Gómez-Morales María Ángeles, Pezzotti Patrizio, Ludovisi Alessandra, Boufana Belgees, Dorny Pierre, Kortbeek Titia, Blocher Joachim, Schmidt Veronika, Amati Marco, Gabriël Sarah, Pozio Edoardo, Winkler Andrea Sylvia, Participants The Ring Trial
Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Rome, Italy.
National Reference Laboratory for Trichinella & Echinococcus National Wildlife Management Centre (NWMC) Animal and Plant Health Agency Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK.
Microorganisms. 2021 May 29;9(6):1173. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9061173.
Laboratory tools for diagnosing taeniosis/cysticercosis in non-endemic countries are available; however, there is little data on their performance. To provide information on the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of these tools, inter-laboratory studies were organized within the EU COST-Action CYSTINET (TD1302). Two serological and one coprological Ring Trials (RTs) were organized to test a panel of human-derived sera and stool samples using assays routinely conducted by the participating laboratories to detect spp. infections. Four Western blots (WBs) and five ELISAs were used by nine laboratories for cysticercosis diagnosis. In the first serological RT, the overall sensitivity was 67.6% (95% CI, 59.1-75.4), whereas specificity was 97% (95% CI, 89.8-99.6). WBs recorded the best accuracy. A second serological RT was organized, to assess the three tests most frequently used during the first RT. Two out of six laboratories performed all the three tests. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 52.8% (95% CI, 42.8-62.7) and 98.1% (95% CI, 93.2-99.7), respectively. Laboratory performance strongly affected test results. Twelve laboratories participated in the coprological RT using conventional microscopy and six laboratories used molecular assays. Traditional diagnosis by microscopy yielded better results than molecular diagnosis. This may have been influenced by the lack of standardization of molecular tests across participating laboratories.
在非流行国家,有用于诊断绦虫病/囊尾蚴病的实验室工具;然而,关于这些工具性能的数据很少。为了提供这些工具的敏感性、特异性和可重复性信息,在欧盟COST行动CYSTINET(TD1302)内组织了实验室间研究。组织了两项血清学和一项粪便学环形试验(RTs),使用参与实验室常规进行的检测方法检测一组人源血清和粪便样本,以检测 spp. 感染。九个实验室使用四种免疫印迹法(WBs)和五种酶联免疫吸附测定法(ELISAs)进行囊尾蚴病诊断。在第一次血清学RT中,总体敏感性为67.6%(95%CI,59.1 - 75.4),而特异性为97%(95%CI,89.8 - 99.6)。WBs的准确性最高。组织了第二次血清学RT,以评估第一次RT中最常用的三项检测。六个实验室中有两个进行了所有三项检测。总体敏感性和特异性分别为52.8%(95%CI,42.8 - 62.7)和98.1%(95%CI,93.2 - 99.7)。实验室性能对检测结果有很大影响。十二个实验室参与了使用传统显微镜检查的粪便学RT,六个实验室使用了分子检测方法。传统的显微镜诊断比分子诊断产生了更好的结果。这可能受到参与实验室间分子检测缺乏标准化的影响。