Bajani Mary D, Ashford David A, Bragg Sandra L, Woods Christopher W, Aye Tin, Spiegel Richard A, Plikaytis Brian D, Perkins Bradley A, Phelan Maureen, Levett Paul N, Weyant Robbin S
Meningitis and Special Pathogens Branch, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Feb;41(2):803-9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.2.803-809.2003.
Four rapid tests for the serologic diagnosis of leptospirosis were evaluated, and the performance of each was compared with that of the current standard, the microscopic agglutination test (MAT). The four rapid tests were a microplate immunoglobulin M (IgM)-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), an indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA), an IgM dipstick assay (LDS), and an IgM dot-ELISA dipstick test (DST). A panel of 276 sera from 133 cases of leptospirosis from four different geographic locations was tested as well as 642 sera from normal individuals or individuals with other infectious or autoimmune diseases. Acute-phase sera from cases (n = 148) were collected <or=14 days (median = 6.0) after the onset of symptoms, and convalescent-phase sera (n = 128) were collected >or=15 days after onset (median = 29.1). By a traditional method (two-by-two contingency table), the sensitivities for detection of leptospirosis cases were 93.2% by LDS, 92.5% by DST, 86.5% by ELISA, and 79.0% by IHA. Specificity was 98.8% by DST, 97% by ELISA and MAT, 95.8% by IHA, and 89.6% by LDS. With a latent class analysis (LCA) model that included all the rapid tests and the clinical case definition, sensitivity was 95.5% by DST, 94.5% by LDS, 89.9% by ELISA, and 81.1% by IHA. The sensitivity and specificity estimated by the traditional methods were quite close to the LCA estimates. However, LCA allowed estimation of the sensitivity of the MAT (98.2%), which traditional methods do not allow. For acute-phase sera, sensitivity was 52.7% by LDS, 50.0% by DST, 48.7% by MAT and ELISA, and 38.5% by IHA. The sensitivity for convalescent-phase sera was 93.8% by MAT, 84.4% by DST, 83.6% by LDS, 75.0% by ELISA, and 67.2% by IHA. A good overall correlation with the MAT was obtained for each of the assays, with the highest concordance being with the DST (kappa value, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 0.90). The best correlation was between ELISA and DST (kappa value, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.91). False-positive LDS results were frequent (>or=20%) in sera from individuals with Epstein-Barr virus, human immunodeficiency virus, and periodontal disease and from healthy volunteers. The ease of use and significantly high sensitivity and specificity of DST and ELISA make these good choices for diagnostic testing.
对用于钩端螺旋体病血清学诊断的四种快速检测方法进行了评估,并将每种方法的性能与当前标准方法——显微镜凝集试验(MAT)进行了比较。这四种快速检测方法分别是微孔板免疫球蛋白M(IgM)酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)、间接血凝试验(IHA)、IgM试纸条测定(LDS)和IgM斑点ELISA试纸条试验(DST)。检测了来自四个不同地理位置的133例钩端螺旋体病患者的276份血清样本,以及来自正常个体或患有其他感染性或自身免疫性疾病个体的642份血清样本。病例的急性期血清(n = 148)在症状出现后≤14天(中位数 = 6.0)采集,恢复期血清(n = 128)在症状出现≥15天(中位数 = 29.1)后采集。采用传统方法(二乘二列联表),LDS检测钩端螺旋体病病例的敏感性为93.2%,DST为92.5%,ELISA为86.5%,IHA为79.0%。DST的特异性为98.8%,ELISA和MAT为97%,IHA为95.8%,LDS为89.6%。采用包括所有快速检测方法和临床病例定义的潜在类别分析(LCA)模型,DST的敏感性为95.5%,LDS为94.5%,ELISA为89.9%,IHA为81.1%。传统方法估计的敏感性和特异性与LCA估计值相当接近。然而,LCA可以估计MAT的敏感性(98.2%),而传统方法无法做到。对于急性期血清,LDS的敏感性为52.7%,DST为50.0%,MAT和ELISA为48.7%,IHA为38.5%。恢复期血清的敏感性,MAT为93.8%,DST为84.4%,LDS为83.6%,ELISA为75.0%,IHA为67.2%。每种检测方法与MAT的总体相关性良好,其中与DST一致性最高(kappa值,0.85;95%置信区间[CI],0.8至0.90)。ELISA和DST之间的相关性最佳(kappa值,0.86;95%CI,0.81至0.91)。在感染爱泼斯坦-巴尔病毒、人类免疫缺陷病毒的个体、患有牙周病的个体以及健康志愿者的血清中,LDS的假阳性结果很常见(≥20%)。DST和ELISA使用方便,敏感性和特异性显著较高,使其成为诊断检测的良好选择。