What is the risk of missing legionellosis relying on urinary antigen testing solely? A retrospective Belgian multicenter study.
Legionella
Legionnaires’ disease
PCR
Pontiac fever
Urinary antigen test
Journal
European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology
ISSN: 1435-4373
Titre abrégé: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8804297
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
03
10
2019
accepted:
02
12
2019
pubmed:
16
12
2019
medline:
11
11
2020
entrez:
16
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Currently, diagnosis of legionellosis relies mainly on urinary antigen testing (UAT) for Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 (Lp1). However, this test has several limitations, particularly missing non-Lp1 infections. The purpose of this large multicenter study was to investigate the risk of missing legionellosis relying on UAT solely. Molecular results of Legionella detection as part of a first-line (syndromic) testing algorithm for severe respiratory tract infections were investigated retrospectively and compared with UAT results in 14 Belgian laboratories. Overall, 44.4% (20/45) UAT results appeared false negative and were reclassified as legionellosis based on PCR findings [Legionnaires' disease, 37.5% (15/40); Pontiac fever, 100% (5/5)]. A total of 39.4% (26/66) diagnosis probably would have been missed or delayed without a syndromic approach, as UAT or specific molecular testing for Legionella was not requested by the clinician. Furthermore, we confirmed the higher sensitivity of molecular Legionella detection in lower respiratory tract compared with upper respiratory tract specimens (p = 0.010).
Identifiants
pubmed: 31838606
doi: 10.1007/s10096-019-03785-8
pii: 10.1007/s10096-019-03785-8
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, Bacterial
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
729-734Références
J Clin Microbiol. 2015 Nov;53(11):3474-7
pubmed: 26292304
Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Mar 1;44 Suppl 2:S27-72
pubmed: 17278083
J Med Microbiol. 2005 Dec;54(Pt 12):1213-6
pubmed: 16278436
Lancet. 2016 Jan 23;387(10016):376-385
pubmed: 26231463
Front Public Health. 2016 Aug 31;4:175
pubmed: 27630979
J Gen Fam Med. 2017 Apr 13;18(3):139-143
pubmed: 29264010
J Clin Virol. 2015 Nov;72:36-41
pubmed: 26364158
J Infect. 2016 Feb;72(2):161-70
pubmed: 26632328
J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Oct;45(10):3482; author reply 3482-3
pubmed: 17913936
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015 Jan;28(1):95-133
pubmed: 25567224
J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Feb;54(2):401-11
pubmed: 26659202
Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2017 Aug 29;16(1):59
pubmed: 28851372