BACKGROUND: Reported sensitivity of the galactomannan enzyme immunoassay as an early diagnostic test for invasive aspergillosis (IA) has been widely variable, ranging from 29% to 100% in earlier clinical studies. METHODS: Studies performed to date have analyzed performance using per-patient calculations, limiting their ability to measure the impact of clinical variables that change over time, such as receipt of preventive antifungal therapy. In our study, performance of the test was calculated in per-patient and per-test analyses in a large cohort of patients at high risk for IA from 2 North American centers. A total of 272 serum samples obtained from 46 patients with IA and 3005 serum samples obtained from 269 control patients were analyzed using multiple index cutoff values to define positivity. RESULTS: Per-patient calculations yielded sensitivities of 43% and 70% using index cutoff values of 1.5 and 0.5, respectively; specificity decreased from 93% with use of the 1.5 index cutoff to 70% with use of the 0.5 index cutoff. Per-test calculations yielded sensitivities of 31% and 59% and specificities of 99% and 92% using index cutoff values of 1.5 and 0.5, respectively. Receipt of mold-active antifungal drugs on the day of testing decreased sensitivity; samples obtained from patients not receiving prophylactic or empirical antifungal drugs yielded a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 92% (with use of an index cutoff value of 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: These findings have direct implications for preventive strategies, because the diagnostic utility of the antigen assay is compromised during receipt of prophylactic or empirical antifungal therapies.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Reported sensitivity of the galactomannan enzyme immunoassay as an early diagnostic test for invasive aspergillosis (IA) has been widely variable, ranging from 29% to 100% in earlier clinical studies. METHODS: Studies performed to date have analyzed performance using per-patient calculations, limiting their ability to measure the impact of clinical variables that change over time, such as receipt of preventive antifungal therapy. In our study, performance of the test was calculated in per-patient and per-test analyses in a large cohort of patients at high risk for IA from 2 North American centers. A total of 272 serum samples obtained from 46 patients with IA and 3005 serum samples obtained from 269 control patients were analyzed using multiple index cutoff values to define positivity. RESULTS: Per-patient calculations yielded sensitivities of 43% and 70% using index cutoff values of 1.5 and 0.5, respectively; specificity decreased from 93% with use of the 1.5 index cutoff to 70% with use of the 0.5 index cutoff. Per-test calculations yielded sensitivities of 31% and 59% and specificities of 99% and 92% using index cutoff values of 1.5 and 0.5, respectively. Receipt of mold-active antifungal drugs on the day of testing decreased sensitivity; samples obtained from patients not receiving prophylactic or empirical antifungal drugs yielded a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 92% (with use of an index cutoff value of 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: These findings have direct implications for preventive strategies, because the diagnostic utility of the antigen assay is compromised during receipt of prophylactic or empirical antifungal therapies.
Authors: Jan Springer; Hannes Schloßnagel; Werner Heinz; Thomas Doedt; Rainer Soeller; Hermann Einsele; Juergen Loeffler Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: M Hummel; B Spiess; K Kentouche; S Niggemann; C Böhm; S Reuter; M Kiehl; H Mörz; R Hehlmann; D Buchheidt Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2006-08-30 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Rodrigo Martino; Rocio Parody; Takahiro Fukuda; Johan Maertens; Koen Theunissen; Aloysius Ho; Ghulam J Mufti; Nicolaus Kroger; Arnold R Zander; Dominik Heim; Monika Paluszewska; Dominik Selleslag; Katerina Steinerova; Per Ljungman; Simone Cesaro; Anna Nihtinen; Catherine Cordonnier; Lourdes Vazquez; Monica López-Duarte; Javier Lopez; Rafael Cabrera; Montserrat Rovira; Stefan Neuburger; Oliver Cornely; Ann E Hunter; Kieren A Marr; Hans Jürgen Dornbusch; Hermann Einsele Journal: Blood Date: 2006-05-23 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Nathan P Wiederhold; Laura K Najvar; Ana C Vallor; William R Kirkpatrick; Rosie Bocanegra; Destiny Molina; Marcos Olivo; John R Graybill; Thomas F Patterson Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Claudia Sassi; Marta Stanzani; Russell E Lewis; Giancarlo Facchini; Alberto Bazzocchi; Michele Cavo; Giuseppe Battista Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: J Kevin Hicks; Rod E Quilitz; Rami S Komrokji; Timothy E Kubal; Jeffrey E Lancet; Yanina Pasikhova; Dahui Qin; Wonhee So; Gisela Caceres; Kerry Kelly; Yasmina S Salchert; Kevin Shahbazian; Farnoosh Abbas-Aghababazadeh; Brooke L Fridley; Ana P Velez; Howard L McLeod; John N Greene Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 6.875