Accuracy of a new rapid diagnostic test for urinary antigen detection and assessment of drug treatment in opisthorchiasis.
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
Liver fluke
Opisthorchis viverrini
Quantitative formalin-ethyl acetate concentration technique
Urinary Opisthorchis viverrini rapid diagnosis test
Urinary antigen detection
Journal
Infectious diseases of poverty
ISSN: 2049-9957
Titre abrégé: Infect Dis Poverty
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101606645
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Nov 2023
21 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
14
08
2023
accepted:
15
11
2023
medline:
23
11
2023
pubmed:
22
11
2023
entrez:
22
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Screening for opisthorchiasis, a parasitic worm infection affecting many millions of people in Southeast Asia, has traditionally relied on faecal egg examination such as the formalin-ethyl acetate concentration technique (FECT) and Kato-Katz method. Although the urinary enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has been used more recently, we developed a urinary antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) to simplify diagnosis and as a point-of-care testing (POCT) and field applications for surveillance and control of opisthorchiasis. A urinary Opisthorchis viverrini (OV)-RDT was developed using immunochromatographic methodology with a specific monoclonal antibody against OV. The diagnostic performance of the urinary OV-RDT was compared to that of quantitative faecal FECT and urinary antigen ELISA (n = 493). Cross-reactivities of urinary OV-RDT with other helminthiases coexisted with O. viverrini were determined (n = 96). A field trial in the application of urinary OV-RDT was compared with urinary antigen ELISA at baseline screening and assessment of drug treatment outcomes in opisthorchiasis (n = 1629). The McNemar chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis and Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ-value) tests were used for statistical analyses. Urinary OV-RDT had sensitivity of 94.2% and specificity of 93.2%, compared to faecal FECT. Urinary OV-RDT had high diagnostic agreement (Kappa = 0.842-0.874, P < 0.001) and quantitative correlation with urinary antigen ELISA (Kruskal-Wallis tests = 316.2, P < 0.0001) and faecal FECT (Kruskal-Wallis tests = 362.3, P < 0.0001). The positive rates by OV-RDT, ELISA and FECT were 48.9%, 52.5% and 49.3%, respectively. Cross-reactions of urinary OV-RDT with other helminthiases were few (2%). Field trials of urinary OV-RDT yielded comparable prevalence of O. viverrini between urinary OV-RDT (53.2%) and urinary antigen ELISA (54.0%). OV screening showed high diagnostic agreement (kappa > 0.8, P < 0.0001) between urinary OV-RDT and urinary antigen ELISA. The cure rates of opisthorchiasis at 1 month post-praziquantel treatment determined by urinary OV-RDT (86.6%) and urinary antigen ELISA (80.5%) were similar (P > 0.05). The urinary OV-RDT test has high potential as a new tool for screening and evaluating treatment outcomes in opisthorchiasis. The ease of sample collection and simplicity of urinary OV-RDT may facilitate mass screening, control and elimination of opisthorchiasis, thereby contributing to a reduction in the disease burden in Southeast Asia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Screening for opisthorchiasis, a parasitic worm infection affecting many millions of people in Southeast Asia, has traditionally relied on faecal egg examination such as the formalin-ethyl acetate concentration technique (FECT) and Kato-Katz method. Although the urinary enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has been used more recently, we developed a urinary antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) to simplify diagnosis and as a point-of-care testing (POCT) and field applications for surveillance and control of opisthorchiasis.
METHODS
METHODS
A urinary Opisthorchis viverrini (OV)-RDT was developed using immunochromatographic methodology with a specific monoclonal antibody against OV. The diagnostic performance of the urinary OV-RDT was compared to that of quantitative faecal FECT and urinary antigen ELISA (n = 493). Cross-reactivities of urinary OV-RDT with other helminthiases coexisted with O. viverrini were determined (n = 96). A field trial in the application of urinary OV-RDT was compared with urinary antigen ELISA at baseline screening and assessment of drug treatment outcomes in opisthorchiasis (n = 1629). The McNemar chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis and Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ-value) tests were used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Urinary OV-RDT had sensitivity of 94.2% and specificity of 93.2%, compared to faecal FECT. Urinary OV-RDT had high diagnostic agreement (Kappa = 0.842-0.874, P < 0.001) and quantitative correlation with urinary antigen ELISA (Kruskal-Wallis tests = 316.2, P < 0.0001) and faecal FECT (Kruskal-Wallis tests = 362.3, P < 0.0001). The positive rates by OV-RDT, ELISA and FECT were 48.9%, 52.5% and 49.3%, respectively. Cross-reactions of urinary OV-RDT with other helminthiases were few (2%). Field trials of urinary OV-RDT yielded comparable prevalence of O. viverrini between urinary OV-RDT (53.2%) and urinary antigen ELISA (54.0%). OV screening showed high diagnostic agreement (kappa > 0.8, P < 0.0001) between urinary OV-RDT and urinary antigen ELISA. The cure rates of opisthorchiasis at 1 month post-praziquantel treatment determined by urinary OV-RDT (86.6%) and urinary antigen ELISA (80.5%) were similar (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The urinary OV-RDT test has high potential as a new tool for screening and evaluating treatment outcomes in opisthorchiasis. The ease of sample collection and simplicity of urinary OV-RDT may facilitate mass screening, control and elimination of opisthorchiasis, thereby contributing to a reduction in the disease burden in Southeast Asia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37990282
doi: 10.1186/s40249-023-01162-4
pii: 10.1186/s40249-023-01162-4
pmc: PMC10662682
doi:
Substances chimiques
Praziquantel
6490C9U457
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Proc Biol Sci. 2023 Jan 25;290(1991):20222204
pubmed: 36651047
Acta Trop. 2013 Dec;128(3):659-65
pubmed: 24055716
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Feb 8;13(2):e0007186
pubmed: 30735492
Int J Gen Med. 2017 Aug 10;10:227-237
pubmed: 28848361
J Clin Microbiol. 2009 May;47(5):1517-23
pubmed: 19279176
Acta Trop. 2015 Jan;141(Pt B):315-21
pubmed: 25225157
Front Med (Lausanne). 2018 Apr 30;5:117
pubmed: 29765958
Acta Trop. 2023 Aug;244:106957
pubmed: 37269890
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1991 Nov-Dec;85(6):765-8
pubmed: 1801350
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Oct 20;9(10):e0004157
pubmed: 26485024
PLoS Med. 2015 Dec 03;12(12):e1001920
pubmed: 26633705
Infect Dis Poverty. 2017 Apr 4;6(1):66
pubmed: 28372560
Int J Gen Med. 2018 Dec 20;12:13-23
pubmed: 30588065
Acta Trop. 2021 Dec;224:106133
pubmed: 34509453
Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Mar;12(3):210-21
pubmed: 22108757
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Apr;78(4):564-73
pubmed: 18385350
Parasit Vectors. 2022 Jun 27;15(1):234
pubmed: 35761311
Acta Trop. 2015 Jan;141(Pt B):161-9
pubmed: 23886849
PLoS One. 2022 Jul 19;17(7):e0271553
pubmed: 35853022
Anal Biochem. 1976 May 7;72:248-54
pubmed: 942051
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Sep;103(3):1118-1124
pubmed: 32588808
J Med Assoc Thai. 1992 Jan;75 Suppl 1:7-19
pubmed: 1402485
Int J Parasitol. 1992 Jul;22(4):527-31
pubmed: 1644529
Korean J Parasitol. 2009 Sep;47(3):243-7
pubmed: 19724697
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1991 Dec;22(4):631-6
pubmed: 1820654
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2022 Dec 26;108(2):356-358
pubmed: 36572008
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Oct 5;114(10):751-761
pubmed: 32735672
Lancet Microbe. 2022 Aug;3(8):e616-e624
pubmed: 35697047
Infect Dis Poverty. 2023 Apr 19;12(1):38
pubmed: 37076937
Am J Nephrol. 2022;53(2-3):199-206
pubmed: 35168235
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1991 Dec;22(4):623-30
pubmed: 1820653
Adv Parasitol. 2018;101:177-214
pubmed: 29907254
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2022 Mar 28;:
pubmed: 35344931
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014;766:153-99
pubmed: 24903366
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1995 Jun;52(6):521-4
pubmed: 7611558
J Proteome Res. 2021 Aug 6;20(8):3940-3951
pubmed: 34270897
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1991 Feb;44(2):140-5
pubmed: 2012257