九种抗棘球蚴抗体检测方法的头对头比较:回顾性评价。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Annals of Laboratory Medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-26 DOI:10.3343/alm.2023.0212
Carolina Mattwich, Kristina Huber, Gisela Bretzel, Sebastian Suerbaum, Andreas Wieser, Karl Dichtl
{"title":"九种抗棘球蚴抗体检测方法的头对头比较:回顾性评价。","authors":"Carolina Mattwich, Kristina Huber, Gisela Bretzel, Sebastian Suerbaum, Andreas Wieser, Karl Dichtl","doi":"10.3343/alm.2023.0212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Echinococcosis is a neglected tropical disease that is severely underdiagnosed in resource-limited settings. In developed countries, diagnosing echinococcosis is challenging, and reliable serological assays are urgently needed. In the Central European Alps, EM is more common than EG; however, data on the diagnostic performance of assays for EM cases are scarce. We evaluated the suitability of nine antibody assays for routine diagnostics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nine commercially available serological assays for detecting anti-<i>Echinococcus</i> antibodies were compared head-to-head using samples collected from 50 patients with echinococcosis and 50 age- and sex-matched control subjects. The assays are Anti-<i>Echinococcus</i> ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun), <i>Echinococcus</i> IgG ELISA (DRG), <i>Echinococcus</i> IgG ELISA (IBL International), <i>Echinococcus</i> Western Blot IgG (LDBIO Diagnostics), EUROLINE WB (Euroimmun), Hydatidosis ELISA IgG (VirCell), Hydatidosis VIRCLIA IgG Monotest (VirCell), Ridascreen <i>Echinococcus</i> IgG (R-Biopharm), and Virapid Hydatidosis (VirCell). The cases were ranked according to the WHO-Informal Working Group on Echinococcosis (WHO-IWGE) criteria as confirmed, probable, or possible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The performance of the assays varied greatly, with overall sensitivities ranging between 50% and 88% and specificities between 62% and 100%. We observed a trend toward better performance with cases classified as \"confirmed\" using the WHO-IWGE criteria. Combined analysis with sequential screening and confirmatory testing resulted in a maximum sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 100%. Differentiation between EG and EM infections is clinically relevant but was found to be unreliable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong><i>Echinococcus</i> serological assays are highly variable in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Knowledge of the pre-test probability in the patient cohort is required to choose a suitable assay. A combined approach with screening and confirmatory assays may be the best diagnostic strategy in many situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":8421,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Laboratory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"155-163"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10628756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Head-to-Head Comparison of Nine Assays for the Detection of Anti-<i>Echinococcus</i> Antibodies: A Retrospective Evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Carolina Mattwich, Kristina Huber, Gisela Bretzel, Sebastian Suerbaum, Andreas Wieser, Karl Dichtl\",\"doi\":\"10.3343/alm.2023.0212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Echinococcosis is a neglected tropical disease that is severely underdiagnosed in resource-limited settings. In developed countries, diagnosing echinococcosis is challenging, and reliable serological assays are urgently needed. In the Central European Alps, EM is more common than EG; however, data on the diagnostic performance of assays for EM cases are scarce. We evaluated the suitability of nine antibody assays for routine diagnostics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nine commercially available serological assays for detecting anti-<i>Echinococcus</i> antibodies were compared head-to-head using samples collected from 50 patients with echinococcosis and 50 age- and sex-matched control subjects. The assays are Anti-<i>Echinococcus</i> ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun), <i>Echinococcus</i> IgG ELISA (DRG), <i>Echinococcus</i> IgG ELISA (IBL International), <i>Echinococcus</i> Western Blot IgG (LDBIO Diagnostics), EUROLINE WB (Euroimmun), Hydatidosis ELISA IgG (VirCell), Hydatidosis VIRCLIA IgG Monotest (VirCell), Ridascreen <i>Echinococcus</i> IgG (R-Biopharm), and Virapid Hydatidosis (VirCell). The cases were ranked according to the WHO-Informal Working Group on Echinococcosis (WHO-IWGE) criteria as confirmed, probable, or possible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The performance of the assays varied greatly, with overall sensitivities ranging between 50% and 88% and specificities between 62% and 100%. We observed a trend toward better performance with cases classified as \\\"confirmed\\\" using the WHO-IWGE criteria. Combined analysis with sequential screening and confirmatory testing resulted in a maximum sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 100%. Differentiation between EG and EM infections is clinically relevant but was found to be unreliable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong><i>Echinococcus</i> serological assays are highly variable in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Knowledge of the pre-test probability in the patient cohort is required to choose a suitable assay. A combined approach with screening and confirmatory assays may be the best diagnostic strategy in many situations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"155-163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10628756/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2023.0212\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2023.0212","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:棘球蚴病是一种被忽视的热带疾病,在资源有限的环境中诊断严重不足。在发达国家,诊断棘球蚴病具有挑战性,迫切需要可靠的血清学检测。在中欧阿尔卑斯山脉,EM比EG更常见;然而,关于EM病例检测的诊断性能的数据很少。我们评估了九种抗体测定法用于常规诊断的适用性。方法:使用从50名棘球蚴病患者和50名年龄和性别匹配的对照受试者中收集的样本,对9种商业上可获得的用于检测抗棘球蚴抗体的血清学检测方法进行头对头比较。检测方法有抗棘球蚴ELISA(IgG)(Euroimmun)、棘球蚴IgG ELISA(DRG)、棘球蚴IgG ELISA、棘球绦虫免疫球蛋白印迹IgG(IBL International)、棘球蚴蛋白质印迹IgG(LDBIO Diagnostics)、EUROLINE WB(Euroimmune)、Hydratidosis ELISA IgG(VirCell)、Hydradidosis VIRCLIA IgG Monottest(VirCell)、Ridascren棘球蚴IgG(R-Biopharm)和Virapid Hydratidois(VirCell)。根据世界卫生组织-棘球蚴病信息工作组(WHO-IWGE)的标准,将病例分为确诊、可能或可能。结果:检测结果差异很大,总体灵敏度在50%至88%之间,特异性在62%至100%之间。我们观察到,使用世界卫生组织-世界卫生组织标准分类为“确诊”的病例有更好表现的趋势。结合序列筛查和验证性测试的分析得出的最大灵敏度为84%,特异性为100%。EG和EM感染之间的区别具有临床相关性,但被发现是不可靠的。结论:棘球蚴血清学检测在敏感性和特异性方面具有高度的可变性。需要了解患者队列中测试前的概率,才能选择合适的检测方法。在许多情况下,筛查和验证性检测相结合的方法可能是最佳的诊断策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Head-to-Head Comparison of Nine Assays for the Detection of Anti-<i>Echinococcus</i> Antibodies: A Retrospective Evaluation.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Nine Assays for the Detection of Anti-<i>Echinococcus</i> Antibodies: A Retrospective Evaluation.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Nine Assays for the Detection of Anti-<i>Echinococcus</i> Antibodies: A Retrospective Evaluation.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Nine Assays for the Detection of Anti-Echinococcus Antibodies: A Retrospective Evaluation.

Background: Echinococcosis is a neglected tropical disease that is severely underdiagnosed in resource-limited settings. In developed countries, diagnosing echinococcosis is challenging, and reliable serological assays are urgently needed. In the Central European Alps, EM is more common than EG; however, data on the diagnostic performance of assays for EM cases are scarce. We evaluated the suitability of nine antibody assays for routine diagnostics.

Methods: Nine commercially available serological assays for detecting anti-Echinococcus antibodies were compared head-to-head using samples collected from 50 patients with echinococcosis and 50 age- and sex-matched control subjects. The assays are Anti-Echinococcus ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun), Echinococcus IgG ELISA (DRG), Echinococcus IgG ELISA (IBL International), Echinococcus Western Blot IgG (LDBIO Diagnostics), EUROLINE WB (Euroimmun), Hydatidosis ELISA IgG (VirCell), Hydatidosis VIRCLIA IgG Monotest (VirCell), Ridascreen Echinococcus IgG (R-Biopharm), and Virapid Hydatidosis (VirCell). The cases were ranked according to the WHO-Informal Working Group on Echinococcosis (WHO-IWGE) criteria as confirmed, probable, or possible.

Results: The performance of the assays varied greatly, with overall sensitivities ranging between 50% and 88% and specificities between 62% and 100%. We observed a trend toward better performance with cases classified as "confirmed" using the WHO-IWGE criteria. Combined analysis with sequential screening and confirmatory testing resulted in a maximum sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 100%. Differentiation between EG and EM infections is clinically relevant but was found to be unreliable.

Conclusions: Echinococcus serological assays are highly variable in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Knowledge of the pre-test probability in the patient cohort is required to choose a suitable assay. A combined approach with screening and confirmatory assays may be the best diagnostic strategy in many situations.

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
Annals of Laboratory Medicine
Annals of Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
12.20%
发文量
100
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Laboratory Medicine is the official journal of Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine. The journal title has been recently changed from the Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine (ISSN, 1598-6535) from the January issue of 2012. The JCR 2017 Impact factor of Ann Lab Med was 1.916.
×
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