Single-Point Nail Sampling to Diagnose Onychomycosis Caused by Non-Dermatophyte Molds: Utility of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Histopathology.
PAS staining
dermatophyte
diagnosis
histopathology
molecular biology
non-dermatophyte mold
onychomycosis
polymerase chain reaction
Journal
Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2309-608X
Titre abrégé: J Fungi (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101671827
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Jun 2023
14 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
04
05
2023
revised:
06
06
2023
accepted:
12
06
2023
medline:
27
6
2023
pubmed:
27
6
2023
entrez:
27
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The three most commonly used methods for diagnosing non-dermatophyte mold (NDM) onychomycosis are culture, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and histopathology. Toenail samples from 512 patients (1 sample/patient) with suspected onychomycosis were examined using all three diagnostic tests. A statistically significant association was found between PCR and histopathology results, as well as between fungal culture and histopathology results. All PCR-positive and culture-positive dermatophyte samples were confirmed by histopathology. However, 15/116 (12.9%) of culture-positive NDM samples had negative histopathology results, while all PCR-positive NDM samples were confirmed by histopathology. The overall rate of dermatophyte detection was higher using PCR compared to culture (38.9% vs. 11.7%); the lower rate of NDM detection by PCR (11.7% vs. 38.9%) could be attributed to the restriction of the assay design to seven pre-selected targets. When repeat sampling in the clinic is not possible, a combination of NDM detection by PCR and positive histopathology of hyphae may be a proxy for NDM infection, particularly where the NDM occurs without a concomitant dermatophyte. There was a high degree of correlation between negative PCR and negative histopathology. A negative PCR result with negative histopathology findings may be a reliable proxy for the diagnosis of non-fungal dystrophy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37367607
pii: jof9060671
doi: 10.3390/jof9060671
pmc: PMC10301021
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Methods Ecol Evol. 2012 Oct;3(5):898-905
pubmed: 23549328
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2019 Jan;109(1):57-63
pubmed: 30964314
Sci Rep. 2022 May 25;12(1):8872
pubmed: 35614121
Front Microbiol. 2021 Sep 22;12:636131
pubmed: 34630340
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Aug 12;17(16):
pubmed: 32806670
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 Mar;88(3):683-686
pubmed: 35809801
J Dermatol. 2015 Mar;42(3):258-62
pubmed: 25639524
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2017 Apr;18(2):281-286
pubmed: 28160226
Skin Appendage Disord. 2018 Aug;4(3):141-144
pubmed: 30197889
Dermatol Online J. 2019 Jul 15;25(7):
pubmed: 31450272
PLoS Pathog. 2014 Jun 05;10(6):e1004105
pubmed: 24901242
Ger Med Sci. 2003 Jul 01;1:Doc02
pubmed: 19675700
J Fungi (Basel). 2022 Apr 29;8(5):
pubmed: 35628720
Mycoses. 2022 Jan;65(1):35-44
pubmed: 34549836
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011 Aug 16;9(10):737-48
pubmed: 21844880
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 29;15(9):e0239648
pubmed: 32991597
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 May 12;72(19):536-537
pubmed: 37167192
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2013 Jun;16(3):366-73
pubmed: 23756050
Int J Dermatol. 2021 Dec;60(12):e474-e479
pubmed: 33729567
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Oct;43(4):641-8
pubmed: 11004620
Int J Dermatol. 2022 Nov;61(11):1385-1389
pubmed: 35535809
J Fungi (Basel). 2022 Nov 14;8(11):
pubmed: 36422019
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2019;8(1):531-541
pubmed: 30938262
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015 Sep;34(9):1767-72
pubmed: 26007318
Med Mycol. 2005 Feb;43(1):39-59
pubmed: 15712607
PLoS Pathog. 2022 Sep 29;18(9):e1010795
pubmed: 36173977
Ann Dermatol. 2012 May;24(2):209-13
pubmed: 22577275
J Invest Dermatol. 2023 May 24;:
pubmed: 37236595
J Fungi (Basel). 2015 Mar 27;1(1):30-43
pubmed: 29376897
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Mar;66(3):494-502
pubmed: 21820203
Br J Dermatol. 1976 Jun;94(6):697-701
pubmed: 132961
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Feb 22;17(1):166
pubmed: 28222676