Mycobacterium Avium Complex Infection of the Spine in a Patient Without Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome: A Case Report and Literature Review

Lv, Hui; Zhou, Jian; Yu, Guo; Chen, Hui; Xu, Jianzhong; Zhang, Zhong Rong; Zhang, Ze Hua

doi:10.1111/os.13736

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It plays a critical role in the diagnosis of infectious diseases. Previously, a rare case of Mycobacterium avium intracellular spinal infection was identified using mNGS at our center ( Lv et al., 2023 ). However, to the best of our knowledge, only a few studies have been conducted on the use of mNGS for spinal infections.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for rapid molecular identification in spinal infection diagnosis

Lv,

Liao,

Shi

et al. 2024

Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of metagenomic next−generation sequencing (mNGS) for detecting pathogens in spinal infections and to identify the differences in the diagnostic performance between mNGS and targeted next−generation sequencing (tNGS).MethodsA total of 76 consecutive patients with suspected spinal infections who underwent mNGS, culture, and histopathological examinations were retrospectively studied. The final diagnosis of the patient was determined by combining the clinical treatment results, pathological examinations, imaging changes and laboratory indicators. The sensitivity and specificity of mNGS and culture were determined.ResultsThe difference between the two detection rates was statistically significant (p < 0.001), with mNGS exhibiting a significantly higher detection rate (77.6% versus 18.4%). The average diagnosis time of mNGS was significantly shorter than that of bacterial culture (p < 0.001, 1.65 versus 3.07 days). The sensitivity and accuracy of mNGS were significantly higher than that of the culture group (p < 0.001, 82.3% versus 17.5%; 75% versus 27.6%), whereas the specificity of mNGS (42.9%) was lower than that of the culture group (p > 0.05, 42.9% versus 76.9%). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive value (PPV) of pus were higher than those of tissue samples for mNGS, whereas for culture, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and PPV of tissue samples were higher than those of pus. tNGS demonstrated higher sensitivity and accuracy in diagnosing tuberculosis (TB) than mNGS (80% versus 50%; 87.5% versus 68.8%).ConclusionmNGS for spinal infection demonstrated better diagnostic value in developing an antibiotic regimen earlier, and it is recommended to prioritize pus samples for testing through mNGS. Moreover, tNGS outperformed other methods for diagnosing spinal TB and identifying antibiotic-resistance genes in drug-resistant TB.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%