Laboratory Comparison of Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Tests for Lymphatic Filariasis: STANDARD Q Filariasis Antigen Test (QFAT) Versus Bioline Filariasis Test Strip (FTS).

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Patricia M Graves, Jessica L Scott, Alvaro Berg Soto, Antin Y N Widi, Maxine Whittaker, Colleen L Lau, Kimberly Y Won
{"title":"Laboratory Comparison of Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Tests for Lymphatic Filariasis: STANDARD Q Filariasis Antigen Test (QFAT) Versus Bioline Filariasis Test Strip (FTS).","authors":"Patricia M Graves, Jessica L Scott, Alvaro Berg Soto, Antin Y N Widi, Maxine Whittaker, Colleen L Lau, Kimberly Y Won","doi":"10.3390/tropicalmed10010023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accurate rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are needed to diagnose lymphatic filariasis (LF) in global elimination programmes. We evaluated the performance of the new STANDARD Q Filariasis Antigen Test (QFAT) against the Bioline Filariasis Test Strip (FTS) for detecting <i>W. bancrofti</i> antigen (Ag) in laboratory conditions, using serum (n = 195) and plasma (n = 189) from LF-endemic areas (Samoa, American Samoa and Myanmar) and Australian negative controls (n = 46). The prior Ag status of endemic samples (54.9% Ag-positive) was determined by rapid test (ICT or FTS) or Og4C3 ELISA. The proportion of samples testing positive at 10 min was similar for QFAT (44.8%) and FTS (41.3%). Concordance between tests was 93.5% (kappa 0.87, n = 417) at 10 min, and it increased to 98.8% (kappa 0.98) at 24 h. The sensitivities of QFAT and FTS at 10 min compared to the prior results were 92% (95% CI 88.0-96.0) and 86% (95% CI 80.0-90.0), respectively, and they increased to 97% and 99% at 24 h. Specificity was 98% for QFAT and 99% for FTS at 10 min. Both tests showed evidence of cross-reaction with <i>Dirofilaria repens</i> and <i>Onchocerca lupi</i> but not with <i>Acanthochilonema reconditum</i> or <i>Cercopithifilaria bainae.</i> Under laboratory conditions, QFAT is a suitable alternative RDT to FTS.</p>","PeriodicalId":23330,"journal":{"name":"Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11768758/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed10010023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurate rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are needed to diagnose lymphatic filariasis (LF) in global elimination programmes. We evaluated the performance of the new STANDARD Q Filariasis Antigen Test (QFAT) against the Bioline Filariasis Test Strip (FTS) for detecting W. bancrofti antigen (Ag) in laboratory conditions, using serum (n = 195) and plasma (n = 189) from LF-endemic areas (Samoa, American Samoa and Myanmar) and Australian negative controls (n = 46). The prior Ag status of endemic samples (54.9% Ag-positive) was determined by rapid test (ICT or FTS) or Og4C3 ELISA. The proportion of samples testing positive at 10 min was similar for QFAT (44.8%) and FTS (41.3%). Concordance between tests was 93.5% (kappa 0.87, n = 417) at 10 min, and it increased to 98.8% (kappa 0.98) at 24 h. The sensitivities of QFAT and FTS at 10 min compared to the prior results were 92% (95% CI 88.0-96.0) and 86% (95% CI 80.0-90.0), respectively, and they increased to 97% and 99% at 24 h. Specificity was 98% for QFAT and 99% for FTS at 10 min. Both tests showed evidence of cross-reaction with Dirofilaria repens and Onchocerca lupi but not with Acanthochilonema reconditum or Cercopithifilaria bainae. Under laboratory conditions, QFAT is a suitable alternative RDT to FTS.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.30%
发文量
353
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信