Unit of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, San Matteo Hospital Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019 Dec;101(6):1345-1349. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.19-0556.
The diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis (CE) is based on imaging. Serology supports imaging in suspected cases, but no consensus exists on the algorithm to apply when imaging is inconclusive. We performed a retrospective analysis of serology results of patients with untreated hepatic CE and non-CE lesions, seen from 2005 to 2017, to evaluate their accuracy in the differential diagnosis of hepatic CE. Serology results of three seroassays for echinococcosis (ELISA RIDASCREEN, indirect hemagglutination (IHA) Cellognost, and Western blot LDBIO) and clinical characteristics of eligible patients were retrieved. Patients were grouped as having active or inactive CE and liquid or solid non-CE lesions. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were compared between scenarios encompassing different test combinations. Eligible patients included 104 patients with CE and 257 with non-CE lesions. Sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of Western blot (WB) were significantly higher than those of the following: 1) IHA or ELISA alone, 2) IHA+ELISA interpreted as positive if both or either tests positive, and 3) IHA+ELISA confirmed by WB if discordant. The best performances were obtained when WB was applied on discordant or concordant negative IHA+ELISA. Analyses performed within "active CE ( = 52) versus liquid non-CE ( = 245)" and "inactive CE ( = 52) versus solid non-CE ( = 12)" groups showed similar results. Specificity was high for all tests (0.99-1.00) and did not differ between test combination scenarios. WB may be the best test to apply in a one-test approach. Two first-level tests confirmed by WB seem to provide the best diagnostic accuracy. Further studies should be performed in different settings, especially where lower test specificity is likely.
囊性包虫病(CE)的诊断基于影像学。血清学支持疑似病例的影像学检查,但对于影像学检查结果不确定时应采用的算法尚无共识。我们对 2005 年至 2017 年间未经治疗的肝 CE 和非 CE 病变患者的血清学结果进行了回顾性分析,以评估其在肝 CE 鉴别诊断中的准确性。检索了三种包虫病血清学检测(ELISA RIDASCREEN、间接血凝法(IHA)Cellognost 和 Western blot LDBIO)的血清学结果和符合条件的患者的临床特征。将患者分为活动性或非活动性 CE 和液体或固体非 CE 病变。比较了不同检测组合方案的敏感性、特异性和诊断准确性。符合条件的患者包括 104 例 CE 患者和 257 例非 CE 病变患者。Western blot(WB)的敏感性和诊断准确性明显高于以下各项:1)单独的 IHA 或 ELISA;2)IHA+ELISA,如果两项或其中一项检测结果阳性,则解释为阳性;3)IHA+ELISA,如果与 WB 不一致,则通过 WB 确认。当 WB 应用于不一致或一致的阴性 IHA+ELISA 时,获得了最佳的性能。在“活动性 CE(n=52)与液体非 CE(n=245)”和“非活动性 CE(n=52)与固体非 CE(n=12)”两组中进行的分析显示出相似的结果。所有检测的特异性均较高(0.99-1.00),且在不同检测组合方案之间无差异。WB 可能是最适合单检方法的检测。通过 WB 确认的两项一级检测似乎提供了最佳的诊断准确性。应在不同环境中进行进一步研究,尤其是在可能出现较低检测特异性的情况下。