Prospective evaluation of the Gen-Probe assay for detection of Legionellae in respiratory specimens
- 26 Downloads
A prospective evaluation of a DNA probe assay for detection ofLegionella species was performed on 427 consecutive respiratory specimens submitted over an 18-month period. The Gen-Probe assay utilizing both low (⩾4.0) and high (>7.0) ratio threshold values was compared to direct fluorescent antibody staining (DFA) as a predictor of isolation ofLegionella on culture. The highest sensitivity (63 %) was obtained with the lower threshold ratio, but was not significantly different from the result obtained with a threshold ratio of >7.0 (50 %, p=0.722) or DFA results (44 %, p=0.479). The specificity of the DNA probe assay was improved with the high threshold (99 %) compared either to the low threshold ratio (95 %, p=0.0002) or DFA (97 %, p=0.055). When the DNA probe was compared to DFA and/orLegionella isolation on culture, a significantly lower specificity (97 % versus 99 %, p=0.0006) and higher sensitivity (74 % versus 37 %, p=0.013) was obtained with a threshold value of ⩾4.0 than >7.0. Ten of 20 specimens with a DNA probe ratio between 4.0 and 7.0 were DFA positive, although only two were isolated on culture. The DFA assay and both probe threshold ratios have a high negative predictive value when compared to culture. However, only the threshold ratio of >7.0 has a sufficiently high positive predictive value to be useful alone. Although the DNA probe appears to be a practical alternative to DFA testing for the rapid diagnosis ofLegionella infections, false-negative results emphasize the importance of obtaining several specimens for testing, and confirm the fundamental role of culture in the diagnosis ofLegionella infections.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Fraser, D. W., Tsai, T. R., Orenstein, W., Parkin, W. E., Beecham, H. J., Sharrar, R. G., Harris, J., Mallison, G. F., Martin, S. M., McDade, J. E., Shepard, C. C., Brachman, P., S. Legionnaires' disease: description of an epidemic of pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine 1977, 297: 1189–1197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Tenover, F. C., Edelstein, P. H., Goldstein, L. C., Sturge, J. C., Plorde, J. J. Comparison of cross-staining reactions byPseudomonas species and fluorescein-labelled polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies directed againstLegionella pneumophila. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1986, 23: 647–649.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kohne, D. E., Steigerwalt, A. G., Brenner, D. J. Nucleic acid probe specific for members of the genusLegionella. In: Thornsberry, C., Balows, A., Feeley, J. C., Jakubowski, W. (ed.):Legionella. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, 1984, p. 107–108.Google Scholar
- 14.Edelstein, P. H. Legionnaires' disease laboratory manual. Document PB 84-156827. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1984.Google Scholar
- 15.Edelstein, P. H. Legionella. In: Lennette, E. H., Balows, A., Hausler, W. J., Shadomy, H. J. (ed.): Manual of clinical microbiology. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, 1984, p. 373–391.Google Scholar
- 16.Galen, R. S., Gambino, S. R. Beyond normality: the predictive value and efficiency of medical diagnosis. John Wiley, New York, NY, 1975.Google Scholar