Trends in commercial laboratory testing and positivity for Bordetella species in the United States, 2019 through 2023.

IF 5 2区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY
Cheryl J Isenhour, Lucia Pawloski, Susan Hariri, Tami H Skoff
{"title":"Trends in commercial laboratory testing and positivity for Bordetella species in the United States, 2019 through 2023.","authors":"Cheryl J Isenhour, Lucia Pawloski, Susan Hariri, Tami H Skoff","doi":"10.1093/infdis/jiaf141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Diagnostic methods for detecting infections caused by Bordetella species include culture, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and serology. As the epidemiology of pertussis continues to evolve in the United States, we aimed to assess recent trends in provider testing practices and positivity for both B. pertussis and B. parapertussis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using deidentified data from a large U.S. commercial laboratory, we identified Bordetella tests from 2019 through 2023. We described monthly trends in number of tests ordered by test type for culture, PCR (both non-panel B. pertussis and B. parapertussis tests and those included as part of a respiratory panel), and serology, as well as percent positivity for serology and PCR. We also examined orders and positivity by patient age group and geographic region of the ordering provider.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 527,206 tests, we identified 316,428 (60.1%) PCR tests, 204,480 (38.8%) serologic tests, and 5,840 (1.1%) cultures. While most PCR tests were ordered as part of a respiratory panel (83.5%), only 215 (0.08%) were positive for B. pertussis. Non-panel PCR positivity for B. pertussis was substantially higher but variable over the study period, ranging from 3% to 16%. We also observed a notable increase in B. parapertussis positivity on non-panel PCR tests in the first half of 2023.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both PCR and serology remain preferred diagnostic methods for providers. Despite their increasing popularity, B. pertussis positivity remained low for respiratory panels. Data from commercial laboratories can provide crucial insights into pertussis diagnostic trends over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":50179,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infectious Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaf141","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Diagnostic methods for detecting infections caused by Bordetella species include culture, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and serology. As the epidemiology of pertussis continues to evolve in the United States, we aimed to assess recent trends in provider testing practices and positivity for both B. pertussis and B. parapertussis.

Methods: Using deidentified data from a large U.S. commercial laboratory, we identified Bordetella tests from 2019 through 2023. We described monthly trends in number of tests ordered by test type for culture, PCR (both non-panel B. pertussis and B. parapertussis tests and those included as part of a respiratory panel), and serology, as well as percent positivity for serology and PCR. We also examined orders and positivity by patient age group and geographic region of the ordering provider.

Results: Among 527,206 tests, we identified 316,428 (60.1%) PCR tests, 204,480 (38.8%) serologic tests, and 5,840 (1.1%) cultures. While most PCR tests were ordered as part of a respiratory panel (83.5%), only 215 (0.08%) were positive for B. pertussis. Non-panel PCR positivity for B. pertussis was substantially higher but variable over the study period, ranging from 3% to 16%. We also observed a notable increase in B. parapertussis positivity on non-panel PCR tests in the first half of 2023.

Conclusions: Both PCR and serology remain preferred diagnostic methods for providers. Despite their increasing popularity, B. pertussis positivity remained low for respiratory panels. Data from commercial laboratories can provide crucial insights into pertussis diagnostic trends over time.

2019年至2023年美国商业实验室检测和博德特拉菌阳性趋势。
背景:检测博德特拉菌感染的诊断方法包括培养、聚合酶链反应(PCR)和血清学。随着百日咳流行病学在美国的不断发展,我们的目的是评估最近的趋势,在供应商检测实践和阳性的百日咳和百日咳双歧杆菌。方法:使用来自美国大型商业实验室的未识别数据,我们确定了2019年至2023年的博德泰拉检测。我们描述了按培养、聚合酶链反应(包括非小组百日咳和百日咳双歧杆菌测试以及作为呼吸小组一部分的测试)和血清学以及血清学和聚合酶链反应阳性百分比排序的测试数量的每月趋势。我们还检查了病人年龄组和地理区域的订购服务提供者的订单和积极性。结果:在527,206项检测中,我们确定了316,428项(60.1%)PCR检测,204,480项(38.8%)血清学检测和5,840项(1.1%)培养。虽然大多数PCR检测是作为呼吸系统检查的一部分(83.5%),但只有215例(0.08%)百日咳阳性。百日咳的非面板PCR阳性明显较高,但在研究期间有所变化,从3%到16%不等。我们还观察到,在2023年上半年,非面板PCR检测中,百日咳杆菌阳性显著增加。结论:PCR和血清学仍然是医疗服务提供者首选的诊断方法。尽管百日咳越来越受欢迎,但呼吸系统的百日咳阳性率仍然很低。来自商业实验室的数据可以为百日咳诊断趋势提供重要的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Infectious Diseases
Journal of Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
3.10%
发文量
449
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Published continuously since 1904, The Journal of Infectious Diseases (JID) is the premier global journal for original research on infectious diseases. The editors welcome Major Articles and Brief Reports describing research results on microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, and related disciplines, on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases; on the microbes that cause them; and on disorders of host immune responses. JID is an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
×
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