Cuzzubbo A J, Vaughn D W, Nisalak A, Solomon T, Kalayanarooj S, Aaskov J, Dung N M, Devine P L
PanBio Pty Ltd., School of Life Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1999 Sep;6(5):705-12. doi: 10.1128/CDLI.6.5.705-712.1999.
The performances of the MRL dengue fever virus immunoglobulin M (IgM) capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the PanBio Dengue Duo IgM capture and IgG capture ELISA were compared. Eighty sera from patients with dengue virus infections, 24 sera from patients with Japanese encephalitis (JE), and 78 sera from patients with nonflavivirus infections, such as malaria, typhoid, leptospirosis, and scrub typhus, were used. The MRL test showed superior sensitivity for dengue virus infections (94 versus 89%), while the PanBio test showed superior specificity for JE (79 versus 25%) and other infections (100 versus 91%). The PanBio ELISA showed better overall performance, as assessed by the sum of sensitivity and specificity (F value). When dengue virus and nonflavivirus infections were compared, F values of 189 and 185 were obtained for the PanBio and MRL tests, respectively, while when dengue virus infections and JE were compared, F values of 168 and 119 were obtained. The results obtained with individual sera in the PanBio and MRL IgM ELISAs showed good correlation, but this analysis revealed that the cutoff value of the MRL test was set well below that of the PanBio test. Comparing the sensitivity and specificity of the tests at different cutoff values (receiver-operator analysis) revealed that the MRL and PanBio IgM ELISAs performed similarly in distinguishing dengue virus from nonflavivirus infections, although the PanBio IgM ELISA showed significantly better distinction between dengue virus infections and JE. The implications of these findings for the laboratory diagnosis of dengue are discussed.
对MRL登革热病毒免疫球蛋白M(IgM)捕获酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)和PanBio登革热双重IgM捕获及IgG捕获ELISA的性能进行了比较。使用了80份登革热病毒感染患者的血清、24份日本脑炎(JE)患者的血清以及78份非黄病毒感染患者(如疟疾、伤寒、钩端螺旋体病和恙虫病)的血清。MRL检测对登革热病毒感染显示出更高的敏感性(94%对89%),而PanBio检测对JE(79%对25%)和其他感染(100%对91%)显示出更高的特异性。通过敏感性和特异性之和(F值)评估,PanBio ELISA显示出更好的总体性能。当比较登革热病毒和非黄病毒感染时,PanBio和MRL检测的F值分别为189和185,而当比较登革热病毒感染和JE时,F值分别为168和119。PanBio和MRL IgM ELISA中个体血清的检测结果显示出良好的相关性,但该分析表明MRL检测的临界值设定得远低于PanBio检测。在不同临界值下比较检测的敏感性和特异性(受试者操作分析)表明,MRL和PanBio IgM ELISA在区分登革热病毒和非黄病毒感染方面表现相似,尽管PanBio IgM ELISA在区分登革热病毒感染和JE方面表现明显更好。讨论了这些发现对登革热实验室诊断的意义。