Comparison of diagnostic efficacy of galactomannan lateral flow assay vs enzyme immunoassay: importance of storage conditions.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Enes Erbağcı, Ayşe Ö Mete, Handan H Şahin, Yasemin Zer, İlkay Karaoğlan
{"title":"Comparison of diagnostic efficacy of galactomannan lateral flow assay vs enzyme immunoassay: importance of storage conditions.","authors":"Enes Erbağcı, Ayşe Ö Mete, Handan H Şahin, Yasemin Zer, İlkay Karaoğlan","doi":"10.3855/jidc.20587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Galactomannan antigen is a valuable biomarker for diagnosing invasive aspergillosis. Traditional methods, such as enzyme immunoassays (EIA), require batch sampling, whereas lateral flow assays (LFA) provide a simpler and faster diagnostic process. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of both testing methods.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This prospective case-control study involved 192 serum samples categorized according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG criteria). LFA were conducted following the manufacturer's instructions, utilizing a cube reader. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the optimal LFA threshold, and concordance analysis was conducted for both assays.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The indicated sensitivity and specificity of LFA at the recommended galactomannan index threshold (GMI ≥ 0.5) were 15.3% (9/59) and 99% (132/133), respectively. Post-ROC analysis at a threshold of 0.4 revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.685, with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value at 18%, 99%, 91%, and 73%, respectively. Qualitative agreement between the tests, assessed using the Kappa statistic, indicated a very low degree of agreement (κ = 0.18). In contrast, quantitative agreement, evaluated through Kendall's W-test, demonstrated a very high degree of agreement (W = 0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite previous literature suggesting the efficacy of LFA, our study found it unsuitable for screening due to its low sensitivity. We recommend exercising caution regarding the manufacturer's storage recommendations until further studies on sample storage conditions are conducted.</p>","PeriodicalId":49160,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries","volume":"19 4","pages":"537-543"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infection in Developing Countries","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.20587","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Galactomannan antigen is a valuable biomarker for diagnosing invasive aspergillosis. Traditional methods, such as enzyme immunoassays (EIA), require batch sampling, whereas lateral flow assays (LFA) provide a simpler and faster diagnostic process. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of both testing methods.

Methodology: This prospective case-control study involved 192 serum samples categorized according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG criteria). LFA were conducted following the manufacturer's instructions, utilizing a cube reader. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the optimal LFA threshold, and concordance analysis was conducted for both assays.

Results: The indicated sensitivity and specificity of LFA at the recommended galactomannan index threshold (GMI ≥ 0.5) were 15.3% (9/59) and 99% (132/133), respectively. Post-ROC analysis at a threshold of 0.4 revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.685, with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value at 18%, 99%, 91%, and 73%, respectively. Qualitative agreement between the tests, assessed using the Kappa statistic, indicated a very low degree of agreement (κ = 0.18). In contrast, quantitative agreement, evaluated through Kendall's W-test, demonstrated a very high degree of agreement (W = 0.84).

Conclusions: Despite previous literature suggesting the efficacy of LFA, our study found it unsuitable for screening due to its low sensitivity. We recommend exercising caution regarding the manufacturer's storage recommendations until further studies on sample storage conditions are conducted.

半乳甘露聚糖侧流法与酶免疫法诊断效果的比较:储存条件的重要性。
半乳甘露聚糖抗原是诊断侵袭性曲霉病的重要生物标志物。传统的方法,如酶免疫测定(EIA),需要批量取样,而横向流动测定(LFA)提供了一个更简单、更快速的诊断过程。本研究旨在比较两种检测方法的诊断效果。方法:这项前瞻性病例对照研究包括192份血清样本,根据欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织/真菌病研究组(EORTC/MSG标准)分类。LFA按照制造商的说明进行,使用立方体读取器。采用受试者工作特征(ROC)分析确定最佳LFA阈值,并对两项试验进行一致性分析。结果:在半乳甘露聚糖指数推荐阈值(GMI≥0.5)下,LFA的指示敏感性和特异性分别为15.3%(9/59)和99%(132/133)。阈值为0.4的后roc分析显示曲线下面积(AUC)为0.685,敏感性为18%,特异性为99%,阳性预测值为91%,阴性预测值为73%。使用Kappa统计量评估测试之间的定性一致性,表明一致性程度非常低(κ = 0.18)。相比之下,通过肯德尔W检验评估的定量一致性显示出非常高的一致性(W = 0.84)。结论:尽管既往文献提示LFA的疗效,但本研究发现其敏感性较低,不适合筛查。我们建议在对样品储存条件进行进一步研究之前,对制造商的储存建议保持谨慎。
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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
239
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries (JIDC) is an international journal, intended for the publication of scientific articles from Developing Countries by scientists from Developing Countries. JIDC is an independent, on-line publication with an international editorial board. JIDC is open access with no cost to view or download articles and reasonable cost for publication of research artcles, making JIDC easily availiable to scientists from resource restricted regions.
×
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