Evaluation of efficiency of different anti-cysticercus antibody test kits for serodiagnosis of cysticercosis
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of four anti-cysticercus IgG, IgG4 or IgM antibody test kits (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ELISA) by different manufacturers, so as to provide insights into the epidemiological investigation and clinical detection of cysticercosis.
METHODS: Forty serum samples from cerebral cysticercosis patients, 100 serum samples from healthy volunteers, 30 serum samples from paragonimiasis skrjabini patients, 17 serum samples from cystic echinococcosis and 19 serum samples from subcutaneous or cerebral sparganosis patients were collected and detected using anti-cysticercus IgG, IgG4 or IgM antibody test kits (brand A) and the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand B). The sensitivity, specificity and false negative rate of the four kits for detection of cysticercosis were estimated.
RESULTS: The anti-cysticercus IgG, IgG4 or IgM antibody test kits (brand A) showed 95.00% (38/40), 87.50% (35/40), 7.50% (3/40) sensitivities and 98.00% (98/100), 100.00% (100/100) and 100.00% (100/100) for detection of cysticercosis, while the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand B) presented a 75.00% (30/40) sensitivity and 100.00% (100/100) specificity for detection of cysticercosis. The sensitivity for detection of cysticercosis was significantly higher by the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand A) than by the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand B) (χ2 = 6.28, P < 0.05); however, no significant difference was seen in the specificity by two kits (χ2 = 2.01, P > 0.05). The four ELISA kits showed overall false positive rates of 37.88% (25/66), 22.73% (15/66), 62.12% (41/66) and 15.15% (10/66) for detection of paragonimiasis, echinococcosis and sparganosis (χ2 = 37.61, P < 0.05), and the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand A) presented the highest overall false positive rate for detection of paragonimiasis, echinococcosis and sparganosis (χ2 = 7.56, P' < 0.008), while a higher overall false positive rate was seen for detection of paragonimiasis, echinococcosis and sparganosis by the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand A) than by the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand B) (χ2 = 8.75, P' < 0.008). The four ELISA kits showed false positive rates of 40.00% (12/30), 16.67% (5/30), 76.67% (23/30) and 13.33% (4/30) for detection of paragonimiasis (χ2 = 32.88, P < 0.05) and 21.05% (4/19), 26.32% (5/19), 73.68% (14/19) and 15.79% (3/19) for detection of sparganosis (χ2 = 19.97, P < 0.05), and the highest false positive rates were found by the anti-cysticercus IgM antibody test kit (brand A) for detection of paragonimiasis and sparganosis (all P' < 0.008). However, the four ELISA kits showed comparable false positive rates of 52.94% (9/17), 29.41% (5/17), 23.53% (4/17) and 17.65% (3/17) for detection of echinococcosis (χ2 = 8.24, P > 0.05). In addition, the anti-cysticercus IgM anti-body test kit (brand A) showed false positive rates of 76.67% (23/30), 23.53% (4/17) and 73.68% (14/19) for detection of paragonimiasis, echinococcosis and sparganosis (χ2 = 14.537, P < 0.05), with the lowest false positive rate seen for detection of echinococcosis (χ2 = 14.537, P' < 0.014), while no significant differences were seen in the false positive rate for detection of paragonimiasis, echinococcosis and sparganosis by other three ELISA kits (all P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The four anti-cysticercus IgG, IgG4 or IgM antibody test kits exhibit various efficiencies for serodiagnosis of cysticercosis. The anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand A) has a high sensitivity for serodiagnosis of cysticercosis; however, it still needs to solve the problems of cross-reaction with other parasitic diseases and stability.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:34 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Zhongguo xue xi chong bing fang zhi za zhi = Chinese journal of schistosomiasis control - 34(2022), 1 vom: 23. Feb., Seite 36-40 |
| Sprache: |
Chinesisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Zhang, Y L [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Antibodies, Helminth |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 11.03.2022 Date Revised 11.03.2022 published: Print Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.16250/j.32.1374.2021216 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM337972249 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM337972249 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226204338.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||chi c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.16250/j.32.1374.2021216 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1126.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM337972249 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)35266355 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a chi | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Zhang, Y L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Evaluation of efficiency of different anti-cysticercus antibody test kits for serodiagnosis of cysticercosis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 11.03.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 11.03.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of four anti-cysticercus IgG, IgG4 or IgM antibody test kits (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ELISA) by different manufacturers, so as to provide insights into the epidemiological investigation and clinical detection of cysticercosis | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: Forty serum samples from cerebral cysticercosis patients, 100 serum samples from healthy volunteers, 30 serum samples from paragonimiasis skrjabini patients, 17 serum samples from cystic echinococcosis and 19 serum samples from subcutaneous or cerebral sparganosis patients were collected and detected using anti-cysticercus IgG, IgG4 or IgM antibody test kits (brand A) and the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand B). The sensitivity, specificity and false negative rate of the four kits for detection of cysticercosis were estimated | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: The anti-cysticercus IgG, IgG4 or IgM antibody test kits (brand A) showed 95.00% (38/40), 87.50% (35/40), 7.50% (3/40) sensitivities and 98.00% (98/100), 100.00% (100/100) and 100.00% (100/100) for detection of cysticercosis, while the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand B) presented a 75.00% (30/40) sensitivity and 100.00% (100/100) specificity for detection of cysticercosis. The sensitivity for detection of cysticercosis was significantly higher by the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand A) than by the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand B) (χ2 = 6.28, P < 0.05); however, no significant difference was seen in the specificity by two kits (χ2 = 2.01, P > 0.05). The four ELISA kits showed overall false positive rates of 37.88% (25/66), 22.73% (15/66), 62.12% (41/66) and 15.15% (10/66) for detection of paragonimiasis, echinococcosis and sparganosis (χ2 = 37.61, P < 0.05), and the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand A) presented the highest overall false positive rate for detection of paragonimiasis, echinococcosis and sparganosis (χ2 = 7.56, P' < 0.008), while a higher overall false positive rate was seen for detection of paragonimiasis, echinococcosis and sparganosis by the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand A) than by the anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand B) (χ2 = 8.75, P' < 0.008). The four ELISA kits showed false positive rates of 40.00% (12/30), 16.67% (5/30), 76.67% (23/30) and 13.33% (4/30) for detection of paragonimiasis (χ2 = 32.88, P < 0.05) and 21.05% (4/19), 26.32% (5/19), 73.68% (14/19) and 15.79% (3/19) for detection of sparganosis (χ2 = 19.97, P < 0.05), and the highest false positive rates were found by the anti-cysticercus IgM antibody test kit (brand A) for detection of paragonimiasis and sparganosis (all P' < 0.008). However, the four ELISA kits showed comparable false positive rates of 52.94% (9/17), 29.41% (5/17), 23.53% (4/17) and 17.65% (3/17) for detection of echinococcosis (χ2 = 8.24, P > 0.05). In addition, the anti-cysticercus IgM anti-body test kit (brand A) showed false positive rates of 76.67% (23/30), 23.53% (4/17) and 73.68% (14/19) for detection of paragonimiasis, echinococcosis and sparganosis (χ2 = 14.537, P < 0.05), with the lowest false positive rate seen for detection of echinococcosis (χ2 = 14.537, P' < 0.014), while no significant differences were seen in the false positive rate for detection of paragonimiasis, echinococcosis and sparganosis by other three ELISA kits (all P > 0.05) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: The four anti-cysticercus IgG, IgG4 or IgM antibody test kits exhibit various efficiencies for serodiagnosis of cysticercosis. The anti-cysticercus IgG antibody test kit (brand A) has a high sensitivity for serodiagnosis of cysticercosis; however, it still needs to solve the problems of cross-reaction with other parasitic diseases and stability | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cysticercosis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Diagnostic efficiency | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay | |
| 650 | 4 | |a IgG antibody | |
| 650 | 4 | |a IgG4 antibody | |
| 650 | 4 | |a IgM antibody | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Antibodies, Helminth |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Reagent Kits, Diagnostic |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jiang, T T |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ji, P H |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a He, Z Q |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chen, X |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hong, Y |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhao, D Y |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Deng, Y |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chen, W Q |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, H W |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Zhongguo xue xi chong bing fang zhi za zhi = Chinese journal of schistosomiasis control |d 2011 |g 34(2022), 1 vom: 23. Feb., Seite 36-40 |w (DE-627)NLM215845749 |x 1005-6661 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:34 |g year:2022 |g number:1 |g day:23 |g month:02 |g pages:36-40 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.16250/j.32.1374.2021216 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 34 |j 2022 |e 1 |b 23 |c 02 |h 36-40 | ||