淋巴丝虫病快速抗原诊断试验的实验室比较:标准Q丝虫病抗原试验(QFAT)与生物线丝虫病试纸(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":"淋巴丝虫病快速抗原诊断试验的实验室比较:标准Q丝虫病抗原试验(QFAT)与生物线丝虫病试纸(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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

在全球消除规划中,需要准确的快速诊断检测来诊断淋巴丝虫病。我们在实验室条件下,使用来自lf流行地区(萨摩亚、美属萨摩亚和缅甸)和澳大利亚阴性对照(n = 46)的血清(n = 195)和血浆(n = 189),对新的STANDARD Q丝虫病抗原检测(QFAT)与生物线丝虫病试纸(FTS)检测W. bancrofti抗原(Ag)的性能进行了评估。采用快速检测(ICT或FTS)或Og4C3酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)检测流行样本的既往Ag状态(54.9% Ag阳性)。QFAT(44.8%)和FTS(41.3%)在10分钟检测呈阳性的样本比例相似。10 min时两组检测结果的一致性为93.5% (kappa 0.87, n = 417), 24 h时一致性为98.8% (kappa 0.98)。10 min时QFAT和FTS的敏感性分别为92% (95% CI 88.0 ~ 96.0)和86% (95% CI 80.0 ~ 90.0)。QFAT的特异性为98%,FTS的特异性为99%。两项检测均显示与repens dirofilia和lupi盘尾丝虫有交叉反应,但与棘毛线虫和bainae Cercopithifilaria没有交叉反应。在实验室条件下,QFAT是FTS的合适替代RDT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laboratory Comparison of Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Tests for Lymphatic Filariasis: STANDARD Q Filariasis Antigen Test (QFAT) Versus Bioline Filariasis Test Strip (FTS).

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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