Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi · 2019
Usefulness of the FilmArray meningitis/encephalitis (M/E) panel for the diagnosis of infectious meningitis and encephalitis in Taiwan.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Sze Hwei, Chen Shey-Ying, Chien Jung-Yien, Lee Tai-Fen, Chen Jong-Min, Hsueh Po-Ren
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Early recognition of causative pathogens is critical for the appropriate management of central nervous system infection and improved outcomes. The BioFire® FilmArray® Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel (BioFire® ME Panel, BioFire Diagnostics) is the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved multiplex PCR assay that allows the rapid detection of 14 pathogens, including bacteria (n = 6), viruses (n = 7), and fungi (n = 1), from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The performance of the panel is expected to be dependent on the epidemiology of M/E in different geographical regions.
METHODS: In this preliminary study, we used the BioFire® ME Panel in 42 subjects who presented to the emergency department with symptoms of M/E in our hospital. The results were compared to conventional culture, antigen detection, PCR, and various laboratory findings.
RESULTS: The panel detected six positive samples, of which five were viral and one bacterial. We observed an overall agreement rate of 88% between the BioFire® ME Panel results and the conventional methods. There were no false-positive findings, but five discordant results were observed for enterovirus, herpes simplex virus type 1, Escherichia coli, and Cryptococcus species.
CONCLUSIONS: The BioFire® ME Panel performed equivalently to the traditional PCR methods for virus detection, and better than bacterial cultures. This revolutionary system represents a paradigm shift in the diagnosis of M/E and may aid in the rapid identification of community-acquired M/E. However, the usefulness of this tool is limited in regions with a high prevalence of infectious M/E caused by microorganisms not included in the panel.
METHODS: In this preliminary study, we used the BioFire® ME Panel in 42 subjects who presented to the emergency department with symptoms of M/E in our hospital. The results were compared to conventional culture, antigen detection, PCR, and various laboratory findings.
RESULTS: The panel detected six positive samples, of which five were viral and one bacterial. We observed an overall agreement rate of 88% between the BioFire® ME Panel results and the conventional methods. There were no false-positive findings, but five discordant results were observed for enterovirus, herpes simplex virus type 1, Escherichia coli, and Cryptococcus species.
CONCLUSIONS: The BioFire® ME Panel performed equivalently to the traditional PCR methods for virus detection, and better than bacterial cultures. This revolutionary system represents a paradigm shift in the diagnosis of M/E and may aid in the rapid identification of community-acquired M/E. However, the usefulness of this tool is limited in regions with a high prevalence of infectious M/E caused by microorganisms not included in the panel.