2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2022.115729
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Point-of-care molecular diagnostics for the detection of group A Streptococcus in non-invasive skin and soft tissue infections: a validation study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To mimic the sample collection conditions, we pipetted 5 µL of diluted culture on a clean petri dish and collected the bacterial sample by swabbing from this culture and transferring the swap to a tube containing Tris buffer and our ACP-paper. Sample collection using swabs is typically used for nasal, [37] throat, [38] skin, [39] and environmental [40] samples. We pursued with RPA and DNA detection following the protocol described above.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To mimic the sample collection conditions, we pipetted 5 µL of diluted culture on a clean petri dish and collected the bacterial sample by swabbing from this culture and transferring the swap to a tube containing Tris buffer and our ACP-paper. Sample collection using swabs is typically used for nasal, [37] throat, [38] skin, [39] and environmental [40] samples. We pursued with RPA and DNA detection following the protocol described above.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In wound care, the search for a reliable biomarker that allows for early intervention without depending on an overt expression of inflammation or infection is underway. Several biomarkers for early detection of high bacterial presence have been proposed, including protease-based detection ( Heinzle et al., 2013 ; Serena TE and Brosnan, 2022 ), a Strep A rapid swab test ( Close et al., 2022 ), rapid enzyme analysis/activity detection ( Hajnsek et al., 2013 ; Blokhuis-Arkes MH et al., 2015 ), a capsulized vesicle activated by bacterial toxins ( Young AE et al., 2020 ), pH and uric acid monitoring bandages ( Pal et al., 2018 ), and volatile organic compound detection ( Ashrafi M et al., 2017 ). Though promising, some are still experimental, are technically challenging, lack portability or accessibility, or require invasive measures – and few provide bedside results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…RMDT for GAS detection also exist, although less spread, probably owing to the absence of resistance issue. Notably, the molecular Cobas Liat point-of-care tool has evidenced excellent performances compared with culture from SSTI swabs (concordance >99%) [39 ▪ ]. Yet, therapeutic approaches based on early GAS antigen detection have been scarcely investigated and yielded disappointing results [40,41].…”
Section: The Key Contribution Of the Microbiology Laboratory In The M...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, GAS stands as the leading pathogen in severe CA-SSTI: the detection of these bacteria through RMDT on clinical samples might allow both early de-escalation to narrow-spectrum β-lactams and rapid identification of patients who may benefit from antitoxin medications such as clindamycin – or polyvalent intra-venous immunoglobulins for those with associated toxic shock syndrome [64–67]. As mentioned above, the Cobas Liat point-of-care assay has a >99% concordance with culture for the detection of GAS from SSTI swabs, with a median time-to-result of 17 min; however, this approach is of course not predictive of the monomicrobial nature of the explored infection and its therapeutic input remains to be fully investigated [39 ▪ ].…”
Section: Opportunities and Barriers For Antimicrobial Stewardship In ...mentioning
confidence: 99%