EVALUATION OF POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION METHOD FOR MONITORING OF FUNGAL INFECTION IN COMPROMISED HOSTS
Diagnosis of fungal infections in compromised hosts has been difficult because of insufficient sensitivity and specificity of conventional methods such as culturing and serum testing. Therefore, antifungal agents are usually started in febrile patients who are resistant to antibiotics even if these...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Japanese journal of antibiotics 2001/03/25, Vol.54(3), pp.103-111 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | jpn |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Diagnosis of fungal infections in compromised hosts has been difficult because of insufficient sensitivity and specificity of conventional methods such as culturing and serum testing. Therefore, antifungal agents are usually started in febrile patients who are resistant to antibiotics even if these monitoring tests were negative. In this study, therefore, in order to increase the reliability of these monitoring, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods for detection of blood fungus were also performed in compromised hosts including 14 patients with hematological malignancies and one with solid tumor who were undergoing chemotherapies. From these patients, total of 56 peripheral blood samples was collected periodically, irrespective of the presence of infectious signs. At each time point of venopuncture, status of the patient was allocated to one of the followings: A, receiving an intravenous antifungal therapy because of sustaining fever which had not responded to prior antibiotic therapies and also positive for culturing and/or serum β-D-glucan tests; B, receiving an additional intravenous antifungal therapy but negative for culturing and serum-tests; C, febrile but not yet receiving any intravenous fungal therapy; D, afebrile status. During the study, 10 blood samples from 3 patients were allocated in group A, and one sample of them was positive while remaining 9 were all negative for PCR. Six samples from 4 patients were in group B, and one was PCR positive while remaining 5 were negative. Fifteen samples from 7 patients were in group C, and 3 were positive and 12 were negative for PCR. Twenty-five samples were in group D, and 5 were positive and 20 were negative for PCR. Thus, the results from fungal PCR in these patients were in some case showed discrepancies from those expected from the clinical course and/or conventional monitoring tests. Further evaluation of fungal PCR may gain insight into the more precise diagnosis of fungal infection in these patients. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0368-2781 2186-5477 |
DOI: | 10.11553/antibiotics1968b.54.103 |