两种多病原检测技术在呼吸道感染病原学检测中的对比研究  

Comparative evaluation of two multi-pathogen detection assays for respiratory pathogens

作　　者：易丽娜[1] 肖红[2] 黎薇[2] 刘哲[1] 莫艳玲[2] 张薇[2] 苏娟[2] 柯昌文[2] Yi Lina;Xiao Hong;Li Wei;Liu Zhe;Mo Yanling;Zhang Wei;Su Juan;Ke Changwen(Guangdong Provincial Institute of Public Health, Guangdong Provincial Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou 511430, China;Institute of Pathogenic Microbiology, Guangdong Provincial Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou 511430, China)

机构地区：[1]广东省疾病预防控制中心公共卫生研究院,广州511430 [2]广东省疾病预防控制中心病原微生物检验所,广州511430

出　　处：《国际病毒学杂志》2019年第2期97-101,共5页International Journal of Virology

摘　　要：目的比较两种不同多病原检测技术在呼吸道感染病原检测中的应用。方法选取2018年4月至2018年6月广东省疾病预防控制中心哨点医院收治的62例急性呼吸道感染病例鼻咽拭子样本作为研究材料,分别采用单管多重呼吸道病原体核酸检测试剂(RespiFinder 2SMART,方法1)及呼吸道病原体微流体芯片(RESP_TRIALCARDV1,方法2)对样本进行平行检测。比较不同方法病原检出情况及方法间检测一致性及kappa值。结果方法1和方法2病原检测阳性率分别为70.97%和80.65%,这种检出率的差异主要由检测病原种类不同引起。针对两种方法共同检测病原种类,方法1和方法2检测阳性率分别为:70.97%和66.31%。两种方法对博卡病毒、冠状病毒、流感病毒、副流感病毒、呼吸道合胞病毒、腺病毒及偏肺病毒检测结果一致性好,符合率介于93.5%~100.00%之间,kappa值均>0.6;而对肺炎支原体、百日咳杆菌及嗜肺军团菌的检测一致性较差。结论两种方法检测结果符合性较好,可依据实际检测需求应用于呼吸道病原检测。Objective To compare two multi-pathogen detection assays for respiratory pathogens detection. Methods A total of 62 nasopharyngeal swab samples were collected from acute respiratory infection cases in the sentinel hospitals of Guangdong Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention from April to June, 2018. The samples were tested in parallel by a single-tube nucleic acid assay for multiple respiratory pathogens (RespiFinder 2SMART, assay 1) and a microfluidic chip assay for respiratory pathogens (RESP_TRIAL CARD V1, assay 2). The detection rates, consistency rates and kappa values of both methods were compared. Results The positive rates of assay 1 and 2 were 70.97% and 80.65%, respectively. The difference was caused by different detection spectrum of pathogens. For the pathogens detected by both assays, the positive rates were 70.97% and 66.31% for assay 1 and 2, respectively. The detection performance of both assays for bocavirus, coronavirus, influenza virus, parainfluenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus and metapneumovirus were similar, with the overall consistency rates of 93.5%-100.00%, and all kappa values were >0.6. The consistency of detection for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Bacillus pertussis and Legionella pneumophila by the two assays were rather poor. Conclusions The performance of the two assays was similar. Both assays would be used based on targeted respiratory pathogens.

关 键 词：多病原检测 呼吸道病原 一致性 

分 类 号：R56[医药卫生—呼吸系统] R446.5[医药卫生—内科学]