三种登革热NS1抗原ELISA试剂盒与化学发光免疫分析法诊断准确性的比较。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
K Vinitha, S Sulochana, N A Firoz Banu, Suja Ramanathan, Vishal Wadhwa
{"title":"三种登革热NS1抗原ELISA试剂盒与化学发光免疫分析法诊断准确性的比较。","authors":"K Vinitha, S Sulochana, N A Firoz Banu, Suja Ramanathan, Vishal Wadhwa","doi":"10.4103/jvbd.jvbd_136_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background objectives: </strong>Dengue fever, including its severe forms, remains a major public health concern in endemic regions. Early diagnosis is critical for effective disease management, yet current diagnostic methods vary in sensitivity and accessibility. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of three commercially available NS1 ELISA kits against a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) reference standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 321 archived serum samples, previously tested using the Dengue NS1 Autobio chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), were further analyzed using three NS1 ELISA kits. Among these, 12 samples showed discordant results between at least one ELISA kit and the CLIA and were subsequently analyzed through RT-PCR-based dengue serotyping. The diagnostic performance of the ELISA kits, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall agreement, was assessed using MedCalc software. Agreement between tests was further evaluated using kappa (κ) statistics, and comparisons of κ values were conducted using Fleiss's Z-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 321 archived serum samples, 105 were initially identified as NS1-reactive and 216 as NS1-negative. RT-PCR confirmed three of the CLIA-positive results as false positives, adjusting the reference count to 102 NS1-reactive and 219 NS1-negative samples. Athenese-Dx ELISA demonstrated the highest sensitivity (98.04%) and agreement with reference (99.07%, κ = 0.978), followed by SD (Sensitivity = 95.10%, Agreement = 97.82%, κ = 0.949) and PanBio (Sensitivity = 94.12%, Agreement = 97.82%, κ = 0.949). Specificity remained high across all ELISA kits (99.07%-99.54%).</p><p><strong>Interpretation conclusion: </strong>The evaluated ELISA kits demonstrated high specificity and strong agreement with the reference standard, with Athenese-Dx ELISA showing better diagnostic accuracy. NS1-based ELISA remains a valuable tool for dengue diagnosis, particularly in resource-limited settings. Further studies with serotype-specific analysis and larger sample sizes are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":17660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vector Borne Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic accuracy of three dengue NS1 antigen ELISA kits in comparison to chemiluminescence immunoassay.\",\"authors\":\"K Vinitha, S Sulochana, N A Firoz Banu, Suja Ramanathan, Vishal Wadhwa\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jvbd.jvbd_136_25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background objectives: </strong>Dengue fever, including its severe forms, remains a major public health concern in endemic regions. Early diagnosis is critical for effective disease management, yet current diagnostic methods vary in sensitivity and accessibility. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of three commercially available NS1 ELISA kits against a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) reference standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 321 archived serum samples, previously tested using the Dengue NS1 Autobio chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), were further analyzed using three NS1 ELISA kits. Among these, 12 samples showed discordant results between at least one ELISA kit and the CLIA and were subsequently analyzed through RT-PCR-based dengue serotyping. The diagnostic performance of the ELISA kits, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall agreement, was assessed using MedCalc software. Agreement between tests was further evaluated using kappa (κ) statistics, and comparisons of κ values were conducted using Fleiss's Z-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 321 archived serum samples, 105 were initially identified as NS1-reactive and 216 as NS1-negative. RT-PCR confirmed three of the CLIA-positive results as false positives, adjusting the reference count to 102 NS1-reactive and 219 NS1-negative samples. Athenese-Dx ELISA demonstrated the highest sensitivity (98.04%) and agreement with reference (99.07%, κ = 0.978), followed by SD (Sensitivity = 95.10%, Agreement = 97.82%, κ = 0.949) and PanBio (Sensitivity = 94.12%, Agreement = 97.82%, κ = 0.949). Specificity remained high across all ELISA kits (99.07%-99.54%).</p><p><strong>Interpretation conclusion: </strong>The evaluated ELISA kits demonstrated high specificity and strong agreement with the reference standard, with Athenese-Dx ELISA showing better diagnostic accuracy. NS1-based ELISA remains a valuable tool for dengue diagnosis, particularly in resource-limited settings. Further studies with serotype-specific analysis and larger sample sizes are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vector Borne Diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vector Borne Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jvbd.jvbd_136_25\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vector Borne Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jvbd.jvbd_136_25","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

摘要

背景目标:登革热,包括其严重形式,仍然是流行地区的一个主要公共卫生问题。早期诊断对于有效的疾病管理至关重要,但目前的诊断方法在敏感性和可及性方面各不相同。本研究旨在评估三种市售NS1 ELISA试剂盒对化学发光免疫测定(CLIA)参考标准的诊断性能。方法:采用登革热NS1自体化学发光免疫分析法(CLIA)检测的321份存档血清样本,采用3种NS1 ELISA试剂盒进行进一步分析。其中,12份样本至少有一份ELISA试剂盒与CLIA结果不一致,随后通过基于rt - pcr的登革热血清分型进行分析。使用MedCalc软件评估ELISA试剂盒的诊断性能,包括敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和总体一致性。采用kappa (κ)统计进一步评价试验间的一致性,并采用Fleiss’s z检验比较κ值。结果:在321份存档的血清样本中,105份初步鉴定为ns1反应,216份为ns1阴性。RT-PCR确认3例clia阳性结果为假阳性,调整参比计数为102例ns1反应样本和219例ns1阴性样本。Athenese-Dx ELISA的灵敏度最高(98.04%),与参考文献的一致性最高(99.07%,κ = 0.978),其次是SD(灵敏度95.10%,一致性97.82%,κ = 0.949)和PanBio(灵敏度94.12%,一致性97.82%,κ = 0.949)。所有ELISA试剂盒的特异性仍然很高(99.07% ~ 99.54%)。结论:评价的ELISA试剂盒具有较高的特异性,与参考标准具有较强的一致性,其中Athenese-Dx ELISA具有较好的诊断准确性。基于ns1的ELISA仍然是登革热诊断的宝贵工具,特别是在资源有限的环境中。进一步研究血清型特异性分析和更大的样本量是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic accuracy of three dengue NS1 antigen ELISA kits in comparison to chemiluminescence immunoassay.

Background objectives: Dengue fever, including its severe forms, remains a major public health concern in endemic regions. Early diagnosis is critical for effective disease management, yet current diagnostic methods vary in sensitivity and accessibility. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of three commercially available NS1 ELISA kits against a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) reference standard.

Methods: A total of 321 archived serum samples, previously tested using the Dengue NS1 Autobio chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), were further analyzed using three NS1 ELISA kits. Among these, 12 samples showed discordant results between at least one ELISA kit and the CLIA and were subsequently analyzed through RT-PCR-based dengue serotyping. The diagnostic performance of the ELISA kits, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall agreement, was assessed using MedCalc software. Agreement between tests was further evaluated using kappa (κ) statistics, and comparisons of κ values were conducted using Fleiss's Z-test.

Results: Among the 321 archived serum samples, 105 were initially identified as NS1-reactive and 216 as NS1-negative. RT-PCR confirmed three of the CLIA-positive results as false positives, adjusting the reference count to 102 NS1-reactive and 219 NS1-negative samples. Athenese-Dx ELISA demonstrated the highest sensitivity (98.04%) and agreement with reference (99.07%, κ = 0.978), followed by SD (Sensitivity = 95.10%, Agreement = 97.82%, κ = 0.949) and PanBio (Sensitivity = 94.12%, Agreement = 97.82%, κ = 0.949). Specificity remained high across all ELISA kits (99.07%-99.54%).

Interpretation conclusion: The evaluated ELISA kits demonstrated high specificity and strong agreement with the reference standard, with Athenese-Dx ELISA showing better diagnostic accuracy. NS1-based ELISA remains a valuable tool for dengue diagnosis, particularly in resource-limited settings. Further studies with serotype-specific analysis and larger sample sizes are warranted.

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
Journal of Vector Borne Diseases
Journal of Vector Borne Diseases INFECTIOUS DISEASES-PARASITOLOGY
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
89
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: National Institute of Malaria Research on behalf of Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) publishes the Journal of Vector Borne Diseases. This Journal was earlier published as the Indian Journal of Malariology, a peer reviewed and open access biomedical journal in the field of vector borne diseases. The Journal publishes review articles, original research articles, short research communications, case reports of prime importance, letters to the editor in the field of vector borne diseases and their control.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信