不同临床布鲁氏菌病实验室诊断方法的比较

Y. Kulakov, O. Burgasova, A. Dalgatova, R. Khodzhibekov
{"title":"不同临床布鲁氏菌病实验室诊断方法的比较","authors":"Y. Kulakov, O. Burgasova, A. Dalgatova, R. Khodzhibekov","doi":"10.20953/1729-9225-2023-2-35-40","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Brucellosis is a zoonotic infection characterized by variable clinical manifestations, a variety of transmission routes, chronic inflammation, and risk of disability. Brucellosis remains a problem of practical healthcare in Russia, especially in endemic regions. Laboratory tests for brucellosis diagnosis are rarely used together, which prevents objective comparison of their effectiveness for different clinical forms of the disease. In this study, we analyzed different laboratory methods for comprehensive diagnosis of various clinical forms of brucellosis. Objective. To compare different laboratory methods for the diagnosis of various clinical forms of brucellosis. Materials and methods. We tested serum from 1049 individuals collected between 2005 and 2022. Samples were analyzed using agglutination reaction in tubes (Wright reaction; WR), on slides (Huddleson reaction; HR), Coombs test (CT), enzymelinked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for BCSP31. We also performed retrospective analysis of 325 patient records. Of them, 110 patients (34%) had acute brucellosis, whereas 215 patients (66%) had chronic brucellosis. The control group comprised 604 individuals (with no clinical, epidemiological signs tested negative for brucellosis). Results. We analyzed 325 brucellosis patients (including 110 with acute disease, 215 with chronic disease, and 120 with no clinical manifestations) and 604 healthy controls. The sensitivity of PCR in acute and chronic disease was 94% and 32%, respectively. The specificity of PCR was 99.7%. ELISA demonstrated 92% and 86% sensitivity in acute and chronic disease, respectively, with a specificity of 98%. The negative and positive prognostic value for ELIZA and PCR were 95% and 96%, 83% and 99% respectively, suggesting similar effectiveness and accuracy of these methods. The sensitivity of traditional serological tests in acute disease was 75%, 62%, and 56.3% for RH, WR, and CT, respectively. In patients with chronic brucellosis, their sensitivity did not exceed 60%. Specificity of WR and CT was 97% in chronic disease, while it of RH dropped to 83%. Conclusion. PCR and ELISA ensured high diagnostic effectiveness and accuracy in assessing the activity of infection and diagnosis of brucellosis clinical forms, as well as in screening among vulnerable individuals. Traditional serological tests, despite their lower sensitivity, confirm acute disease and need for comprehensive laboratory diagnostics of brucellosis patients. Key words: brucellosis, diagnostic methods, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, polymerase chain reaction, Wright reaction, Huddleson reaction, Coombs test","PeriodicalId":37794,"journal":{"name":"Infektsionnye Bolezni","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of laboratory methods for the diagnosis of different clinical forms of brucellosis\",\"authors\":\"Y. Kulakov, O. Burgasova, A. Dalgatova, R. Khodzhibekov\",\"doi\":\"10.20953/1729-9225-2023-2-35-40\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Brucellosis is a zoonotic infection characterized by variable clinical manifestations, a variety of transmission routes, chronic inflammation, and risk of disability. Brucellosis remains a problem of practical healthcare in Russia, especially in endemic regions. Laboratory tests for brucellosis diagnosis are rarely used together, which prevents objective comparison of their effectiveness for different clinical forms of the disease. In this study, we analyzed different laboratory methods for comprehensive diagnosis of various clinical forms of brucellosis. Objective. To compare different laboratory methods for the diagnosis of various clinical forms of brucellosis. Materials and methods. We tested serum from 1049 individuals collected between 2005 and 2022. Samples were analyzed using agglutination reaction in tubes (Wright reaction; WR), on slides (Huddleson reaction; HR), Coombs test (CT), enzymelinked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for BCSP31. We also performed retrospective analysis of 325 patient records. Of them, 110 patients (34%) had acute brucellosis, whereas 215 patients (66%) had chronic brucellosis. The control group comprised 604 individuals (with no clinical, epidemiological signs tested negative for brucellosis). Results. We analyzed 325 brucellosis patients (including 110 with acute disease, 215 with chronic disease, and 120 with no clinical manifestations) and 604 healthy controls. The sensitivity of PCR in acute and chronic disease was 94% and 32%, respectively. The specificity of PCR was 99.7%. ELISA demonstrated 92% and 86% sensitivity in acute and chronic disease, respectively, with a specificity of 98%. The negative and positive prognostic value for ELIZA and PCR were 95% and 96%, 83% and 99% respectively, suggesting similar effectiveness and accuracy of these methods. The sensitivity of traditional serological tests in acute disease was 75%, 62%, and 56.3% for RH, WR, and CT, respectively. In patients with chronic brucellosis, their sensitivity did not exceed 60%. Specificity of WR and CT was 97% in chronic disease, while it of RH dropped to 83%. Conclusion. PCR and ELISA ensured high diagnostic effectiveness and accuracy in assessing the activity of infection and diagnosis of brucellosis clinical forms, as well as in screening among vulnerable individuals. Traditional serological tests, despite their lower sensitivity, confirm acute disease and need for comprehensive laboratory diagnostics of brucellosis patients. Key words: brucellosis, diagnostic methods, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, polymerase chain reaction, Wright reaction, Huddleson reaction, Coombs test\",\"PeriodicalId\":37794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infektsionnye Bolezni\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infektsionnye Bolezni\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20953/1729-9225-2023-2-35-40\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infektsionnye Bolezni","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20953/1729-9225-2023-2-35-40","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

布鲁氏菌病是一种人畜共患感染,其特点是临床表现多样、传播途径多样、慢性炎症和致残风险。在俄罗斯,特别是在流行地区,布鲁氏菌病仍然是一个实际卫生保健问题。用于布鲁氏菌病诊断的实验室检测很少同时使用,这妨碍了对不同临床形式的疾病的有效性进行客观比较。在这项研究中,我们分析了不同的实验室方法,以综合诊断各种临床形式的布鲁氏菌病。目标。比较不同的实验室方法诊断各种临床形式的布鲁氏菌病。材料和方法。我们检测了2005年至2022年间收集的1049人的血清。用试管凝集反应(Wright反应;WR),载玻片(Huddleson反应;HR)、Coombs试验(CT)、酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)和实时聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测BCSP31。我们还对325例患者进行了回顾性分析。其中110例(34%)为急性布鲁氏菌病,215例(66%)为慢性布鲁氏菌病。对照组包括604人(没有临床、流行病学症状,经检测布鲁氏菌病呈阴性)。结果。我们分析了325例布鲁氏菌病患者(其中急性疾病110例,慢性疾病215例,无临床表现120例)和604例健康对照。急性和慢性疾病的PCR敏感性分别为94%和32%。PCR特异性为99.7%。ELISA对急性和慢性疾病的敏感性分别为92%和86%,特异性为98%。elisa和PCR的阴性和阳性预后值分别为95%和96%,83%和99%,表明这两种方法的有效性和准确性相似。传统血清学检测对急性疾病的敏感性RH、WR和CT分别为75%、62%和56.3%。在慢性布鲁氏菌病患者中,其敏感性不超过60%。慢性疾病WR和CT特异性为97%,RH特异性降至83%。结论。PCR和ELISA确保了在评估感染活性和诊断布鲁氏菌病临床形式以及在易感人群中筛查时的高诊断有效性和准确性。传统的血清学检测尽管敏感性较低,但可确认布鲁氏菌病患者的急性疾病,需要对其进行全面的实验室诊断。关键词:布鲁氏菌病,诊断方法,酶联免疫吸附试验,聚合酶链反应,Wright反应,Huddleson反应,Coombs试验
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
Comparison of laboratory methods for the diagnosis of different clinical forms of brucellosis
Brucellosis is a zoonotic infection characterized by variable clinical manifestations, a variety of transmission routes, chronic inflammation, and risk of disability. Brucellosis remains a problem of practical healthcare in Russia, especially in endemic regions. Laboratory tests for brucellosis diagnosis are rarely used together, which prevents objective comparison of their effectiveness for different clinical forms of the disease. In this study, we analyzed different laboratory methods for comprehensive diagnosis of various clinical forms of brucellosis. Objective. To compare different laboratory methods for the diagnosis of various clinical forms of brucellosis. Materials and methods. We tested serum from 1049 individuals collected between 2005 and 2022. Samples were analyzed using agglutination reaction in tubes (Wright reaction; WR), on slides (Huddleson reaction; HR), Coombs test (CT), enzymelinked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for BCSP31. We also performed retrospective analysis of 325 patient records. Of them, 110 patients (34%) had acute brucellosis, whereas 215 patients (66%) had chronic brucellosis. The control group comprised 604 individuals (with no clinical, epidemiological signs tested negative for brucellosis). Results. We analyzed 325 brucellosis patients (including 110 with acute disease, 215 with chronic disease, and 120 with no clinical manifestations) and 604 healthy controls. The sensitivity of PCR in acute and chronic disease was 94% and 32%, respectively. The specificity of PCR was 99.7%. ELISA demonstrated 92% and 86% sensitivity in acute and chronic disease, respectively, with a specificity of 98%. The negative and positive prognostic value for ELIZA and PCR were 95% and 96%, 83% and 99% respectively, suggesting similar effectiveness and accuracy of these methods. The sensitivity of traditional serological tests in acute disease was 75%, 62%, and 56.3% for RH, WR, and CT, respectively. In patients with chronic brucellosis, their sensitivity did not exceed 60%. Specificity of WR and CT was 97% in chronic disease, while it of RH dropped to 83%. Conclusion. PCR and ELISA ensured high diagnostic effectiveness and accuracy in assessing the activity of infection and diagnosis of brucellosis clinical forms, as well as in screening among vulnerable individuals. Traditional serological tests, despite their lower sensitivity, confirm acute disease and need for comprehensive laboratory diagnostics of brucellosis patients. Key words: brucellosis, diagnostic methods, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, polymerase chain reaction, Wright reaction, Huddleson reaction, Coombs test
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
Infektsionnye Bolezni
Infektsionnye Bolezni Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original research works, reviews of literature, lectures, methodological recommendations, clinical observations. Main topics: problems of etiology, pathogenesis, clinical manifestations of infectious diseases, new techniques and methods of their diagnosis, prevention and treatment; special attention is paid to the problems of antibacterial and antiviral therapy, the use of immunoglobulins and interferons, and also to intensive therapy of critical states. The journal is in the List of leading scientific journals and periodicals of the Supreme Attestation Committee, where the principal results of doctoral dissertations should be published.
期刊最新文献
Innovative approaches to treatment of human herpesvirus infections during the COVID-19 pandemic Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome in a six-year-old child Viral infections as a cause or a trigger for the development of hemoblastosis? Antiviral therapy experience in patients with chronic hepatitis D and decompensated cirrhosis Treatment of patients with chronic HDV infection: routine clinical practice in the Moscow region
×
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