• 1

    Thomas J, Jacobson GA, Narkowicz CK, et al: Toenail onychomycosis: an important global disease burden. J Clin Pharm Ther 35: 497, 2010.

  • 2

    Summerbell RC, Cooper E, Bunn U, et al: Onychomycosis: a critical study of techniques and criteria for confirming the etiological significance of nondermatophytes. Med Mycol 43: 39, 2005.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Gupta AK, Jain HC, Lynde CW, et al: Prevalence and epidemiology of onychomycosis in patients visiting physicians' offices: a multicenter Canadian survey of 15000 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol 43: 244, 2000.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Jackson CJ, Barton RC, Evans EG: Species identification and strain differentiation of dermatophyte fungi by analysis of ribosomal-DNA intergenic spacer regions. J Clin Microbiol 37: 931, 1999.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Gupta AK, Zaman M, Singh J: Fast and sensitive detection of Trichophyton rubrum DNA from the nail samples of patients with onychomycosis by a double-round polymerase chain reaction-based assay. Br J Dermatol 157: 698, 2007.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Litz CE, Cavagnolo RZ: Polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of onychomycosis: a large, single-institute study. Br J Dermatol 163: 511, 2010.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Bontems O, Hauser PM, Monod M: Evaluation of a polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism assay for dermatophyte and nondermatophyte identification in onychomycosis. Br J Dermatol 161: 791, 2009.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Ebihara M, Makimura K, Sato K, et al: Molecular detection of dermatophytes and nondermatophytes in onychomycosis by nested polymerase chain reaction based on 28S ribosomal RNA gene sequence. Br J Dermatol 161: 1038, 2009.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Brillowska-Dabrowska A, Swiekowska A, Lindhardt Saunte DM, et al: Diagnostic PCR tests for Microsporum audouinii, M. canis and Trichophyton infections. Med Mycol 48: 486, 2010.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Savin C, Huck S, Rolland C, et al: Multicenter evaluation of a commercial PCR–enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay diagnostic kit (Onychodiag) for diagnosis of dermatophytic onychomycosis. J Clin Microbiol 45: 1205, 2007.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Arabatzis M, Bruijnesteijn van Coppenraet LES, Kuijper EJ, et al: Diagnosis of common dermatophyte infections by a novel multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction detection/identification scheme. Br J Dermatol 157: 681, 2007.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Machouart-Dubach M, Lacroix C, Feuilhade De Chauvin M, et al: Rapid discrimination among dermatophytes, Scytalidium spp., and other fungi with a PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism ribotyping method. J Clin Microbiol 39: 685, 2001.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Menotti M, Machouart M, Benderdouche C, et al: Polymerase chain reaction for diagnosis of dermatophyte and Scytalidium spp. onychomycosis. Br J Dermatol 151: 518, 2004.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Dobrowolska A, Staczek P: PCR—RFLP analysis of the dermatophytes isolated from patients in Central Poland. J Dermatol Sci 42: 71, 2006.

  • 15

    Kardjeva V, Summerbell R, Kantardjiev T, et al: Forty-eight-hour diagnosis of onychomycosis with subtyping of Trichophyton rubrum strains. J Clin Microbiol 44: 1419, 2006.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Kondori N, Abrahamsson AL, Ataollahy N, et al: Comparison of a new commercial test, Dermatophyte-PCR kit, with conventional methods for rapid detection and identification of Trichophyton rubrum in nail specimens. Med Mycol 48: 1005, 2010.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Chandran NS, Pan JY, Pramono ZAD, et al: Complementary role of polymerase chain reaction test in the diagnosis of onychomycosis. Australas J Dermatol 54: 105, 2013.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Davies RR: Mycological tests and onychomycosis. J Clin Pathol 21: 729, 1968.

  • 19

    Uchida T, Makimura K, Ishihara K, et al: Comparative study of direct polymerase chain reaction, microscopic examination and culture-based morphological methods for detection and identification of dermatophytes in nail and skin samples. J Dermatol 36: 202, 2009.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Gupta AK, Nakrieko KA: Molecular determination of mixed infections of dermatophytes and nondermatophyte molds in individuals with onychomycosis. JAPMA 104: 330, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Altman DG: Practical Statistics for Medical Research, p 404, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 1991.

  • 22

    Feinstein A, Cicchetti D: High agreement but low Kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 43: 543, 1990.

  • 23

    Feinstein A, Cicchetti D: High agreement but low Kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 43: 551, 1990.

  • 24

    Shemer A, Davidovici B, Grunwald MH, et al: New criteria for the laboratory diagnosis of nondermatophyte moulds in onychomycosis. Br J Dermatol 160: 37, 2009.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Rich P, Elewski B, Scher RK, et al: Diagnosis, clinical implications, and complications of onychomycosis. Semin Cutan Med Surg 32(suppl 1): S5, 2013.

  • 26

    Gupta AK, Drummond-Main C, Cooper EA, et al: Systematic review of nondermatophyte mold onychomycosis: diagnosis, clinical types, epidemiology, and treatment. J Am Acad Dermatol 66: 494, 2012.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Moreno G, Arenas R: Other fungi causing onychomycosis. Clin Dermatol 28: 160, 2010.

Onychomycosis Infections

Do Polymerase Chain Reaction and Culture Reports Agree?

Aditya K. Gupta MD, PhD, MBA1,2 and Kerry-Ann Nakrieko PhD2
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • | 2 Mycology Section, Mediprobe Research Inc, London, Ontario, Canada.
Restricted access

Background:

Mycological culture is the traditional method for identifying infecting agents of onychomycosis despite high false-negative results, slower processing, and complications surrounding nondermatophyte mold (NDM) infections. Molecular polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods are faster and suited for ascertaining NDM infections.

Methods:

To measure agreement between culture and PCR methods for identification of infecting species of suspected onychomycosis, single toenail samples from 167 patients and repeated serial samples from 43 patients with suspected onychomycosis were processed by culture and PCR for identification of 16 dermatophytes and five NDMs. Agreement between methods was quantified using the kappa statistic (κ).

Results:

The methods exhibited fair agreement for the identification of all infecting organisms (single samples: κ = 0.32; repeated samples: κ = 0.38). For dermatophytes, agreement was moderate (single samples: κ = 0.44; repeated samples: κ = 0.42). For NDMs, agreement was poor with single samples (κ = 0.16) but fair with repeated samples (κ = 0.25). Excluding false-negative reports from analyses improved agreement between methods in all cases except the identification of NDMs from single samples.

Conclusions:

Culture was three or four times more likely to report a false-negative result compared with PCR. The increased agreement between methods observed by excluding false-negative reports statistically clarifies and highlights the major discord caused by false-negative cultures. The increased agreement of NDM identification from poor to fair with repeated sampling along with their poor agreement in the single samples, with and without false-negatives, affirms the complications of NDM identification and supports the recommendation that serial samples help confirm the diagnosis of NDM infections.

Corresponding author: Aditya K. Gupta, MD, PhD, MBA, Mediprobe Research Inc, 645 Windermere Rd, London, ON N5X 2P1, Canada. (E-mail: agupta@mediproberesearch.com)