published literature.
    RESULTS: The ESCMID treatment pathway was cost-effective versus the NICE treatment pathway at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £4931. Cost-effectiveness was driven by differences in index infection recommendations (ESCMID recommends fidaxomicin as first-line treatment whereas NICE recommends vancomycin). The model results were robust to variations in inputs investigated in scenarios and sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ESCMID guideline treatment strategy had a 100% likelihood of being cost-effective versus the NICE treatment strategy.
    CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the NICE guideline, the ESCMID guideline recommendations for treating an index CDI represent the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    方法:本指南的目的是为作为多重耐药革兰氏阴性菌(MDR-GNB)携带者的成年住院患者在手术前的围手术期抗生素预防(PAP)提供建议。
    方法:这些循证指南是在对针对以下MDR-GNB的PAP的已发表研究进行系统评价后制定的:耐头孢菌素的超广谱肠杆菌(ESCR-E),耐碳青霉烯类肠杆菌(CRE),耐氨基糖苷类肠杆菌,氟喹诺酮耐药肠杆菌(FQR-E),耐复方新诺明嗜麦芽窄食单胞菌,耐碳青霉烯类鲍曼不动杆菌(CRAB),极度耐药的铜绿假单胞菌,抗粘菌素GNB,和泛耐药GNB。关键结果是由任何细菌和/或定植MDR-GNB引起的手术部位感染(SSIs)的发生,和SSI归因死亡率。重要的结果包括任何类型的术后感染并发症的发生,全因死亡率,和PAP的不良事件,包括术后对靶向(基于培养物)PAP的耐药性的发展和艰难梭菌感染的发生率。所有数据库的最后一次搜索直到2022年4月30日。根据GRADE方法定义了每个建议的证据水平和强度。就最终建议清单达成了多学科专家小组的共识。抗菌药物管理考虑因素被纳入建议制定中。
    结论:指南小组审查了证据,每个细菌,在手术前使用MDR-GNB定植的患者中SSI的风险,并对现有研究进行了严格评估。发现了重大的知识差距,大多数问题都是通过观察性研究解决的。在检索到的研究中发现了中度到高度的偏倚风险,大多数建议得到了低水平证据的支持。小组有条件地建议在接受结直肠手术和实体器官移植的患者进行经直肠超声引导的前列腺活检和ESCR-E之前对FQR-E进行直肠筛查和靶向PAP。在评估当地流行病学后,建议在移植手术前筛查CRE和CRAB。在实施筛查程序或进行PAP更改之前,必须仔细考虑实验室工作量和抗菌药物管理团队的参与。提倡进行高质量的前瞻性研究,以评估PAP对进行高风险手术的CRE和CRAB携带者的影响。未来精心设计的临床试验应评估靶向PAP的有效性,包括使用EUCAST临床断点通过术后培养监测MDR-GNB定植。
    METHODS: The aim of the guidelines is to provide recommendations on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in adult inpatients who are carriers of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) before surgery.
    METHODS: These evidence-based guidelines were developed after a systematic review of published studies on PAP targeting the following MDR-GNB: extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), aminoglycoside-resistant Enterobacterales, fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales, cotrimoxazole-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), extremely drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, colistin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, and pan-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. The critical outcomes were the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) caused by any bacteria and/or by the colonizing MDR-GNB, and SSI-attributable mortality. Important outcomes included the occurrence of any type of postsurgical infectious complication, all-cause mortality, and adverse events of PAP, including development of resistance to targeted (culture-based) PAP after surgery and incidence of Clostridioides difficile infections. The last search of all databases was performed until April 30, 2022. The level of evidence and strength of each recommendation were defined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Consensus of a multidisciplinary expert panel was reached for the final list of recommendations. Antimicrobial stewardship considerations were included in the recommendation development.
    CONCLUSIONS: The guideline panel reviewed the evidence, per bacteria, of the risk of SSIs in patients colonized with MDR-GNB before surgery and critically appraised the existing studies. Significant knowledge gaps were identified, and most questions were addressed by observational studies. Moderate to high risk of bias was identified in the retrieved studies, and the majority of the recommendations were supported by low level of evidence. The panel conditionally recommends rectal screening and targeted PAP for fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and for extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales in patients undergoing colorectal surgery and solid organ transplantation. Screening for CRE and CRAB is suggested before transplant surgery after assessment of the local epidemiology. Careful consideration of the laboratory workload and involvement of antimicrobial stewardship teams before implementing the screening procedures or performing changes in PAP are warranted. High-quality prospective studies to assess the impact of PAP among CRE and CRAB carriers performing high-risk surgeries are advocated. Future well-designed clinical trials should assess the effectiveness of targeted PAP, including the monitoring of MDR-GNB colonization through postoperative cultures using European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing clinical breakpoints.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    2021年,美国胃肠病学会(ACG),美国传染病学会与美国医疗保健流行病学学会(IDSA/SHEA)联合,欧洲临床微生物学和传染病学会(ESCMID)发布了最新的艰难梭菌感染管理临床实践指南(CPGs)。的差异,有时微妙,这些指南建议之间引起了临床医生的一些争论.本文深入研究了每个CPG的关键建议,并分析了与之相关的差异和证据。CPGs之间的一个主要区别是,在IDSA/SHEA和ESCMID指南认可的非严重和严重疾病的初始治疗中,非达霉素优于万古霉素。而ACG赞助的CPG不提供优惠。强调具有成本效益的数据也是CPG之间的显着差异,因此对现有证据的解释也是如此。当使用指南来帮助支持当地实践或机构治疗途径时,临床医生应仔细平衡CPG建议与当地患者人群和实施的可行性,特别是当同一疾病状态存在多个指南时。
    In 2021, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), the Infectious Diseases Society of America in conjunction with the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (IDSA/SHEA), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) published updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of Clostridioides difficile infections. The differences, sometimes subtle, between these guideline recommendations have caused some debate among clinicians. This paper delves into select key recommendations from each respective CPG and analyzes the differences and evidence associated with each. One primary difference between the CPGs is the preference given to fidaxomicin over vancomycin for initial treatment in non-severe and severe disease endorsed by IDSA/SHEA and ESCMID guidelines, while the ACG-sponsored CPGs do not offer a preference. The emphasis on cost effective data was also a noticeable difference between the CPGs and thus interpretation of the available evidence. When using guidelines to help support local practice or institutional treatment pathways, clinicians should carefully balance CPG recommendations with local patient populations and feasibility of implementation, especially when multiple guidelines for the same disease state exist.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    方法:尽管疫苗数量众多,2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19),由严重急性呼吸道综合症冠状病毒2引起的,仍然是医疗保健提供者和脆弱人群的主要威胁。对于有疾病进展风险的轻中度COVID-19门诊患者,现在有许多选择,以预防死亡或住院。
    方法:欧洲临床微生物学和传染病学会执行委员会成立了欧洲临床微生物学和传染病学会COVID-19指南工作组。成立了一个小组,一半由主席任命,剩下的根据公开电话选择。每个小组几乎每周开会一次。对于所有的决定,使用了简单的多数票。一长串使用人群的临床问题,干预,比较,结果格式是在过程开始时开发的。对于每个人口,干预,比较,结果,两名小组成员进行了文献检索,第三个小组成员参与了不一致的结果。投票是基于建议评估的等级,开发和评估(等级)方法。
    结论:在此更新中,我们专注于抗病毒药物,为有住院或死亡风险的轻度或中度COVID-19患者提出的单克隆抗体(mAb)和其他治疗方案。尽管建议使用抗病毒药物,尤其是尼马特雷韦/利托那韦和雷姆德西韦或,或者,Molnupirarvir,针对刺突蛋白的mAb的施用严格取决于循环变体或及时测试变体和亚变体的能力。在撰写本文时(2022年4月至6月),鉴于欧洲的OmicronBA.2,BA.3,BA.4和BA.5子谱系占主导地位,唯一有活性的mAb是tixagevimab/cilgavimab。然而,考虑到流行病学情景是非常动态的,不断监测关注的变体是强制性的。
    METHODS: Despite the large availability of vaccines, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, continues to be a major threat for health-care providers and fragile people. A number of options are now available for outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at the risk of disease progression for the prevention of deaths or hospitalization.
    METHODS: A European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair and the remaining selected based on an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the population, intervention, comparison, outcome format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each population, intervention, comparison, outcome, two panel members performed a literature search, with a third panelist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
    CONCLUSIONS: In this update, we focus on anti-viral agents, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and other treatment options proposed for patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who are at the risk of hospitalization or death. Although the use of anti-virals is recommended, especially nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and remdesivir or, alternatively, molnupirarvir, the administration of mAbs against the spike protein strictly depends on circulating variants or the ability to test timely for variants and sub-variants. At the time of writing (April-June 2022), the only active mAb was tixagevimab/cilgavimab given the predominance of the Omicron BA.2, BA.3, BA.4 and BA.5 sub-lineages in Europe. However, considering that the epidemiological scenario is extremely dynamic, constant monitoring of variants of concern is mandatory.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    方法:这些ESCMID指南针对第三代头孢菌素耐药肠杆菌(3GCephRE)和碳青霉烯耐药革兰氏阴性菌的靶向抗生素治疗,重点关注单独抗生素的有效性以及联合治疗与单一治疗。
    方法:ESCMID召集了一个专家小组。进行了系统评价,包括随机对照试验和观察性研究,检查不同的抗生素治疗方案,以靶向治疗由3GCephRE引起的感染,耐碳青霉烯类肠杆菌,耐碳青霉烯类铜绿假单胞菌和耐碳青霉烯类鲍曼不动杆菌。治疗分为单独抗生素之间的头对头比较和单药治疗和联合治疗方案之间的比较。仅包括定义的单一治疗和联合治疗方案。主要结果是全因死亡率,优选在30天,次要结果包括临床失败,微生物失败,抗性的发展,复发/复发,不良事件和住院时间。所有数据库的最后一次搜索是在2019年12月进行的,随后重点搜索了相关研究,直到ECCMID2021年。数据进行了叙述性总结。根据GRADE建议对抗生素之间以及单药治疗和联合治疗方案之间的每个比较的证据的确定性进行分类。支持或反对治疗的建议的强度被分类为强或有条件(弱)。
    结论:指南小组审查了每种病原体的证据,最好是每个感染部位,批判性地评价现有的研究。许多比较仅在偏倚高风险的小型观察性研究中得到解决。值得注意的是,几乎没有证据表明新的效果,最近批准,β-内酰胺/β-内酰胺酶抑制剂对碳青霉烯类耐药革兰阴性菌感染的影响.大多数建议是基于非常低和低确定性的证据。所有建议都高度重视抗生素管理方面的考虑,为3GCephRE寻找碳青霉烯保留的选择,并限制新抗生素对严重感染的建议,由脓毒症-3标准定义。研究需要得到解决。
    METHODS: These ESCMID guidelines address the targeted antibiotic treatment of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (3GCephRE) and carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, focusing on the effectiveness of individual antibiotics and on combination versus monotherapy.
    METHODS: An expert panel was convened by ESCMID. A systematic review was performed including randomized controlled trials and observational studies, examining different antibiotic treatment regimens for the targeted treatment of infections caused by the 3GCephRE, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Treatments were classified as head-to-head comparisons between individual antibiotics and between monotherapy and combination therapy regimens, including defined monotherapy and combination regimens only. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, preferably at 30 days and secondary outcomes included clinical failure, microbiological failure, development of resistance, relapse/recurrence, adverse events and length of hospital stay. The last search of all databases was conducted in December 2019, followed by a focused search for relevant studies up until ECCMID 2021. Data were summarized narratively. The certainty of the evidence for each comparison between antibiotics and between monotherapy and combination therapy regimens was classified by the GRADE recommendations. The strength of the recommendations for or against treatments was classified as strong or conditional (weak).
    CONCLUSIONS: The guideline panel reviewed the evidence per pathogen, preferably per site of infection, critically appraising the existing studies. Many of the comparisons were addressed in small observational studies at high risk of bias only. Notably, there was very little evidence on the effects of the new, recently approved, β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors on infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Most recommendations are based on very-low- and low-certainty evidence. A high value was placed on antibiotic stewardship considerations in all recommendations, searching for carbapenem-sparing options for 3GCephRE and limiting the recommendations of the new antibiotics for severe infections, as defined by the sepsis-3 criteria. Research needs are addressed.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    This study aimed at evaluating in outpatients an algorithm for the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI), i.e., enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) detecting bacterial glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxin A/B, followed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses of samples with discordant EIA results. In total, 9802 examinations of stool samples by GDH and toxin EIAs performed in 7263 outpatients and 488 inpatients were analyzed retrospectively. Samples with discordant EIA results had been tested by a commercially available PCR assay detecting genes of the C. difficile-specific triose phosphate isomerase (tpi) and toxin B (tcdB). Concordant EIA results (686 C. difficile-positive, 8121 negative) were observed for 8807 (89.8%; 95% CI, 89.2-90.4%) samples. Of 958 samples with discordant EIA results, 895 were analyzed using PCR and 580 of 854 GDH-positive/borderline, toxin-negative samples (67.9%; 95% CI, 64.7-71.0%) were positive for tpi and tcdB, while 274 samples (32.1%; 95% CI, 29.0-35.3%) were tcdB-negative. In contrast, 35 of 41 GDH-negative, toxin-positive/borderline samples (85.4%; 95% CI, 71.2-93.5%) were tcdB-negative. Still, 6 samples (14.6%; 95% CI, 6.5-28.8%) yielded positive PCR results for both genes. In conclusion, around 90% of the samples were analyzed appropriately by only applying EIAs. Approximately one third of the PCR-analyzed samples were tcdB-negative; thus, patients most likely did not require CDI treatment.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号