Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtros adicionais

Intervalo de ano
PLoS One ; 14(9): e0222439, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31513653


Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) remain a worldwide problem and a severe threat to public health. The purpose of this study was to compare Aptima® Assays (Hologic®) and the Allplex™ STI Essential Assay (Seegene®) for the simultaneous detection of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis and Mycoplasma genitalium in clinical practice. The Aptima® assays (Hologic®) are based on a transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) method. The Allplex™ STI Essential assay (Seegene®) is based on a multiplex Real-Time PCR (RT-PCR) method. A total of 622 clinical samples from different anatomical sites were tested using both methods. A total of 88 (14.1%) and 66 (10.6%) positive samples were found for any of the TMA assays used and for the RT-PCR assay, respectively. Aptima® assays showed a slightly higher rate of positive results for all pathogens except for T. vaginalis, the results of which were similar to those obtained with Allplex™. The most commonly detected pathogen was C. trachomatis (37 samples; 5.9% using TMA assays) and the anatomical site with the highest prevalence of microorganisms was a non-urogenital site, the pharynx (27 positive samples; 4.3%). Using the Aptima® assays as reference method, the comparison showed that the average specificity of multiplex RT-PCR was 100.0% for the four pathogens. However an average sensitivity of 74.5% was observed, showing 95.2% (CI95%; 93.6-96.9) of overall concordance (κ = 0.80). In conclusion, the Aptima® assays show a higher sensitivity on a wide range of sample types compared to the Allplex™ assay.

Sci Rep ; 9(1): 9264, 2019 Jun 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31239457


Current HCV genotyping methods may have some limitations in detecting mixed infections. We aimed to determine the accuracy of genotyping and the detection of mixed-genotype infections using the Abbott-RealTime HCV Genotype II assay (Abbott-RT-PCR) in comparison with a Roche-Next Generation Sequencing assay (Roche-NGS). Plasma samples collected from 139 HCV-infected patients tested with Abbott-RT-PCR, 114 with single genotype (GT) and 25 with mixed GTs were genotyped using Roche-NGS. Roche-NGS confirmed all single GTs obtained with Abbott-RT-PCR. One case of Abbott GT 4 was found as GT 1a using Roche-NGS. Genotype 5 was confirmed using Roche-NGS in 75% cases (3 out of 4 cases). Twenty-five patients were identified as having mixed HCVinfections using Abbott-RT-PCR. The concordance between Abbott-RT-PCR and Roche-NGS was 76% (19 out of 25 cases). Three mixed-GT infections identified with the Abbott assay (two (1b + 4); one (1a + 3)) were reported as pure 1b using Roche-NGS. Very divergent results were found for the other three samples. When compared to Roche-NGS, Abbott-RT-PCR has performed excellently for the determination of patients infected with single GTs. For patients that are categorized as having a mixed infection using Abbott-RT-PCR, we recommend an NGS assay as a confirmation test.

J Antimicrob Chemother ; 74(6): 1693-1700, 2019 Jun 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30838386


BACKGROUND: Integrase strand-transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) constitute at present one of the pillars of first-line ART. OBJECTIVES: To study the prevalence of and the trend in transmitted drug resistance (TDR) to INSTIs in ART-naive patients in Spain. METHODS: During the period 2012-17, 1109 patients from CoRIS were analysed. The Stanford algorithm v8.7 was used to evaluate TDR and transmission of clinically relevant resistance. To describe individual mutations/polymorphisms, the most recent IAS list (for INSTIs) and the 2009 WHO list update (for the backbone NRTIs used in combination with INSTIs in first-line treatment) were used. RESULTS: Clinically relevant resistance to the INSTI class was 0.2%: T66I, 0.1%, resistance to elvitegravir and intermediate resistance to raltegravir; and G163K, 0.1%, intermediate resistance to raltegravir and elvitegravir. No clinical resistance to dolutegravir or bictegravir was observed. The prevalence of INSTI TDR following the IAS-USA INSTI mutation list was 2.6%, with no trend towards changes in the prevalence throughout the study period. The overall prevalence of NRTI WHO mutations was 4.3%, whereas clinically relevant resistance to tenofovir, abacavir and emtricitabine/lamivudine was 1.7%, 1.9% and 0.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Given the low prevalence of clinically relevant resistance to INSTIs and first-line NRTIs in Spain, it is very unlikely that a newly diagnosed patient will present with clinical resistance to a first-line INSTI-based regimen. These patients may not benefit from INSTI and NRTI baseline resistance testing.