交叉引物恒温扩增技术在初诊疑似肺结核患者诊断中的应用价值

doi:10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20220065

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 评价交叉引物恒温扩增(cross-priming amplification,CPA)技术在初诊疑似肺结核患者诊断中的应用价值。方法: 选取2020年1月至2021年5月深圳市龙华区慢性病防治中心就诊的初诊疑似肺结核患者2408例作为研究对象。收集患者痰液标本分别采用萋-尼抗酸染色(acid-fast stain,AFS)法、BACTEC MGIT 960(简称“MGIT 960”)液体培养法及CPA技术对治疗前痰液标本进行结核分枝杆菌(Mycobacterium tuberculosis,MTB)检测,以MGIT 960液体培养法为参照标准,评价CPA诊断效能。结果: AFS法、MGIT 960液体培养法及CPA技术MTB阳性检出率分别为8.89%(214/2408)、27.99%(674/2408)及15.49%(373/2408),不同方法检测阳性率比较差异有统计学意义(χ²=314.619,P=0.000),其中MGIT 960液体培养法明显高于CPA技术和AFS法,而CPA技术高于AFS法,差异均有统计学意义(χ²=110.572、 292.158、 49.046,P值均=0.000)。以MGIT 960液体培养结果为参照标准,CPA检测MTB的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值及符合率分别为52.37%(353/674)、98.85%(1714/1734)、94.64%(353/373)、84.23%(1714/2035)及85.84%(2067/2408),而AFS法分别为31.45%(212/674)、99.88%(1732/1734)、99.07%(212/214)、78.94%(1732/2194)及80.73%(1944/2408),其中CPA技术的敏感度[52.37%(95%CI:47.21%~59.64%)]明显高于AFS法[31.45%(95%CI:26.87%~35.72%)],差异有统计学意义(χ²=108.290, P=0.000)。CPA技术与MGIT 960液体培养法检测结果一致性较好(Kappa=0.592),而与AFS法一致性较差(Kappa=0.395)。涂阳培阴率为0.08%(2/2408),培养污染率为5.40%(130/2408),而CPA检测无效例数为0。结论: 初诊疑似肺结核分枝杆菌感染CPA技术阳性检出率和敏感度明显高于AFS法,且一致性好于AFS法,同时操作简单、快速、经济及无污染,对肺结核早期诊断具有应用价值。

关键词: 结核,肺, 核酸扩增技术, 临床实验室技术, 诊断, 对比研究

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate the potential of cross-priming amplification (CPA) in the diagnosis of patients newly diagnosed with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis. Methods: Of 2408 new cases of suspected pulmonary tuberculosis presenting at Longhua District Chronic Disease Control Center in Shenzhen City from January, 2020 to May, 2021 were enrolled in the study. Sputum samples were collected and sputum smears (Ziehl-Neelsen acid-fast stain (AFS) method), BACTEC MGIT 960 (MGIT 960) liquid culture and CPA analysis were performed to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB), MGIT 960 liquid culture being used as the gold standard to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of CPA. Results: The MTB detection rate by AFS, MGIT 960 liquid culture and CPA was 8.89% (214/2408), 27.99% (674/2408) and 15.49% (373/2408), respectively. The difference in the detection rates of the three methods was statistically significant (χ²=314.619, P=0.000), with that of MGIT 960 liquid culture being significantly higher than both CPA and AFS, and that of CPA being higher than that of AFS (χ²=110.572, 292.158, 49.046, P=0.000). Using MGIT 960 liquid culture as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and coincidence rate of CPA in detecting MTB were 52.37% (353/674), 98.85% (1714/1734), 94.64% (353/373), 84.23% (1714/2035) and 85.84% (2067/2408), respectively, while that of the AFS method was 31.45% (212/674), 99.88% (1732/1734), 99.07% (212/214), 78.94% (1732/2194) and 80.73% (1944/2408), respectively. The sensitivity of CPA (52.37%; 95%CI: 47.21%-59.64%) was significantly higher than that of AFS (31.45%; 95%CI: 26.87%-35.72%;χ²=108.290, P=0.000). Results of CPA were in good agreement with MGIT 960 liquid culture (Kappa=0.592), but AFS results showed poor agreement (Kappa=0.395). The smear-positive/culture-negative rate was 0.08% (2/2408), and the culture contamination rate was 5.40% (130/2408). All CPA detection results were valid. Conclusion: The positive detection rate and sensitivity of CPA for diagnosing cases of suspected MTB infection was significantly higher than that of AFS, and showed better consistency. The CPA technique is simple, rapid, economical and free of contamination, making it of promising value in the early diagnosis of MTB infection.

Key words: Tuberculosis,pulmonary, Nucleic acid amplification techniques, Clinical laboratory techniques, Diagnosis, Comparative study

中图分类号:

R521
R446.5

蒋淑萍, 刘昌伟, 李斌, 徐小琴, 罗文基, 余柏林, 张月. 交叉引物恒温扩增技术在初诊疑似肺结核患者诊断中的应用价值[J]. 中国防痨杂志, 2022, 44(8): 844-848. doi: 10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20220065

Jiang Shuping, Liu Changwei, Li Bin, Xu Xiaoqin, Luo Wenji, Yu Bolin, Zhang Yue. Evaluation of the potential of cross-priming amplification for the diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection[J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2022, 44(8): 844-848. doi: 10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20220065

图/表 2

参考文献 21

[1]	闫岚. 不同方法检测体液标本结核分枝杆菌的临床价值比较. 实用医技杂志, 2021, 28(4):473-475. doi: 10.19522/j.cnki.1671-5098.2021.04.013. doi: 10.19522/j.cnki.1671-5098.2021.04.013
[2]	刘兰瑞, 张永强, 张原, 等. 3种分子新诊断技术与传统培养技术检测结核分枝杆菌阳性率比较. 中国实验诊断学, 2020, 24(11):1854-1855. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-4287.2020.11.029. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-4287.2020.11.029
[3]	薛建昌, 梁冰锋, 孔祥龙, 等. 4种不同方法检测痰液及支气管肺泡灌洗液中结核分枝杆菌阳性率的比较分析. 医学动物防制, 2021, 37(6):526-531,535. doi: 10.7629/yxdwfz202106004. doi: 10.7629/yxdwfz202106004
[4]	林百丰, 苏欣, 张学志. 交叉引物扩增技术在结核病诊断中的应用. 结核病与肺部健康杂志, 2018, 7(4):284-287. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-3755.2018.04.012. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-3755.2018.04.012
[5]	雷红鸽, 商亚丽. 交叉引物恒温扩增技术在结核病患者不同标本类型中的临床应用价值探讨. 中国药物与临床, 2020, 20(21):3667-3668. doi: 10.11655/zgywylc2020.21.061. doi: 10.11655/zgywylc2020.21.061
[6]	赵雁林, 逄宇. 结核病实验室检验规程. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2015.
[7]	汪德华, 付军, 陈娜, 等. 2008—2018年南昌市肺结核病的流行病学特征分析. 南昌大学学报(医学版), 2021, 61(1):69-72,87. doi: 10.13764/j.cnki.ncdm.2021.01.015. doi: 10.13764/j.cnki.ncdm.2021.01.015
[8]	吴树才, 章志华, 邸红芹. 重视结核分枝杆菌分子生物学诊断. 结核与肺部疾病杂志, 2021, 2(1):3-7. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-8493.2021.01.002. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-8493.2021.01.002
[9]	舒薇, 孙玙贤, 张立杰, 等. 结核病的研究与创新—2021年世界卫生组织全球结核病报告解读. 中国防痨杂志, 2022, 44(1):45-48. doi: 10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20210685. doi: 10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20210685
[10]	Diriba G, Kebede A, Yaregal Z, et al. Performance of Mycobacterium Growth Indicator Tube BACTEC 960 with Lowenstein-Jensen method for diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis at Ethiopian National Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory,Addis Ababa,Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes, 2017, 10(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2497-9. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2497-9
[11]	王超, 徐东芳, 王庆. 交叉引物法恒温扩增技术在结核病诊断中的应用价值分析. 黑龙江医药, 2019, 32(6):1458-1460. doi: 10.14035/j.cnki.hljyy.2019.06.095. doi: 10.14035/j.cnki.hljyy.2019.06.095
[12]	彭英, 苏欣, 江琦, 等. 新型分子检测技术在基层实验室诊断肺结核的效能分析. 中国防痨杂志, 2019, 41(2):145-148. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2019.02.005. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2019.02.005
[13]	毛秀军, 李世明, 葛晓励, 等. 交叉引物恒温扩增技术在结核分枝杆菌检测中的应用. 检验医学与临床, 2016, 13(8):1107-1109. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2016.08.041. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2016.08.041
[14]	刘王亭, 罗倩, 陈娟, 等. GeneXpert MTB/RIF、MGIT 960液体培养法在胸腔积液结核分枝杆菌检测中的应用. 国际检验医学杂志, 2022, 43(4):385-387,393. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4130.2022.04.001. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4130.2022.04.001
[15]	兰剑锋, 刘淑燕. 涂片法、L-J法、MGIT 960法及GeneXpert法检测在疑似肺结核患者临床诊断中的应用. 中国医药科学, 2021, 11(15):186-189,203. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-0616.2021.15.049. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-0616.2021.15.049
[16]	周秋菊, 王冬莲, 杨阳, 等. 四种检测方法在结核病诊断中的比较. 中国现代医生, 2020, 58(16):8-12,16.
[17]	吴进凤, 王路钦, 张治国. 两种方法在结核分枝杆菌培养中的比对研究. 检验医学与临床, 2019, 16(16):2326-2328,2331. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2019.16.016. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2019.16.016
[18]	崔晓敬, 魏栋, 王春雷, 等. 分子生物学和液体培养方法提高综合医院结核病病原学诊断能力的价值. 中国防痨杂志, 2021, 43(2):143-146. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2021.02.008. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2021.02.008
[19]	周艳艳. 利福平耐药实时荧光定量核酸扩增技术法、液体培养法和涂片抗酸染色法在结核分枝杆菌检测中的应用. 实用医技杂志, 2021, 28(7):903-905. doi: 10.19522/j.cnki.1671-5098.2021.07.025. doi: 10.19522/j.cnki.1671-5098.2021.07.025
[20]	白丹. 肺结核患者痰中结核分枝杆菌检验的临床价值研究. 中国实用医药 2021, 16(3):211-212. doi: 10.14163/j.cnki.11-5547/r.2021.03.092. doi: 10.14163/j.cnki.11-5547/r.2021.03.092
[21]	董思佳. 五种结核病实验室检测方法在医疗机构应用的检测性能及成本分析. 北京:中国医科大学, 2021. doi: 10.27652/d.cnki.gzyku.2021.001526. doi: 10.27652/d.cnki.gzyku.2021.001526

检测方法	MGIT 960培养法		敏感度 (95%CI,%)	特异度 (95%CI,%)	阳性预测值 (95%CI,%)	阴性预测值 (95%CI,%)
检测方法	阳性(例)	阴性(例)	敏感度 (95%CI,%)	特异度 (95%CI,%)	阳性预测值 (95%CI,%)	阴性预测值 (95%CI,%)
CPA技术			52.37(47.21~59.64)	98.85(95.04~100.00)	94.64(92.37~99.20)	84.23(79.58~91.49)
阳性	353	20
阴性	321	1714
AFS法			31.45(26.87~35.72)	99.88(95.63~100.00)	99.07(95.16~100.00)	78.94(73.95~87.26)
阳性	212	2
阴性	462	1732