Laboratory Comparison of Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Tests for Lymphatic Filariasis: STANDARD Q Filariasis Antigen Test (QFAT) Versus Bioline Filariasis Test Strip (FTS).

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.3390/tropicalmed10010023
Patricia M Graves, Jessica L Scott, Alvaro Berg Soto, Antin Y N Widi, Maxine Whittaker, Colleen L Lau, Kimberly Y Won
{"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":"","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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 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
期刊最新文献
Innovations in TB Screening and Preventive Therapy Services for PLHIV in Yogyakarta City, Indonesia. Estimation and Characterization of Dengue Serotypes in Patients Presenting with Dengue Fever at Makkah Hospitals. Risk of Colonization with Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Among Travellers and Migrants: A Narrative Review. Biological and Social Predictors of HIV-1 RNA Viral Suppression in ART Treated PWLH in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Global Challenge of Campylobacter: Antimicrobial Resistance and Emerging Intervention Strategies.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1