| Literature DB >> 35597925 |
Iacopo Franconi1, Alessandro Leonildi2, Gianluca Erra1, Roberta Fais1, Marco Falcone2, Emilia Ghelardi1, Antonella Lupetti3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current diagnostic gold standard for Pneumocystis jirovecii is represented by microscopic visualization of the fungus from clinical respiratory samples, as bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid, defining "proven" P. jirovecii pneumonia, whereas qPCR allows defining "probable" diagnosis, as it is unable to discriminate infection from colonization. However, molecular methods, such as end-point PCR and qPCR, are faster, easier to perform and interpret, thus allowing the laboratory to give back the clinician useful microbiological data in a shorter time. The present study aims at comparing microscopy with molecular assays and beta-D-glucan diagnostic performance on bronchoalveolar-lavage fluids from patients with suspected Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. Bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid from eighteen high-risk and four negative control subjects underwent Grocott-Gomori's methenamine silver-staining, end-point PCR, RT-PCR, and beta-D-glucan assay.Entities:
Keywords: (1–3) β-D-glucan assay; Bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid; End-point PCR; Grocott-Gomori’s methenamine silver-staining; Pneumocystis jirovecii; Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia; Quantitative real-time PCR
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35597925 PMCID: PMC9123786 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-022-02559-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 4.465
Comparison of microscopic, end-point PCR, RT-PCR, and β-D-glucan assays between PCP-patients and negative controls
| Patients with suspected PCP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methenamine-silver staining microscopy | Unyvero-HPN end-point PCRa | Sacace-P. jirovecii Real-TM PCR (Ct)b | β-D-glucan assay (pg/mL)c | |
| 1 | + | + + + | + (20) | 621 |
| 2 | - | - | + (28) | > 1000 |
| 3 | + | + + + | + (21) | 879 |
| 4 | + | + + + | + (21) | 960 |
| 5 | + | + + + | + (22) | > 1000 |
| 6 | - | - | - | > 1000 |
| 7 | - | - | - | > 1000 |
| 8 | - | - | - | > 1000 |
| 9 | - | - | - | > 1000 |
| 10 | + | + + + | + (26) | > 1000 |
| 11 | + | + + + | + (24) | > 1000 |
| 12 | - | - | - | > 1000 |
| 13 | + | + + + | + (18) | 591 |
| 14 | - | + | + (30) | 118 |
| 15 | - | - | - | > 1000 |
| 16 | - | - | - | 837 |
| 17 | + | + + + | + (19) | 255 |
| 18 | + | + + + | + (19) | < 10 |
| Total | 9 (50%) | 10 (55.6%) | 11 (61.0%) | 15 (83.3%) |
| Negative control patients | ||||
| 19 | - | - | - | 309 |
| 20 | - | - | - | < 10 |
| 21 | - | - | - | 115 |
| 22 | - | - | - | < 10 |
a + weakly, + + moderately, + + + intensely positive samples
b(Ct) stands for threshold cycle value
cResults were < 400 pg/mL = negative; 400–450 pg/mL = indeterminate; > 450 pg/mL = positive