显微镜和分子技术诊断泰纳丝虫病的敏感性和特异性。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 PARASITOLOGY Acta tropica Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.actatropica.2024.107414
Andrew Larkins, Breanna Knight, Boualy Keokhamphavanh, Kelly Taggart, Sarah Keatley, Bounnaloth Insisiengmay, Amanda Ash
{"title":"显微镜和分子技术诊断泰纳丝虫病的敏感性和特异性。","authors":"Andrew Larkins, Breanna Knight, Boualy Keokhamphavanh, Kelly Taggart, Sarah Keatley, Bounnaloth Insisiengmay, Amanda Ash","doi":"10.1016/j.actatropica.2024.107414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The diagnostic challenges associated with T. solium continue to hamper control efforts of the world's most significant foodborne parasite and leading cause of epilepsy in low and middle-income countries. This study aimed to validate two conventional PCRs for taeniasis and estimate the diagnostic performance of microscopic and molecular tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Formalin and ethanol-fixed samples were tested by formalin-ethyl acetate concentration technique (FECT), Malachite smear, McMaster2 method, rrnS PCR and cox1 PCR. Initial validation of PCR methods was completed on 45 microscopy positive individuals. After validation, the performance of microscopic methods and the rrnS were estimated using samples from 1,156 individuals in Laos. Bayesian latent class models (BLCMs) and a composite reference standard were used to estimate diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On preliminary validation the rrnS was able to detect 27/45 (60.00%) infections whereas the cox1 detected 21/45 (46.67%). As a result, the cox1 was excluded from further performance analysis. Microscopy methods and the rrnS were highly specific with estimates above 99.02% regardless of analytical method. The rrnS was the most sensitive test by informed BCLM (91.45%, CrI: 73.41-99.52%) followed by the FECT (71.20%, CrI: 50.53-85.48%), McMaster2 (51.31%, CrI: 32.00-71.29%) and Malachite smear (32.23%, CrI: 15.40-54.47%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The inability to validate the cox1 PCR suggests that it may not be suitable in its current form for routine characterisation of Taenia spp. detected by microscopy. The rrnS presents a suitable alternative to the cox1, however, requires its products to be sequenced. Given the low prevalence of taeniasis in most populations, this should be a feasible approach that may be able to be integrated with existing soil-transmitted helminth surveys that often use FECT for microscopic diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":7240,"journal":{"name":"Acta tropica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensitivity and specificity of microscopic and molecular techniques for the diagnosis of taeniasis.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Larkins, Breanna Knight, Boualy Keokhamphavanh, Kelly Taggart, Sarah Keatley, Bounnaloth Insisiengmay, Amanda Ash\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.actatropica.2024.107414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The diagnostic challenges associated with T. solium continue to hamper control efforts of the world's most significant foodborne parasite and leading cause of epilepsy in low and middle-income countries. This study aimed to validate two conventional PCRs for taeniasis and estimate the diagnostic performance of microscopic and molecular tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Formalin and ethanol-fixed samples were tested by formalin-ethyl acetate concentration technique (FECT), Malachite smear, McMaster2 method, rrnS PCR and cox1 PCR. Initial validation of PCR methods was completed on 45 microscopy positive individuals. After validation, the performance of microscopic methods and the rrnS were estimated using samples from 1,156 individuals in Laos. Bayesian latent class models (BLCMs) and a composite reference standard were used to estimate diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On preliminary validation the rrnS was able to detect 27/45 (60.00%) infections whereas the cox1 detected 21/45 (46.67%). As a result, the cox1 was excluded from further performance analysis. Microscopy methods and the rrnS were highly specific with estimates above 99.02% regardless of analytical method. The rrnS was the most sensitive test by informed BCLM (91.45%, CrI: 73.41-99.52%) followed by the FECT (71.20%, CrI: 50.53-85.48%), McMaster2 (51.31%, CrI: 32.00-71.29%) and Malachite smear (32.23%, CrI: 15.40-54.47%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The inability to validate the cox1 PCR suggests that it may not be suitable in its current form for routine characterisation of Taenia spp. detected by microscopy. The rrnS presents a suitable alternative to the cox1, however, requires its products to be sequenced. Given the low prevalence of taeniasis in most populations, this should be a feasible approach that may be able to be integrated with existing soil-transmitted helminth surveys that often use FECT for microscopic diagnosis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta tropica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta tropica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2024.107414\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PARASITOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta tropica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2024.107414","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PARASITOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目标:在中低收入国家,蛔虫是世界上最重要的食源性寄生虫,也是导致癫痫的主要原因,与蛔虫相关的诊断难题继续阻碍着对蛔虫的控制工作。本研究旨在验证两种传统的蛔虫PCR方法,并评估显微镜和分子工具的诊断性能:方法:通过福尔马林-醋酸乙酯浓缩技术(FECT)、孔雀石涂片、麦克马斯特2方法、rrnS PCR和cox1 PCR对福尔马林和乙醇固定样本进行检测。对 45 个显微镜检查呈阳性的个体完成了 PCR 方法的初步验证。验证后,使用老挝 1,156 人的样本对显微镜方法和 rrnS 的性能进行了估计。贝叶斯潜类模型(BLCMs)和综合参考标准被用来估算诊断灵敏度和特异性:经初步验证,rrnS 能够检测出 27/45 例(60.00%)感染,而 cox1 则检测出 21/45 例(46.67%)。因此,cox1 被排除在进一步的性能分析之外。无论采用哪种分析方法,显微镜方法和 rrnS 的特异性都很高,估计值都在 99.02% 以上。根据 BCLM(91.45%,CrI:73.41-99.52%),rrnS 是最敏感的检测方法,其次是 FECT(71.20%,CrI:50.53-85.48%)、McMaster2(51.31%,CrI:32.00-71.29%)和孔雀石涂片(32.23%,CrI:15.40-54.47%):讨论:无法对 cox1 PCR 进行验证表明,其目前的形式可能不适合用于显微镜检测疟原虫属的常规鉴定。rrnS 是 cox1 的合适替代品,但需要对其产物进行测序。鉴于大多数人群中疟原虫病的发病率较低,这应该是一种可行的方法,可以与现有的土壤传播蠕虫调查相结合,后者通常使用 FECT 进行显微诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Sensitivity and specificity of microscopic and molecular techniques for the diagnosis of taeniasis.

Background and objectives: The diagnostic challenges associated with T. solium continue to hamper control efforts of the world's most significant foodborne parasite and leading cause of epilepsy in low and middle-income countries. This study aimed to validate two conventional PCRs for taeniasis and estimate the diagnostic performance of microscopic and molecular tools.

Methods: Formalin and ethanol-fixed samples were tested by formalin-ethyl acetate concentration technique (FECT), Malachite smear, McMaster2 method, rrnS PCR and cox1 PCR. Initial validation of PCR methods was completed on 45 microscopy positive individuals. After validation, the performance of microscopic methods and the rrnS were estimated using samples from 1,156 individuals in Laos. Bayesian latent class models (BLCMs) and a composite reference standard were used to estimate diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.

Results: On preliminary validation the rrnS was able to detect 27/45 (60.00%) infections whereas the cox1 detected 21/45 (46.67%). As a result, the cox1 was excluded from further performance analysis. Microscopy methods and the rrnS were highly specific with estimates above 99.02% regardless of analytical method. The rrnS was the most sensitive test by informed BCLM (91.45%, CrI: 73.41-99.52%) followed by the FECT (71.20%, CrI: 50.53-85.48%), McMaster2 (51.31%, CrI: 32.00-71.29%) and Malachite smear (32.23%, CrI: 15.40-54.47%).

Discussion: The inability to validate the cox1 PCR suggests that it may not be suitable in its current form for routine characterisation of Taenia spp. detected by microscopy. The rrnS presents a suitable alternative to the cox1, however, requires its products to be sequenced. Given the low prevalence of taeniasis in most populations, this should be a feasible approach that may be able to be integrated with existing soil-transmitted helminth surveys that often use FECT for microscopic diagnosis.

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
Acta tropica
Acta tropica 医学-寄生虫学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
383
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Acta Tropica, is an international journal on infectious diseases that covers public health sciences and biomedical research with particular emphasis on topics relevant to human and animal health in the tropics and the subtropics.
期刊最新文献
Sensitivity and specificity of microscopic and molecular techniques for the diagnosis of taeniasis. Genetic polymorphism of Duffy binding protein in Pakistan Plasmodium vivax isolates. First report of Bartonella henselae and Bartonella clarridgeiae carriage in stray cats from Ecuador: confirmation by sequencing of gltA gene. OVEREXPRESSION, PURIFICATION AND BIOCHEMICAL STUDIES OF SORTASE A FROM Enterococcus faecalis (Ef) AND ITS INHIBITION STUIDES WITH ALOENIN. A "One health" approach to the understanding of mammals, ticks and Rickettsia interactions in the Andes of Colombia.
×
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