Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, P.O. Box 90153, 5200 ME, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012 Jun;31(6):1267-70. doi: 10.1007/s10096-011-1438-0. Epub 2011 Oct 14.
A commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) detecting Coxiella burnetii phase II-specific IgM for the diagnosis of acute Q fever was compared with indirect immunofluorescent antibody assay (IFA). IFA is the current reference method for the detection of antibodies against C. burnetii, but has disadvantages because the judgment of fluorescence is subjective and tiring, and the test is expensive and automation is not possible. To examine whether phase II IgM ELISA could be used as a screening assay for acute Q fever, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of IFA and ELISA. The sensitivity of the IFA and ELISA tests were 100 and 85.7%, respectively, with a specificity of 95.3 and 97.6%, respectively. Because of the high sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA in combination with the practical disadvantages of the IFA, we introduced a new algorithm to screen samples of patients with symptoms of acute Q fever infection.
一种市售的酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)可检测第二代贝氏柯克斯体特异性 IgM,用于诊断急性 Q 热,与间接免疫荧光抗体试验(IFA)进行了比较。IFA 是目前检测贝氏柯克斯体抗体的参考方法,但存在一些缺点,因为荧光的判断是主观和累人的,而且该测试昂贵且无法实现自动化。为了研究第二代 IgM ELISA 是否可用于急性 Q 热的筛查,我们比较了 IFA 和 ELISA 的敏感性和特异性。IFA 和 ELISA 检测的敏感性分别为 100%和 85.7%,特异性分别为 95.3%和 97.6%。由于 ELISA 的高敏感性和特异性以及 IFA 的实际缺点,我们引入了一种新的算法来筛选有急性 Q 热感染症状的患者样本。