Bretzel G, Siegmund V, Nitschke J, Herbinger K H, Thompson W, Klutse E, Crofts K, Massavon W, Etuaful S, Thompson R, Asamoah-Opare K, Racz P, Vloten F, van Berberich C, Kruppa T, Ampadu E, Fleischer B, Adjei O
Department of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine (DITM), University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Trop Med Int Health. 2007 Jan;12(1):89-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01761.x.
In view of technical and financial limitations in areas of endemicity, the current practice and recommendations for the laboratory diagnosis of Buruli ulcer disease (BUD) may have to be reconsidered. We reviewed diagnostic results in order to explore options for a modified, more practicable, cost-effective and timely approach to the laboratory diagnosis of BUD.
Diagnostic specimens from 161 clinically diagnosed BUD patients from four different treatment centres in Ghana were subjected to laboratory analysis. The positivity rates of the laboratory assays were compared.
The number of laboratory-confirmed clinically diagnosed BUD cases with one positive confirmative test was 20% higher than that with two positive confirmative tests. The specificity of microscopy (MIC) and PCR was 96.6% and 100%, respectively. Subsequent analysis of specimens from surgically excised pre-ulcerative tissue-by-tissue MIC and tissue PCR rendered 65% laboratory-confirmed BUD cases. Subsequent analysis of diagnostic swabs from ulcerative lesions by swab smear MIC and swab PCR rendered 70% of laboratory-confirmed BUD cases.
The specificity of the diagnostic tests used in this study suggests that one positive diagnostic test may be considered sufficient for the laboratory confirmation of BUD. Subsequent application of different diagnostic tests rendered a laboratory confirmation of 65% pre-ulcerative and of 70% ulcerative lesions. Implementation of a stepwise, subsequent analysis of diagnostic specimens will result in considerable cost saving compared with simultaneous testing of specimens by several diagnostic assays.
鉴于地方流行区存在技术和资金限制,可能必须重新考虑当前布鲁里溃疡病(BUD)实验室诊断的做法和建议。我们回顾了诊断结果,以探索改进的、更可行、更具成本效益且更及时的BUD实验室诊断方法。
对来自加纳四个不同治疗中心的161例临床诊断为BUD的患者的诊断标本进行实验室分析。比较了实验室检测的阳性率。
单项阳性确诊试验的实验室确诊临床诊断BUD病例数比两项阳性确诊试验的病例数高20%。显微镜检查(MIC)和PCR的特异性分别为96.6%和100%。随后对手术切除的溃疡前组织逐个进行组织MIC和组织PCR分析,确诊了65%的BUD病例。随后对溃疡病变的诊断拭子进行拭子涂片MIC和拭子PCR分析,确诊了70%的BUD病例。
本研究中使用的诊断试验的特异性表明,单项阳性诊断试验可能足以进行BUD的实验室确诊。随后应用不同的诊断试验确诊了65%的溃疡前病变和70%的溃疡病变。与同时用几种诊断试验对标本进行检测相比,实施逐步的、后续的诊断标本分析将节省大量成本。