Sensitivity Of Enzyme Immunoassay Research Articles

Evaluation of an enzyme immunoassay and immunodiffusion for detection of anti-Histoplasma antibodies in serum from cats and dogs.

Histoplasma antigen and anti-Histoplasma antibody detection are used to support the diagnosis of histoplasmosis. There is a paucity of published data on antibody assays. Our primary hypothesis was that anti-Histoplasma immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody detection using enzyme immunoassay (EIA) will be more sensitive as compared to immunodiffusion (ID). Thirty-seven cats and 22 dogs with proven or probable histoplasmosis; 157 negative control animals. Residual stored sera were tested for anti-Histoplasma antibodies using EIA and ID. Results of urine antigen EIA were reviewed retrospectively. Diagnostic sensitivity was calculated for all three assays and compared between immunoglobulin G (IgG) EIA and ID. The diagnostic sensitivity of urine antigen EIA and IgG EIA, interpreted in parallel, was reported. Sensitivity of IgG EIA was 30/37 (81.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68.5%-93.4%) in cats and 17/22 (77.3%; 95% CI, 59.8%-94.8%) in dogs. Diagnostic sensitivity of ID was 0/37 (0%; 95% CI, 0%-9.5%) in cats and 3/22 (13.6%; 95% CI, 0%-28.0%) in dogs. Immunoglobulin G EIA was positive in all animals (2 cats and 2 dogs) with histoplasmosis but without detectable antigen in urine. Diagnostic specificity of IgG EIA was 18/19 (94.7%; 95% CI, 74.0%-99.9%) in cats and 128/138 (92.8%; 95% CI, 87.1%-96.5%) in dogs. Antibody detection by EIA can be used to support the diagnosis of histoplasmosis in cats and dogs. Immunodiffusion has an unacceptably low diagnostic sensitivity and is not recommended.

Diagnostic Performance of a Particle Gel Immunoassay in Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia.

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare but serious complication of adenoviral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines. Similar to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), antibodies reacting to platelet factor 4 (PF4) are responsible for platelet activation in VITT. The diagnosis of VITT includes the detection of anti-PF4 antibodies. Particle gel immunoassay (PaGIA) is one of the rapid immunoassays that is commonly used in the diagnosis of HIT to detect anti-PF4 antibodies. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of PaGIA in patients suspected of VITT. In this retrospective, single-center study, the correlation between PaGIA, enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and modified heparin-induced platelet aggregation assay (HIPA) in patients with findings suggestive of VITT was investigated. A commercially available PF4 rapid immunoassay (ID PaGIA H/PF4, Bio-Rad-DiaMed GmbH, Switzerland) and an anti-PF4/heparin EIA (ZYMUTEST HIA IgG, Hyphen Biomed) were used according to manufacturer's instructions. Modified HIPA was accepted as the gold standard test. Between March 8 and November 19, 2021, a total of 34 samples from clinically well-characterized patients (14 males, 20 females, mean age: 48.2 ± 18.2 years) were analyzed with PaGIA, EIA, and modified HIPA. VITT was diagnosed in 15 patients. Sensitivity and specificity of PaGIA were 54 and 67%, respectively. Anti-PF4/heparin optical density values were not significantly different between PaGIA positive and negative samples (p = 0.586). The sensitivity and specificity of EIA, on the other hand, were 87 and 100%, respectively. In conclusion, PaGIA is not reliable in the diagnosis of VITT because of its low sensitivity and specificity.

Development and Validation of an Enzyme Immunoassay for Detection and Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 Salivary IgA and IgG.

Oral fluids offer a noninvasive sampling method for the detection of Abs. Quantification of IgA and IgG Abs in saliva allows studies of the mucosal and systemic immune response after natural infection or vaccination. We developed and validated an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) to detect and quantify salivary IgA and IgG Abs against the prefusion-stabilized form of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein expressed in suspension-adapted HEK-293 cells. Normalization against total Ab isotype was performed to account for specimen differences, such as collection time and sample volume. Saliva samples collected from 187 SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases enrolled in 2 cohorts and 373 prepandemic saliva samples were tested. The sensitivity of both EIAs was high (IgA, 95.5%; IgG, 89.7%) without compromising specificity (IgA, 99%; IgG, 97%). No cross-reactivity with endemic coronaviruses was observed. The limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 salivary IgA and IgG assays were 1.98 ng/ml and 0.30 ng/ml, respectively. Salivary IgA and IgG Abs were detected earlier in patients with mild COVID-19 symptoms than in severe cases. However, severe cases showed higher salivary Ab titers than those with a mild infection. Salivary IgA titers quickly decreased after 6 wk in mild cases but remained detectable until at least week 10 in severe cases. Salivary IgG titers remained high for all patients, regardless of disease severity. In conclusion, EIAs for both IgA and IgG had high specificity and sensitivity for the confirmation of current or recent SARS-CoV-2 infections and evaluation of the IgA and IgG immune response.

Determining the Prevalence of Norovirus Infection in Diarrheal Patients and Evaluation of Different Diagnostic Methods

Norovirus is one of the viruses that cause gastroenteritis in humans, characterized by symptoms of vomiting and diarrhea. The prevalence of norovirus, known as the leading cause of epidemic gastroenteritis, is remarkable in sporadic cases. Easy-to-apply diagnostic methods based on antigen detection such as enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and immunochromatography (ICG) used to diagnose norovirus infections generally have high specificity rates but lower sensitivity rates that can change according to the conditions. In this study it was aimed to determine the prevalence of norovirus and other gastroenteritis causative viruses in diarrheal patients and determine the sensitivity and specificity rates of EIA and ICG methods in sporadic cases by the chosen gold standard molecular reference method real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). In this study, 184 stool samples that met the study criteria and sent to İstanbul University İstanbul Faculty of Medicine Medical Microbiology Laboratory for routine bacteriological culture between January-July 2018 were included. All samples were evaluated with diagnostic kits BD MAX Enteric Viral Panel (Becton Dickinson, Canada) for rRT-PCR, RIDASCREEN Norovirus 3rd Generation (C1401) (R-Biopharm, Germany) for EIA, RIDAQUICK Norovirus Test (N1402) (R-Biopharm, Germany) for ICG, according to the manufacturer instructions. In terms of the presence of norovirus in 184 stool samples, 7 (3.8%) positive results were obtained by EIA method, 8 (4.3%) by ICG method, and 14 (7.6%) by rRT-PCR method. By accepting the rRT-PCR as a reference method, the sensitivity and specificity of the EIA method were determined as 50% and 100% and of the ICG method as 57% and 100%, respectively. The numbers and percentages of positivity for rotavirus, sapovirus, astrovirus and adenovirus, including coinfections were 30 (16.3%), 5 (2.7%), 2 (1%), 1 (0.5%), respectively. In this study, it was determined that norovirus, alone or together with other viral agents is frequently detected in patients with diarrhea and there was no difference in the frequency between age groups and genders. This causative agent which is not routinely investigated in our country should be considered when evaluating patients with diarrhea and/or vomiting. It seems that EIA and ICG methods are easy to apply, have high specificity but have limited sensitivity in sporadic cases in the diagnosis of norovirus. It is thought that the detection of the true frequency of norovirus and high sensitivity rates can only be achieved by preferring rRT-PCR in the diagnosis. It would be useful for the laboratories to choose the method to be used in the diagnosis of norovirus according to the characteristics of the cases and diagnostic methods.

A Combination of N and S Antigens With IgA and IgG Measurement Strengthens the Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Serodiagnostics.

BackgroundPrimary diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is based on detection of virus RNA in nasopharyngeal swab samples. In addition, analysis of humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 has an important role in viral diagnostics and seroprevalence estimates.MethodsWe developed and optimized an enzyme immunoassays (EIA) using SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein (N), S1 and receptor binding domain (RBD) of the viral spike protein, and N proteins from SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and 4 low-pathogenic human CoVs. Neutralizing antibody activity was compared with SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM EIA results.ResultsThe sensitivity of EIA for detecting immune response in COVID-19 patients (n = 101) was 77% in the acute phase and 100% in the convalescent phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection when N and RBD were used as antigens in IgG and IgA specific EIAs. SARS-CoV-2 infection significantly increased humoral immune responses against the 229E and NL63 N proteins. S1 and RBD-based EIA results had a strong correlation with microneutralization test results.ConclusionsThe data indicate a combination of SARS-CoV-2 S1 or RBD and N proteins and analysis of IgG and IgA immunoglobulin classes in sera provide an excellent basis for specific and sensitive serological diagnostics of COVID-19.

SARS Coronavirus-2 Microneutralisation and Commercial Serological Assays Correlated Closely for Some but Not All Enzyme Immunoassays

Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies provides important research and diagnostic information relating to COVID-19 prevalence, incidence and host immune response. A greater understanding of the relationship between functionally neutralising antibodies detected using microneutralisation assays and binding antibodies detected using scalable enzyme immunoassays (EIA) is needed in order to address protective immunity post-infection or vaccination, and assess EIA suitability as a surrogate test for screening of convalescent plasma donors. We assessed whether neutralising antibody titres correlated with signal cut-off ratios in five commercially available EIAs, and one in-house assay based on expressed spike protein targets. Sera from recovered patients or convalescent plasma donors who reported laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 200), and negative control sera collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 100), were assessed in parallel. Performance was assessed by calculating EIA sensitivity and specificity with reference to microneutralisation. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 166 (83%) samples. Compared with this, the most sensitive EIAs were the Cobas Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (98%) and Vitros Immunodiagnostic Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (100%), which detect total antibody targeting the N and S1 antigens, respectively. The assay with the best quantitative relationship with microneutralisation was the Euroimmun IgG. These results suggest the marker used (total Ab vs. IgG vs. IgA) and the target antigen are important determinants of assay performance. The strong correlation between microneutralisation and some commercially available assays demonstrates their potential for clinical and research use in assessing protection following infection or vaccination, and use as a surrogate test to assess donor suitability for convalescent plasma donation.

Usefulness of a newly developed high-speed polymerase chain reaction analysis system for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection

IntroductionThe incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has been continuously increasing and thereby became an important issue worldwide. Appropriate diagnosis, management, and infection control are required for patients with CDI. Enzyme immunoassay (EIA) is a widely used standard diagnostic tool for C. difficile-specific glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and C. difficile toxins (toxins A and B). However, the sensitivity of EIA in detecting C. difficile toxins has been reported to be relatively low, resulting in CDI underdiagnosis. Therefore, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) are recently developed for higher sensitivity/specificity test. MethodsIn this study, a total of 279 stool samples submitted for CDI diagnosis were examined using an independently developed new high-speed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) device (PathOC RightGene, Metaboscreen). In parallel, results were compared with those of definitive diagnosis and conventional diagnostic methods (EIA, real-time PCR) to assess the inspection accuracy. ResultsPathOC RightGene showed high sensitivity (96.7%) and specificity (96.7%). Regarding the measurement time, C. difficile-specific and C. difficile toxin genes were simultaneously detected in approximately 25 min for one sample (including the preprocessing and measurement time). ConclusionPathOC RightGene has been found to show both excellent sensitivity and rapidity and thus can be used for the reliable and early diagnosis, which are needed for the appropriate management of CDI.

Correcting for enzyme immunoassay changes in long term monitoring studies

Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) are a common tool for measuring steroid hormones in wildlife due to their low cost, commercial availability, and rapid results. Testing technologies improve continuously, sometimes requiring changes in protocols or crucial assay components. Antibody replacement between EIA kits can cause differences in EIA sensitivity, which can hinder monitoring hormone concentration over time. The antibody in a common cortisol EIA kit used for long-term monitoring of stress in wildlife was replaced in 2014, causing differences in cross reactivity and standard curve concentrations. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop a method to standardize results following changes in EIA sensitivity. We validated this method using cortisol concentrations measured in the hair of brown bears (Ursus arctos).•We used a simple linear regression to model the relationship between cortisol concentrations using kit 1 and kit 2.•We found a linear relationship between the two kits (R2 = 0.85) and used the regression equation (kit2 = (0.98 × kit1) + 1.65) to predict cortisol concentrations in re-measured samples.•Mean predicted percent error was 16% and 72% of samples had a predicted percent error <20%, suggesting that this method is well-suited for correcting changes in EIA sensitivity.

Measurements of Plasma-Free Metanephrines by Immunoassay Versus Urinary Metanephrines and Catecholamines by Liquid Chromatography with Amperometric Detection for the Diagnosis of Pheochromocytoma/Paraganglioma.

Studies conflict concerning the use of enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for plasma free metanephrines (P-MNs) vs. other methods for pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma (PPGL) diagnosis. We compared commercially available EIAs for P-MNs with high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) for 24 h-urinary MNs (U-MNs) and -catecholamines (U-CATs). 943 (565 female, 378 male) patients (54 PPGL, 889 Non-PPGL) were studied. Simultaneous measurements of all parameters analyzed at the central lab of our university hospital was mandatory for inclusion. Sensitivity of P-MNs (94.4%) was similar to that of U-MNs (100%), and both were higher than of U-CATs (77.8%), specificity of P-MNs (100%) higher than of U-MNs (73.6%), and similar to U-CATs (99.8%). With the recently proposed downward adjusted ULN of P-MNs to correct for the reported negative bias of the EIAs sensitivity (98.1%) raised non-significantly, but specificity decreased significantly (94.8%). Areas under receiver-operating characteristic curves indicated comparable diagnostic performance of P-MNs (0.989) vs. U-MNs (0.995), both better than U-CATs (0.956). In summary, the EIAs to measure P-MNs performed similarly to U-MNs by HPLC, and both better than U-CATs by HPLC. The post-test probability of PPGL given a positive test result was best for P-MNs, and higher than for the other pairs of analytes. Downward corrections of ULN of P-MNs did not improve test performances.

Sensitivity and specificity of different antibody tests for detecting varicella-zoster virus

IntroductionAntibody tests for detecting varicella-zoster virus include the fluorescent-antibody-to-membrane-antigen (FAMA) assay, immune adherence hemagglutination assay (IAHA), enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and the glycoprotein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (gpELISA). Although FAMA and gpELISA are highly sensitive, FAMA is not available commercially. Therefore, this study was performed to compare potential high-sensitivity tests with commercially available tests. MethodsFour antibody tests, FAMA, gpELISA, EIA, and IAHA, were performed using sera collected from 32 children aged 7 months–10 years. Using FAMA as a reference, the sensitivity and specificity of gpELISA, EIA, and IAHA were assessed. Subsequently, using gpELISA as a reference, the positive agreement rate of EIA and IAHA was assessed. ResultsOn a reference scale with FAMA set at 100%, the sensitivity and specificity of the antibody tests were as follows: gpELISA, 67% and 100%; EIA, 67% and 100%; and IAHA, 47% and 100%, respectively. The positive agreement rates of EIA and IAHA relative to gpELISA were 86% and 64%, respectively.Conclusions: gpELISA had a lower positive rate than did FAMA, and showed comparable sensitivity to that of EIA.

Modified two-tiered testing algorithm for Lyme disease serology: the Canadian context.

Lyme disease (LD) is emerging in many parts of central and eastern Canada. Serological testing is most commonly used to support laboratory diagnosis of LD. Standard two-tiered testing (STTT) for LD involves detection of Borrelia burgdorferi antibodies using an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) followed by IgM and/or IgG immunoblots. However, improved sensitivity has been demonstrated using a modified two-tiered testing (MTTT) approach, in which a second EIA instead of the traditional immunoblot is used. This article summarises the evidence supporting the MTTT versus STTT for laboratory diagnosis of LD in Canada. Peer reviewed literature on the sensitivity and specificity of different EIAs were compared by Canadian experts in LD diagnostic for MTTT vs STTT in patients with clinical history of LD residing in LD endemic areas or in samples from the LD serum repository. The MTTT approach consistently demonstrated improved sensitivity to detect early infections with B. burgdorferi and also maintained high specificity vs STTT. Diagnostic improvements in sensitivity of LD testing without significant loss of specificity have been consistently reported when MTTT is compared with STTT in studies conducted in highly LD endemic regions. Our working group agrees with the recommendation by the United States Centers for Disease Control that serological testing for LD using MTTT is an acceptable alternative to STTT. This recommendation is contingent on development and implementation of comprehensive validation studies on the performance of MTTT vs STTT within the Canadian context, including evaluation of the test performance in areas of low endemicity for LD.

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Commercial Tests for Detection of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Rapid detection of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) enables appropriate monitoring and treatment. We synthesized available evidence to compare the performance of enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and PCR tests for the detection of STEC. We searched published and gray literature for studies of STEC EIA and/or PCR diagnostic test accuracy relative to reference standards including at least one nucleic acid amplification test. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality with the second version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Bivariate random effects models were used to meta-analyze the clinical sensitivity and specificity of commercial EIA and PCR STEC diagnostic tests, and summary receiver operator characteristic curves were constructed. We evaluated the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We identified 43 articles reflecting 25 260 specimens. Meta-analysis of EIA and PCR accuracy included 25 and 22 articles, respectively. STEC EIA pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.681 (95% CI, 0.571-0.773; very low certainty of evidence) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.998-1.00; moderate certainty of evidence), respectively. STEC PCR pooled sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.904-1.00; low certainty of evidence) and 0.999 (95% CI, 0.997-0.999; low certainty of evidence), respectively. Certainty of evidence was downgraded because of high risk of bias. PCR tests to identify the presence of STEC are more sensitive than EIA tests, with no meaningful loss of specificity. However, given the low certainty of evidence, our results may overestimate the difference in performance.

Polymerase chain reaction for Clostridioides difficile infection detection: Necessity or redundancy? – A pilot study in a tertiary health-care centre in Central Kerala

INTRODUCTION: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is one of the hospital-acquired infections and the most common cause for antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Documentation of CDI is difficult, and interpretation of diagnostic results often requires consultation with clinical microbiologists. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of the combination of glutamate dehydrogenase enzyme (GDH) and toxin assay with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results, in order to find if the combination could substitute for the expensive molecular tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample size was statistically calculated to be 30, using an SPSS software. Both GDH and toxin assay were simultaneously tested in all the randomly selected stool samples, by simple random sampling, and irrespective of the results, they were also tested for tcdB gene by PCR in the present study. All the samples were also plated onto Brazier's C. difficile agar and incubated anaerobically. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of GDH (using PCR as gold standard) were found to be 100% and 76.47%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity of toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA) assay (using PCR as gold standard) were found to be 66.67% and 92.86%, respectively. However, when the toxin-equivocal results were also considered as positive, the sensitivity of toxin EIA was found to be 100%. The overall agreeability, using Cohen's Kappa statistic between GDH and toxin detection by enzyme-linked fluorescence assay, showed that they had moderate and substantial agreement, respectively, when compared to PCR. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, each of the toxin negatives and positives was also PCR negative and positive, respectively. All the toxin-equivocal samples tested positive on PCR, so it is our conclusion that in the settings where they cannot be taken for further molecular testing, those samples be considered as harbouring toxigenic C. difficile.

LFRET, a novel rapid assay for anti-tissue transglutaminase antibody detection.

The diagnosis of celiac disease (CD) is currently based on serology and intestinal biopsy, with detection of anti-tissue transglutaminase (tTG) IgA antibodies recommended as the first-line test. Emphasizing the increasing importance of serological testing, new guidelines and evidence suggest basing the diagnosis solely on serology without confirmatory biopsy. Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) are the established approach for anti-tTG antibody detection, with the existing point-of-care (POC) tests lacking sensitivity and/or specificity. Improved POC methods could help reduce the underdiagnosis and diagnostic delay of CD. We have previously developed rapid homogenous immunoassays based on time-resolved Förster resonance energy transfer (TR-FRET), and demonstrated their suitability in serodiagnostics with hanta- and Zika virus infections as models. In this study, we set out to establish a protein L -based TR-FRET assay (LFRET) for the detection of anti-tTG antibodies. We studied 74 patients with biopsy-confirmed CD and 70 healthy controls, with 1) the new tTG-LFRET assay, and for reference 2) a well-established EIA and 3) an existing commercial POC test. IgG depletion was employed to differentiate between anti-tTG IgA and IgG positivity. The sensitivity and specificity of the first-generation tTG-LFRET POC assay in detection of CD were 87.8% and 94.3%, respectively, in line with those of the reference POC test. The sensitivity and specificity of EIA were 95.9% and 91.9%, respectively. This study demonstrates the applicability of LFRET to serological diagnosis of autoimmune diseases in general and of CD in particular.

Evaluation of a flow cytometer-based functional assay using platelet-rich plasma in the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

BackgroundHeparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is caused by platelet-activating antibodies that recognize platelet factor 4/heparin (PF4/hep)-complexes. The in vitro demonstration of PF4/hep antibodies using functional assays is essential for an optimal management of patients suspected to have HIT. However, conventional functional assays are technically challenging and limited to specialized laboratories. In contrast, flow cytometers are commonly used in routine laboratories. The aim of this study is to investigate the performance characteristics of a commercially available, flow cytometer based assay in the diagnosis of HIT. Study designSera of consecutive patients with suspected HIT were investigated using the Emo-test HIT Confirm® assay and compared to the standard method consisting of an IgG-specific enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for anti-PF4/hep antibodies and the heparin induced platelet aggregation (HIPA) test. Results390 sera were included in the study, 164 sera tested IgG EIA-positive, of which 33 also tested HIPA-positive. No HIPA-positive samples were EIA-negative. In the Emo-test HIT Confirm® assay, 112 sera revealed positive results (%Hepla > 13); however, 51 (45.5%) were EIA-negative. Of the 33 HIPA-positive/EIA-positive HIT sera, 23 tested positive in the Emo-test HIT Confirm® assay, 2 gave ambiguous results, and 8 sera yielded false-negative results. Accordingly, the HIT Confirm® assay showed a sensitivity of 69.7% with a slightly better specificity of 75.4% compared to the EIA (sensitivity 100%, specificity 63.3%). An increase in diagnostic specificity for HIT to 85% was found when positive results were obtained in both the Emo-test HIT Confirm® assay and EIA. ConclusionThe Emo-Test HIT Confirm® assay may improve the specificity of laboratory investigations of HIT. However, the assay can only be recommended in combination with an immunoassay due to the high rate of false negativity. Our observation indicates a need to establish external quality assessment for functional assays to avoid such clinically relevant pitfalls.

1094. Performance of Toxin Enzyme Immunoassays and PCR Cycle Threshold for Differentiating Clostridium difficile Infection From Colonization in Children With Diarrhea

Background Clostridium difficile colonization is common in children. PCR does not distinguish infection (CDI) from colonization. Toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and PCR cycle threshold (Ct) may predict CDI in PCR+ adults, but assay performance in children is poorly understood.MethodsStools from children aged 2–21 years with laboratory-identified (labID) CDI (tcdB PCR+; GeneXpert) underwent: toxin EIA (QUIK CHEK Complete [QCC] and Immunocard [IC]); cell culture cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCCNA); and C. difficile stool culture (Cx). Children were determined to have clinical CDI (cCDI) by chart review and/or parent communication if all were noted: at least three unformed stools (Bristol type 5–7) in 24 hours; response to CDI treatment within 5 days; and no other likely diarrheal etiology. EIA and PCR Ct performance were measured for various reference standards (RefStd) based on stool assay results and/or cCDI classification.ResultsA total of 253 PCR+ stools were included. All stools underwent QCC; 218 (86%) were quantity sufficient for IC. Discordant EIA results occurred in 19/218 (8.7%) stools. Table 1 lists EIA sensitivity (Sn), EIA specificity (Sp), and median PCR Ct for each RefStd. Figure 1 shows the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for PCR Ct to identify PCR+/CCCNA+/cCDI+ children (area under curve = 0.76). The difference between sensitivity (71%) and specificity (72%) was minimized at Ct < 23.5.ConclusionOnly a minority of PCR+ children meets strict clinical and laboratory CDI criteria. More stringent CDI definitions are associated with increasing toxin EIA Sn and lower PCR Ct (i.e., greater stool C. difficile inoculum). However, both toxin EIA and PCR Ct perform suboptimally as stand-alone tests to distinguish CDI from colonization in PCR+ children.Table 1: Toxin EIA and PCR Ct PerformanceRefStd (n for QCC)QCC EIA (n = 253)IC EIA (n = 218)Median PCR Ct(Ref+/Ref−)SnSpSnSpPCR+ only (253)0.360.3424.3PCR+ / Cx+ (211)0.410.930.390.9423.7 / 29.1**PCR+ / CCCNA+ (128)0.690.990.650.9922.2 / 28.5**PCR+ / cCDI+ (103)0.460.710.470.7423.6 / 25.2*PCR+ / Cx+ / cCDI+ (89)0.510.730.510.7623.2 / 26.1*PCR+ / CCCNA+ / cCDI+ (63)0.730.770.720.8021.8 / 26.3**Ref+ vs. Ref- (Wilcoxon rank-sum): *P < 0.05; **P < 0.0001.Figure 1.ROC Curve of PCR Ct to Identify PCR+ / CCCNA+ / cCDI+ Children.Disclosures L. Kociolek, Alere/Techlab: Investigator, Research support.

Immunoassay-Based Drug Tests Are Inadequately Sensitive for Medication Compliance Monitoring in Patients Treated for Chronic Pain

Background: Enzyme immunoassays (EIA) have notable limitations for monitoring therapeutic compliance in pain management. Chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry provides definitive results and superior sensitivity and specificity over traditional EIA testing. Objective: To analyze and compare the sensitivity of EIA results together with known prescriptions to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for monitoring drug use (and abuse) in patients treated for chronic pain. Study Design: A total of 530 urine samples from patients being treated for chronic pain were studied. Setting: Pain management clinic in the United States. Methods: The samples were tested for a profile of chronic pain medications and illicit drugs with commercially available EIA kits followed by analysis with Agilent LC-MS/MS system. Results: The EIAs exhibited poor sensitivity and high rates of false negative results in the pain management setting. For example, 21% of EIA for opiates show false negative results. Mass spectrometry methods were more sensitive, detected a broader range of drugs and metabolites, and could detect non-prescribed drug use and simulations in compliance. Limitations: Patients do not always accurately report drug use information, and some drugs do not have EIA methods available for comparative purposes. Conclusions: Mass spectrometry is a more robust and reliable method for detection of drugs used in the pain management setting. Due to the extent of undisclosed use and abuse of medications and illicit drugs, LC-MS/MS testing is necessary for adequate and accurate drug detection. In addition, LC-MS/MS methods are superior in terms of sensitivity and number of compounds that can be screened, making this a better method for use in pain management. Key words: Pain management, enzyme immunoassays, mass spectrometry, urine drug testing, prescription status, compliance

A New Lab Developed Real Time PCR Assay for Direct Detection of C. Difficle from Stool Sample without DNA Extraction

Clostridium difficile is a major cause of nosocomial antibiotic-associated infectious diarrhea and pseudomembranous colitis. Detection of C. difficile by anaerobic bacterial culture and/or cytotoxicity assays has been largely replaced by rapid enzyme immunoassays (EIA). However, due to the lack of sensitivity of stool EIA, we developed a multiplex real-time PCR assay targeting the C. difficile toxin genes tcdB. stool samples from hospitalized pediatric patients suspected of having C. difficile-associated disease were prospectively collected. Three testing modalities were evaluated, including enriched culture, cepheid Xpert and real-time Pcr (tcdB) on stool samples performed with tcdB gene-specific primers and hydrolysis probes. A total of 150 de-identified clinical specimen were analyzed. The sensitivities of stool real-time Pcr were 95% against cepheid Xpert C. difficile and 93% against enriched culture respectively, with a specificity of 97% and 94%. The lower limit of detection of the stool real-time PCR was 0.5 cFU/ml of per reaction for tcdB. Direct detection of C. difficile toxin genes in stool samples by real-time Pcr showed performance comparable to enriched culture. Real-time PCR of DNA from stool samples is a rapid and cost-effective diagnostic modality for patients that should facilitate appropriate patient management.

Rapid antigen detection test for group A streptococcus in children with pharyngitis.

Group A streptococcus (GAS) accounts for 20% to 40% of cases of pharyngitis in children; the remaining cases are caused by viruses. Compared with throat culture, rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) offer diagnosis at the point of care (within five to 10 minutes). To determine the diagnostic accuracy of RADTs for diagnosing GAS in children with pharyngitis. To assess the relative diagnostic accuracy of the two major types of RADTs (enzyme immunoassays (EIA) and optical immunoassays (OIA)) by indirect and direct comparison. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CDSR, DARE, MEDION and TRIP (January 1980 to July 2015). We also conducted related citations tracking via PubMed, handsearched reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles, and screened all articles citing included studies via Google Scholar. We included studies that compared RADT for GAS pharyngitis with throat culture on a blood agar plate in a microbiology laboratory in children seen in ambulatory care. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, assessed full texts for inclusion, and carried out data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used bivariate meta-analysis to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity, and to investigate heterogeneity across studies. We compared the accuracy of EIA and OIA tests using indirect and direct evidence. We included 98 unique studies in the review (116 test evaluations; 101,121 participants). The overall methodological quality of included studies was poor, mainly because many studies were at high risk of bias regarding patient selection and the reference standard used (in 73% and 43% of test evaluations, respectively). In studies in which all participants underwent both RADT and throat culture (105 test evaluations; 58,244 participants; median prevalence of participants with GAS was 29.5%), RADT had a summary sensitivity of 85.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 83.3 to 87.6 and a summary specificity of 95.4%; 95% CI 94.5 to 96.2. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivity across studies; specificity was more stable. There was no evidence of a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. Heterogeneity in accuracy was not explained by study-level characteristics such as whether an enrichment broth was used before plating, mean age and clinical severity of participants, and GAS prevalence. The sensitivity of EIA and OIA tests was comparable (summary sensitivity 85.4% versus 86.2%). Sensitivity analyses showed that summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were stable in low risk of bias studies. In a population of 1000 children with a GAS prevalence of 30%, 43 patients with GAS will be missed. Whether or not RADT can be used as a stand-alone test to rule out GAS will depend mainly on the epidemiological context. The sensitivity of EIA and OIA tests seems comparable. RADT specificity is sufficiently high to ensure against unnecessary use of antibiotics. Based on these results, we would expect that amongst 100 children with strep throat, 86 would be correctly detected with the rapid test while 14 would be missed and not receive antibiotic treatment.

Comparison of clinical performance of antigen basedenzyme immunoassay (EIA) and major outer membrane protein (MOMP)-PCR for detection of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection

Chlamydia trachomatis is the most common sexually transmitted bacterial pathogen worldwide. Early detection and treatment of C.trachomatis genital infection prevent serious reproductive complications. Performances of enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and major outer membrane protein (MOMP)-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for diagnosis of genital C.trachomatis infection in women were compared. In this cross sectional study a total of 518 women volunteers were included (33.67±8.3 yrs) who had been referred to Gynecology clinics of Qom province, Iran, were included. Endocervical swab specimens were collected to detect lipopolysaccharide (LPS) antigen in EIA and to amplify MOMP gene of C.trachomatis in PCR. Results were confirmed using ompI nested-PCR. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated for performance of the tests. Odds ratios were determined using binary logistic regression analysis. In total, 37 (7.14%) cases were positive by EIA and/or MOMP-PCR. All discrepant results were confirmed by nested-PCR. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV values of EIA were 59.46%, 100%, 100% and 96.98%, and those of MOMP-PCR were 97.30%, 100%, 100%, 99.79%, respectively. Reproductive complications including 2.7% ectopic pregnancy, 5.4% stillbirth, 5.4% infertility, and 10.8% PROM were recorded. The risk of developing chlamydiosis was increased 4.8-fold in volunteers with cervicitis (p<0.05; OR 4.80; 95% CI 1.25-18.48). C.trachomatis infection should be regarded in women of reproductive ages especially those with cervicitis. Primary screening of women by using the low cost antigen-EIA is recommended; however, due to the low sensitivity of Ag-EIA, verification of the negative results by a DNA amplification method is needed.