Clinical Syndromes: Pneumocystis

Rath, Peter‐Michael

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92300-0_9

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One crucial point of diagnosing PCP is the differentiation between a colonisation and an infection, if PCR detects P jirovecii DNA 14,32 . The fungal load, responsible for either colonisation or infection, varies highly between individuals and is dependent on several factors, for example the underlying disease, the capability of the immune system and the consistence of the patient's lung, making a successful differentiation even more difficult 15,33 . Perret et al evaluated a cut‐off of 5 × 10 3 copies/mL to discriminate between a colonisation and a pneumonia in non‐HIV patients 34 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a commercial Loop‐mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) assay for rapid detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii

Scharmann

Kirchhoff

Schmidt

et al. 2020

Mycoses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background Various tools are obtainable for the detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii, among them qPCR promising highest sensitivity. A novel molecular method is commercially available, the loop‐mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay. Objectives We compared the performance of the LAMP eazyplex® Pneumocystis jirovecii with the RealStar Pneumocystis jirovecii PCR 1.0 qPCR. Material/Methods Overall, 162 lower respiratory tract specimens from 146 critically ill patients were investigated. LAMP assay and qPCR were carried out according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Positive results of the LAMP were described as time to positivity (TTP). The limit of detection (LOD) of the LAMP was analysed using 10‐fold serial dilutions of a high positive P jirovecii respiratory sample. For each serial dilution, TTP of the LAMP was plotted against cycle threshold (Ct) values of the qPCR. Results The LOD of the LAMP was determined to be approximately 4 × 103 copies/mL. While the LAMP revealed 28 (17%) positive signals from 20 patients, by using qPCR 41 (25%) positive samples from 28 patients were identified. Overall agreement with qPCR was 92%. Five false‐negative, one false‐positive and nine invalid results were detected by the LAMP. Positive and negative predictive values were 96% each, and sensitivity and specificity were 84% and 99%, respectively. There was a low correlation between the TTP and the fungal load. Conclusion The LAMP is a time‐saving and easy‐to‐perform method. It can be used as an alternative diagnostic method. However, for quantification purposes the qPCR is still the gold standard.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%