Correction: Evaluation of antigen-detecting and antibody-detecting diagnostic test combinations for diagnosing melioidosis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Staff
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9162502 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Correction: Evaluation of antigen-detecting and antibody-detecting diagnostic test combinations for diagnosing melioidosis.
PLoS neglected tropical diseases 20220602 6
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009840.]. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMelioidosis, an infectious disease caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei, is endemic in many tropical developing countries and has a high mortality. Here we evaluated combinations of a lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) detecting B. pseudomallei capsular polysaccharide (CPS) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) detecting antibodies against hemolysin co-regulated protein (Hcp1) or O-polysaccharide (OPS) for diagnosing melioidosis.Methodology/principal findingsWe conducted a cohort-based case-control study. Both cases and controls were derived from a prospective observational study of patients presenting with community-acquired infections and sepsis in northeast Thailand (Ubon-sepsis). Cases included 192 patients with a clinical specimen culture positive for B. pseudomallei. Controls included 502 patients who were blood culture positive for Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae or were polymerase chain reaction assay positive for malaria or dengue. Serum samples collected within 24 hours of admission were stored and tested using a CPS-LFI, Hcp1-ELISA and OPS-ELISA. When assessing diagnostic tests in combination, results were considered positive if either test was positive. We selected ELISA cut-offs corresponding to a specificity of 95%. Using a positive cut-off OD of 2.912 for Hcp1-ELISA, the combination of the CPS-LFI and Hcp1-ELISA had a sensitivity of 67.7% (130/192 case patients) and a specificity of 95.0% (477/502 control patients). The sensitivity of the combination (67.7%) was higher than that of the CPS-LFI alone (31.3%, p<0.001) and that of Hcp1-ELISA alone (53.6%, p<0.001). A similar phenomenon was also observed for the combination of CPS-LFI and OPS-ELISA. In case patients, positivity of the CPS-LFI was associated with a short duration of symptoms, high modified Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, bacteraemia and mortality outcome, while positivity of Hcp1-ELISA was associated with a longer duration of symptoms, low modified SOFA score, non-bacteraemia and survival outcome.Conclusions/significanceA combination of antigen-antibody diagnostic tests increased the sensitivity of melioidosis diagnosis over individual tests while preserving high specificity. Point-of-care tests for melioidosis based on the use of combination assays should be further developed and evaluated.
| S-EPMC8562799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To control the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemics, it is necessary to have easy-to-use, reliable diagnostic tests available. The nasopharyngeal sampling method being often uncomfortable, nasal sampling could prove to be a viable alternative to the reference sampling method. We performed a multicentre, prospective validation study of the COVID-VIRO® test, using a nasal swab sampling method, in a point-of-care setting. In addition, we performed a multicentre, prospective, and usability study to validate the use of the rapid antigen nasal diagnostic test by laypersons. In March 2021, 239 asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were included in the validation study. Compared with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction on nasopharyngeal samples, the sensitivity and specificity of the COVID-VIRO® Antigen test combined with a nasal sampling method were evaluated as 96.88% and 100%, respectively. A total of 101 individuals were included in the usability study. Among these, 99% of the participants rated the instructions material as good, 98% of the subjects executed the test procedure well, and 98% of the participants were able to correctly interpret the test results. This study validates the relevance of COVID-VIRO® as a diagnostic tool from nasal specimens as well as its usability in the general population. COVID-VIRO® diagnostic performances and ease of use make it suitable for widespread utilization.
| S-EPMC8426870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConsidering the possibility of nasal self-sampling and the ease of use in performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), self-testing is a feasible option.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was a head-to-head comparison of diagnostic accuracy of patient self-testing with professional testing using a SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT.Study designWe performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of nasal mid-turbinate self-sampling and self-testing with symptomatic adults using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Procedures were observed without intervention. For comparison, Ag-RDTs with nasopharyngeal sampling were professionally performed. Estimates of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity relative to RT-PCR on a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sample were calculated. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires.ResultsAmong 146 symptomatic adults, 40 (27.4%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity with self-testing was 82.5% (33/40; 95% CI 68.1-91.3), and 85.0% (34/40; 95% CI 70.9-92.9) with professional testing. At high viral load (≥7.0 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 96.6% (28/29; 95% CI 82.8-99.8) for both self- and professional testing. Deviations in sampling and testing were observed in 25 out of the 40 PCR-positives. Most participants (80.9%) considered the Ag-RDT as easy to perform.ConclusionLaypersons suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection were able to reliably perform the Ag-RDT and test themselves. Procedural errors might be reduced by refinement of the instructions for use or the product design/procedures. Self-testing allows more wide-spread and frequent testing. Paired with the appropriate information of the public about the benefits and risks, self-testing may have significant impact on the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8163726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn malaria endemic areas, infected blood donors serve as a source of infection to blood recipients, which may adversely affect their prognosis. This necessitates the proper screening of blood to be used for transfusion in these areas. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of malaria parasitaemia in blood donors in Buea, Cameroon, and to evaluate the performance of a rapid diagnostic test (RDT), a malaria antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and a Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) ELISA in the detection of asymptomatic malaria parasitaemia in the target population.MethodsIn a prospective study conducted between September 2015 and June 2016, 1 240 potential blood donors were enrolled. The donors were screened for malaria parasites using Giemsa microscopy (GM) and a RDT. A sub-sample of 184 samples, comprising 88 positive and 96 negative samples, were selected for the evaluation of the pLDH ELISA and the antibody ELISA. The chi-square test and correlation analysis were performed as part of the statistical analyses. The statistical significance cut-off was set at P < 0.05.ResultsThe prevalence of malaria parasitaemia in this study was found to be 8.1% (95% CI: 6.6 - 9.7). The prevalence was not observed to be dependent on the age or sex of the participants. The RDT had a sensitivity (88.0%), specificity (99.1%), and negative predictive value (99.0%) higher than the ELISAs. The performance of the pLDH ELISA, which demonstrated the highest positive predictive value (91.6%), was generally comparable to the RDT. The sensitivity was lowest with the antibody ELISA (69.9%), which also demonstrated the highest false positive and false negative rates. The detection threshold for the pLDH (three parasites/μl) was lower compared to the RDT (50 - 60 parasites/μl). Non-significant positive correlations were observed between the parasite density and the pLDH titers and malaria antibody titers.ConclusionsOverall, the RDT and the pLDH ELISA demonstrated a perfectly correlated agreement with GM, meanwhile the antibody ELISA demonstrated a substantially correlated agreement with GM. The pLDH is therefore recommended for mass screening of blood (to detect malaria parasitaemia) for transfusions in the study area. However, where this is not feasible, an RDT will suffice.
| S-EPMC5537946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The lack of cheap, easy-to-use, rapid diagnostic tests has led to the development of several rapid diagnostic tests for cysticercosis. The new prototype two-strip, Taenia solium point of care test (TS POC) detects antibodies against taeniosis (TS POC T) and cysticercosis (TS POC CC). This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of the TS POC CC in the Sinda district in eastern Zambia. A sample of 1254 participants was recruited and tested with the TS POC. Out of the 1249 participants with a valid TS POC result, 177 (14%) tested positive while 1072 (86%) tested negative. All individuals with a positive TS POC and a subset of negative TS POC participants were selected for serum sampling, and were subjected to the recombinant glycoprotein T24H enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot (rT24H EITB) and the serum B60/158 (serum Ag) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Ag ELISA). Performance characteristics were estimated using a Bayesian approach with probabilistic constraints. Based on 255 complete cases, the estimated sensitivity and specificity of the TS POC CC test were 35% (95% CI: 14-63%) and 87% (95% CI: 83-90%), respectively. The diagnostic performance needs to be improved, possibly by titrating antigen and other reagents' concentration in the strip to produce a performance similar to existing cysticercosis tests such as the rT24H EITB.
| S-EPMC8618153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundM-type phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R) is known as a major antigen on podocytes, which is involved with the pathogenesis of idiopathic membranous nephropathy (iMN). Many studies have shown that serum anti-PLA2R autoantibodies (sPLA2R) are prevalent in patients with iMN but are rarely detected in secondary membranous nephropathy (SMN) or other glomerulonephritis. The anti-PLA2R is considered as a promising serum biomarker in iMN but reports about its diagnostic value are variable and inconsistent.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of anti-PLA2R and glomerular PLA2R antigen (gPLA2R) for diagnosing iMN.MethodMEDLINE, EMBASE, WEB OF SCIENCE, and COCHRANE LIBRARY were searched from 2009 January to February 2018. Heterogeneity was evaluated by Q test and I2. Source of heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analysis and meta-regression. Meta-analysis was executed and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement.ResultsTotally, 35 studies were retrieved under the pre-set study eligibility criteria. Twenty-eight studies were included to evaluate the DTA of anti-PLA2R for differentiating iMN from non-iMN. They indicated a pooled sensitivity of 65% (63-67%), specificity of 97% (97-98%), positive likelihood ratio of 15.65 (9.95-24.62), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.37 (0.32-0.42) with a diagnostic OR (sDOR) of 50.41 (31.56 to 80.52) and AUC of 0.9393. No threshold effect was detected. The heterogeneity analysis for sDOR showed that I2 = 50.3% and Cochran-Q = 54.29, df = 27 (p = 0.0014). Heterogeneity was significant. Meta-regression revealed that sample size might be the potential source of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that method type and ratio of patients with nephrotic-range proteinuria at baseline might be the source of heterogeneity. Sixteen studies reported the diagnostic value of glomerular PLA2R antigen for differentiating iMN from non-iMN. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, sDOR, and AUC were 79% (76-81%), 90% (88-92%), 8.17 (5.60-11.93), 0.25 (0.19-0.33), 39.37 (22.18-60.13), and 0.9278. Heterogeneity analysis showed that Cochran-Q = 35.36; df = 15 (p = 0.002), and I2 for sDOR was 57.6%.ConclusionsPLA2R and gPLA2R demonstrated a good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating iMN and non-iMN.
| S-EPMC5932148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) offer new opportunities for the quick and laboratory-independent identification of infected individuals for control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Despite the potential benefits, nasopharyngeal sample collection is frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients and requires trained healthcare personnel with protective equipment. Therefore, anterior nasal self-sampling is increasingly recognized as a valuable alternative. Methods We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of an Ag-RDT using a polypropylene absorbent collector for standardized self-collected anterior nasal swabs. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from combined oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swabs served as a comparator. Primary endpoint was sensitivity of the standardized Ag-RDT in symptomatic patients with medium or high viral concentration (≥1 million RNA copies on RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2). Results Between 12 February and 22 March 2021, 388 participants were enrolled. After exclusion of 9 patients for which no PCR result could be obtained, the novel Ag-RDT was evaluated based on 379 participants, of whom 273 were symptomatic and 106 asymptomatic. In 61 samples from symptomatic patients with medium or high viral load (≥1 million RNA copies), the sensitivity of the standardized Ag-RDT was 96.7% (59/61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 88.7-99.6%) for the primary endpoint. In total, 62 positive Ag-RDT results were detected out of 70 RT-PCR positive individuals, yielding an overall sensitivity of 88.6% (95% CI: 78.7-94.9%). Specificity was 99.7% (95% CI: 98.2-100%) in 309 RT-PCR negative individuals. Conclusions Here, we present a validation of a novel Ag-RDT with a standardized sampling process for anterior nasal self-collection, which meets World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, this assay could be beneficial due to its rapid results, ease of use, and suitability for standardized self-testing.
| S-EPMC8153114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA test-based strategy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is one of the measures to assess the need for isolation and prevention of infection. However, testing with high sensitivity methods, such as quantitative RT-PCR, leads to unnecessary isolation, whereas the lateral flow antigen test shows low sensitivity and false negative results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag test (Lumira Ag), a rapid microfluidic immunofluorescence method, in assessing infectivity.MethodsThis study was performed from March 2022 to July 2022. A pair of nasopharyngeal swab samples were obtained from each patient with mild COVID-19. One swab was used for Lumira Ag testing, and the other for quantitative RT-PCR testing and virus culture.ResultsA total of 84 patients were included in the study. Among them, PCR, Lumira Ag test, and virus culture indicated positivity for 82, 66, and 24 patients, respectively. When comparing the Lumira Ag test to virus culture, its sensitivity was 100.0% (24/24), specificity, 30.0% (18/60); positive predictive value, 36.3% (24/66); and negative predictive value (NPV), 100.0% (18/18). The positive sample for virus culture was observed until the ninth day from the onset of symptoms, while the Lumira Ag test was observed until day 11.ConclusionsThe Lumira Ag test showed high sensitivity and NPV (100% each) compared to virus culture. A test-based strategy using the Lumira Ag test can effectively exclude COVID-19 infectiousness.
| S-EPMC10668452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDiagnostics are essential for controlling the pandemic. Identifying a reliable and fast diagnostic device is needed for effective testing. We assessed performance and ease-of-use of the Abbott PanBio antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT).MethodsThis prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study enrolled at two sites in Germany. Following routine testing with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a second study-exclusive swab was performed for Ag-RDT testing. Routine swabs were nasopharyngeal (NP) or combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) whereas the study-exclusive swabs were NP. To evaluate performance, sensitivity and specificity were assessed overall and in predefined sub-analyses accordingly to cycle-threshold values, days after symptom onset, disease severity and study site. Additionally, an ease-of-use assessment (EoU) and System Usability Scale (SUS) were performed.Results1108 participants were enrolled between Sept 28 and Oct 30, 2020. Of these, 106 (9.6%) were PCR-positive. The Abbott PanBio detected 92/106 PCR-positive participants with a sensitivity of 86.8% (95% CI: 79.0% - 92.0%) and a specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.4%-100%). The sub-analyses indicated that sensitivity was 95.8% in Ct-values <25 and within the first seven days from symptom onset. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS: 86/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings.ConclusionThe Abbott PanBio Ag-RDT performs well for SARS-CoV-2 testing in this large manufacturer independent study, confirming its WHO recommendation for Emergency Use in settings with limited resources.
| S-EPMC8158996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Melioidosis, caused by Gram negative bacteria Burkholderia pseudomallei, is a major type of community-acquired septicemia in Southeast Asia and Northern Australia with high mortality and morbidity rate. More accurate and rapid diagnosis is needed for improving the management of septicemic melioidosis. We previously identified 37-gene candidate signature to distinguish septicemic melioidosis from sepsis due to other pathogens. The aims of this current study were to independently validate our previous biomarker and consolidate gene selection from each of our microarray data set for establishing a targeted assay for the differential diagnosis of melioidosis. Blood samples were collected from patients who presented with severe inflammatory response syndromes from 3 provincial hospitals in Northeast of Thailand during September 2009 and November 2011. Only culture-confirmed sepsis were included in the study (n=166). We generated a new microarray dataset comprising of 29 patients with septicemic melioidosis and 54 patients with sepsis due to other pathogens. Validation of the 37-gene signature using this new dataset demonstrated the prediction accuracy of approximately 80% for detecting type of sepsis. In order to develop a nanoliter-scale high throughput PCR technology, we further identified additional gene signature from this new microarray dataset and by revisiting our published data. Altogether 85 genes including 6 housekeeping genes were selected. Using multi-steps iteration approach we could reduce the number of biomarkers to 12 genes while the performance is comparable to that of the full panel. The high performance (accuracy >70%) of this 12-gene signature could be validated in a second independent set of samples. The 12-gene panel identified by our study provides high performance for the differential diagnosis of septicemic melioidosis. This finding will be useful for improving the management of septicemic melioidosis in term of diagnosis, treatment and follow up.
2015-06-04 | GSE69528 | GEO