[1]宋 波,王玲玲,丰新倩,等.儿童肺炎支原体感染核酸与四种血清学抗体检测方法比较[J].医学信息,2024,37(18):166-169.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.18.036]
　SONG Bo,WANG Ling-ling,FENG Xin-qian,et al.Comparison of Nucleic Acid and Four Serological Antibody Detection Methodsfor Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Infection in Children[J].Journal of Medical Information,2024,37(18):166-169.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.18.036]
点击复制

儿童肺炎支原体感染核酸与四种血清学抗体检测方法比较()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
37卷
期数:
2024年18期
页码:
166-169
栏目:
诊疗技术
出版日期:
2024-09-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of Nucleic Acid and Four Serological Antibody Detection Methodsfor Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Infection in Children
文章编号:
1006-1959（2024）18-0166-04
作者:
宋 波1; 王玲玲2; 丰新倩1; 刘丙金1; 李 庆1
淄博市第一医院检验科1，儿科2，山东 淄博 255200
Author(s):
SONG Bo1; WANG Ling-ling2; FENG Xin-qian1; LIU Bing-jin1; LI Qing1
Department of Laboratory1,Department of Pediatrics2,Zibo First Hospital,Zibo 255200,Shandong,China
关键词:
肺炎支原体; 核酸法; 磁微粒化学发光法; 酶联免疫法; 间接免疫荧光法; 被动凝集法
Keywords:
Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Nucleic acid method; Chemiluminescence immunoassay method; Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; Indirect immunofluorescence method; Passive agglutination method
分类号:
R725.6
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.18.036
摘要:
目的 比较核酸及四种血清学抗体检测方法在肺炎支原体感染诊断中的应用价值。方法 收集淄博市第一医院2021年11月10日-12月22日收治的呼吸道感染患儿159例，分别采集咽拭子和血清样本，咽拭子样本应用PCR法检测肺炎支原体核酸，血清样本分别用磁微粒化学发光法、酶联免疫法、间接免疫荧光法和被动凝集法检测肺炎支原体IgM抗体。比较5种检测方法的灵敏度、特异度以及与临床诊断方法的一致性，分析核酸法与血清学方法的一致性，另通过颗粒凝集方法比较4种血清学抗体检测的一致性。最后，比较不同病程间5种检测方法的检出率。结果 以临床诊断为标准，确诊MP感染127例，非MP感染32例。DNA检测与临床诊断一致性较好。4种血清学方法中CLIA灵敏度及特异性均高于ELISA；IFA检测灵敏度较好，但特异性较差；PA灵敏度和特异性取决于判断标准，其中PA抗体滴度≥1∶160为判断标准时，其检测灵敏度最低，特异性最高。4种血清学检测与DNA检测的一致性较差，其中FA与DNA检测的一致性处于微弱程度，其余3种方法学与DNA检测的一致性处于弱程度。不同滴度的PA阳性标本中，随着PA抗体滴度升高，ELISA和CLIA检出率逐步升高，与PA相关性较好，但PA与IFA相关性较差。DNA检出率随发病天数增多呈下降趋势，血清学检出率随发病天数增多呈先升后降趋势。结论 核酸法检测肺炎支原体的灵敏度和特异性高，病程早期其灵敏度优于血清学检测，而在病程中后期间免疫荧光法优于核酸法，两种方法学可相互补充。
Abstract:
Objective To compare the application value of nucleic acid and four serological antibody detection methods in the diagnosis of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection.Methods A total of 159 children with respiratory tract infection admitted to Zibo First Hospital from November 10 to December 22, 2021 were collected. Throat swabs and serum samples were collected respectively. Throat swab samples were detected by PCR for Mycoplasma pneumoniae nucleic acid. Serum samples were detected by chemiluminescence immunoassay method, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, indirect immunofluorescence method and passive agglutination method for Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgM antibody. The sensitivity, specificity and consistency with clinical diagnostic methods of the five detection methods were compared. The consistency between nucleic acid method and serological method was analyzed. The consistency of the four serological antibody detections was compared by particle agglutination method. Finally, the detection rates of the five detection methods were compared among different course of disease.Results With clinical diagnosis as the standard, 127 cases of MP infection and 32 cases of non-MP infection were diagnosed. The consistency between DNA detection and clinical diagnosis was good. The sensitivity and specificity of CLIA were higher than those of ELISA. The sensitivity of IFA was good, but the specificity was poor. The sensitivity and specificity of PA depended on the criteria. When the titer of PA antibody ≥1∶160 was the criterion, the detection sensitivity was the lowest and the specificity was the highest. The consistency between the four serological tests and DNA detection was poor, among which the consistency between FA and DNA detection was weak, and the consistency between the other three methods and DNA detection was weak. In PA positive samples with different titers, the detection rates of ELISA and CLIA gradually increased with the increase of PA antibody titers, and the correlation with PA was good, but the correlation between PA and IFA was poor. The detection rate of DNA decreased with the increase of the number of days of onset, and the serological detection rate increased first and then decreased with the increase of the number of days of onset.Conclusion The sensitivity and specificity of nucleic acid method in the detection of Mycoplasma pneumoniae are high, the sensitivity is better than that of serological detection in the early stage of the disease, while the indirect immunofluorescence method is better than the nucleic acid method in the middle and later stages of the disease, the two methods can complement each other.

参考文献/References:

[1]Rodriguez N,Mondeja B,Sardi?觡as R,et al.First detection and characterization of macrolide-resistant mycoplasma pneumoniae strains in cuba [J].Int J Infect Dis,2019,80:115-117.[2]Meyer Sauteur PM,Krautter S,Ambroggio L,et al.Improved diagnostics help to identify clinical features and biomarkers that predict mycoplasma pneumoniae community-acquired pneumonia in children[J].Clin Infect Dis,2020,71(7):1645-1654.[3]Xue Y,Wang M,Han H.Interaction between alveolar macrophages and epithelial cells during Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection[J].Front Cell Infect Microbiol,2023,13:1052020.[4]中华医学会儿科学分会临床检验学组.儿童肺炎支原体呼吸道感染实验室诊断中国专家共识[J].中华检验医学杂志,2019,42(7):507-513.[5]Li F,Kong S,Xie K,et al.High ratio of c-reactive protein/procalcitonin predicts mycoplasma pneumoniae infection among adults hospitalized with community acquired pneumonia [J].Scand J Clin Lab Invest,2021,81(1):65-71.[6]Lv YT,Sun XJ,Chen Y,et al.Epidemic characteristics of mycoplasma pneumoniae infection: A retrospective analysis of a single center in suzhou from 2014 to 2020[J].Ann Transl Med,2022,10(20):1123.[7]Zhao F,Li J,Liu J,et al.Antimicrobial susceptibility and molecular characteristics of mycoplasma pneumoniae isolates across different regions of china[J].Antimicrob Resist Infect Control,2019,8:143.[8]Liu J,He R,Wu R,et al.Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia associated thrombosis at beijing children’s hospital[J].BMC Infect Dis,2020,20(1):51.[9]Waites KB,Xiao L,Liu Y,et al.Mycoplasma pneumoniae from the respiratory tract and beyond[J].Clin Microbiol Rev,2017,30(3):747-809.[10]Zhu YG,Tang XD,Lu Y T,et al.Contemporary situation of community-acquired pneumonia in china: A systematic review[J].J Transl Int Med,2018,6(1):26-31.[11]白经纬.微生物快速培养检测在小儿肺炎支原体感染中的诊断价值[J].医学信息,2022,35(24):151-153.[12]田增春,梁璐,刘阳,等.咽拭子、肺泡灌洗液肺炎支原体-DNA水平与社区获得性肺炎支原体肺炎炎性反应及免疫功能的关系[J].安徽医药,2022,26(8):1619-1623.[13]Gao M,Yao X,Mao W,et al.Etiological analysis of virus, mycoplasma pneumoniae and chlamydia pneumoniae in hospitalized children with acute respiratory infections in Huzhou[J].Virol J,2020,17(1):119.[14]王居鹏,朱黎娜,马明坤,等.被动凝集法、间接免疫荧光法和胶体金法联合检测肺炎支原体抗体对儿童肺炎支原体感染的诊断价值[J].天津医药,2022,50(4):418-423.[15]张志英,韩淑娟,张小宁,等.肺炎痰液支原体dna联合血清mp-igm抗体检测在小儿肺炎支原体肺炎早期诊断中的价值[J].中国临床新医学,2017,10(9):866-868.[16]林苗苗,施李芬,余坚,等.肺炎支原体RNA和DNA检测技术对儿童肺炎支原体肺炎诊断的价值[J]. 中国妇幼保健,2018,33(5):1054-1056.[17]Tang M,Wang D,Tong X,et al.Comparison of different detection methods for mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in children with community-acquired pneumonia[J].BMC Pediatr,2021,21(1):90.[18]Ishimaru N,Suzuki S,Shimokawa T,et al.Predicting mycoplasma pneumoniae and chlamydophila pneumoniae in community-acquired pneumonia (cap) pneumonia: Epidemiological study of respiratory tract infection using multiplex pcr assays[J].Intern Emerg Med,2021,16(8):2129-2137.[19]Cho MC,Kim H,An D,et al.Comparison of sputum and nasopharyngeal swab specimens for molecular diagnosis of mycoplasma pneumoniae,chlamydophila pneumoniae,and legionella pneumophila[J].Ann Lab Med,2012,32(2):133-138.[20]刘金荣,刘立雍,赵顺英,等.咽拭子与支气管肺泡灌洗液荧光定量PCR检测儿童肺炎支原体感染分析[J].疾病监测,2019,34(5):389-393.[21]Meyer Sauteur PM,Van Rossum AM,Vink C.Mycoplasma pneumoniae in children: Carriage,pathogenesis,and antibiotic resistance[J].Curr Opin Infect Dis,2014,27(3):220-227.[22]Lin LJ,Chang FC,Chi H,et al.The diagnostic value of serological studies in pediatric patients with acute mycoplasma pneumoniae infection[J].J Microbiol Immunol Infect,2020,53(2):351-356.

相似文献/References:

[1]李 娇,林 琳.儿童呼吸道感染者肺炎支原体及肺炎衣原体特异性抗体检测临床意义[J].医学信息,2019,32(03):96.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.03.029]
　LI Jiao,LI Lin.Clinical Significance of Detection of Specific Antibodies Against Mycoplasma Pneumoniae and Chlamydia Pneumoniae in Children with Respiratory Tract Infection[J].Journal of Medical Information,2019,32(18):96.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.03.029]
[2]郭昱瑄,张盛玉,王熙业,等.肺炎支原体实验室诊断的研究进展[J].医学信息,2019,32(11):26.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.11.008]
　GUO Yu-xuan,ZHANG Sheng-Yu,WANG Xi-ye,et al.Progress in Laboratory Diagnosis of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae[J].Journal of Medical Information,2019,32(18):26.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.11.008]
[3]石连霞.口咽部正常菌群对肺炎支原体快速培养法试剂盒的影响[J].医学信息,2019,32(11):171.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.11.053]
　SHI Lian-xia.Effect of Normal Oropharyngeal Flora on Kit for Rapid Culture of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae[J].Journal of Medical Information,2019,32(18):171.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2019.11.053]
[4]周彩虹.小儿呼吸系统感染后肺炎支原体抗体检测的意义[J].医学信息,2020,33(10):175.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.10.054]
　ZHOU Cai-hong.Significance of Detection of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Antibody After Respiratory Infection in Children[J].Journal of Medical Information,2020,33(18):175.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.10.054]
[5]张同强,郑家峰,徐勇胜.暴发性肺炎支原体肺炎的临床特点及治疗[J].医学信息,2020,33(13):26.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.13.008]
　ZHANG Tong-qiang,ZHENG Jia-feng,XU Yong-sheng.Clinical Features and Treatment of Fulminant Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Pneumonia[J].Journal of Medical Information,2020,33(18):26.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2020.13.008]
[6]白经纬.微生物快速培养检测在小儿肺炎支原体感染中的诊断价值[J].医学信息,2022,35(24):151.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.24.033]
　BAI Jing-wei.Diagnostic Value of Rapid Microbial Culture Detection in Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Infection in Children[J].Journal of Medical Information,2022,35(18):151.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2022.24.033]
[7]王 琳,王笔金.儿童支原体大叶性肺炎三种病原体检测方法的对比分析[J].医学信息,2024,37(18):83.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.18.015]
　WANG Lin,WANG Bi-jin.Comparative Analysis of Three Pathogen Detection Methods for Mycoplasma Lobar Pneumonia in Children[J].Journal of Medical Information,2024,37(18):83.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.18.015]

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01