| Literature DB >> 21931873 |
Daniel H Paris1, Stuart D Blacksell, Pruksa Nawtaisong, Kemajittra Jenjaroen, Achara Teeraratkul, Wirongrong Chierakul, Vanaporn Wuthiekanun, Pacharee Kantipong, Nicholas P J Day.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to develop rapid and accurate point-of-care (POC) technologies for acute scrub typhus diagnosis in low-resource, primary health care settings to guide clinical therapy. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21931873 PMCID: PMC3172190 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001307
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
The scrub typhus infection criteria (STIC).
| STIC | Detailed explanation |
| Isolation positive | In |
| Admission IgM ≥1∶12,800 | Single admission IgM titer of ≥1∶12,800 |
| Dynamic serology | Paired serum samples with increasing IgM titers of minimum a four fold rise |
| ≥2/3 PCR positive | Two out of three PCR based diagnostic assays are positive using 56 kD, 47 kD or |
The scrub typhus infection criteria (STIC) consist of diagnostic reference parameters of high specificity, aiming to define scrub typhus with a high level of confidence, irrespective of the timeliness of diagnosis. One or more of the following criteria have to be fulfilled for the diagnosis of ‘scrub typhus infection’. The STIC panel provides a robust diagnosis of scrub typhus, against which new diagnostic assays can be compared.
Overall and positivity percent agreement of LAMP results, when compared with other modalities.
| Diagnostic Criteria | Positives | Diagnostic Accuracy of LAMP [95% CI] | McNemar | ||||
| n (%) | Sens (%) | Spec (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | P-value | ||
|
| STIC positive | 55/161 (34) | 53 [39–66] | 94 [88–98] | 83 [66–93] | 79 [71–86] |
|
| Isolation positive | 9/161 (6) | 78 [40–97] | 82 [75–87] | 20 [8–37] | 98 [94–100] |
| |
| Admission IgM ≥1∶12,800 | 20/161 (12) | 70 [46–88] | 85 [78–91] | 40 [24–58] | 95 [90–98] |
| |
| Dynamic serology | 26/138 (19) | 35 [17–56] | 83 [75–90] | 32 [16–52] | 85 [76–91] | 0.74 | |
| ≥2/3 PCR positive | 27/161 (17) | 82 [62–94] | 90 [84–95] | 63 [45–79] | 96 [91–99] | 0.06 | |
|
| Realtime PCR (47kD) | 28/161 (17) | 79 [59–92] | 90 [84–95] | 63 [45–79] | 95 [90–98] | 0.11 |
| Realtime PCR (groEL) | 35/161 (22) | 77 [60–90] | 94 [88–97] | 77 [60–90] | 94 [88–97] | 1.0 | |
| Nested PCR 56kD | 23/161 (14) | 83 [61–95] | 88 [82–93] | 54 [37–71] | 97 [92–99] |
| |
| PanBio ICT IgM | 31/159 (20) | 61 [42–78] | 88 [81–93] | 54 [37–71] | 90 [84–95] | 0.5 | |
The cohort consists of 161 clinical prospectively collected samples, follow-up sera were available for 138/161 (86%) samples. Probability values for the comparison of positivity rates for LAMP with the other assays were determined using McNemar's test: p-values in bold indicate that the proportion of LAMP positives and the proportion of the tested modality positives are significantly different, i.e. a low level of agreement.
Dissection of discrepant LAMP assay results according to the ‘scrub typhus infection criteria’ (STIC).
| STI Criteria | Reciprocal median IgM Titers | LAMP Result | (n = ) | Percentage of positive results | Days of fever at sample collection | |||||
| PCR (% pos) | In vitro isolation | PanBio IgM ICT | ||||||||
| Adm | Fup | groEL | 47 kD | 56 kD | (% pos) | (% pos) | (median, IQR) | |||
| ≥4-fold dynamic IgM antibody rise | 200 | 1,600 | Positive | 9 | 67 | 56 | 56 | 11 | 33 | 6 (4–7) |
| 50 | 400 | Negative | 17 | 18 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 12 | 5 (3–7) | |
| Admission IgM antibody titer ≥1∶12,800 | 25,600 | 25,600 | Positive | 14 | 100 | 93 | 86 | 29 | 86 | 7 (5–8) |
| 25,600 | 25,600 | Negative | 6 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 100 | 8.5 (5–10) | |
| ≥2/3 PCR assays positive | 12,800 | 25,600 | Positive | 22 | 100 | 100 | 86 | 23 | 77 | 7 (4–8) |
| 100 | 25,600 | Negative | 5 | 100 | 80 | 60 | 20 | 60 | 7 (6–7) | |
| In vitro isolation positive | 25,600 | 25,600 | Positive | 7 | 86 | 71 | 71 | 100 | 57 | 5 (3–8) |
| 12,800 | 12,800 | Negative | 2 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 50 | 4.5 (4–5) | |
The LAMP results of each individual sub-group of STIC were grouped into positive/negative to allow for comparisons to other diagnostic modalities. Serological median reciprocal admission (Adm) and follow-up (Fup) IgM titers are shown as well as supportive diagnostic evidence from PCR, isolation and rapidtests (percentage of positive results). Discrepancies had no association with ‘days of fever / illness’ prior to admission.
Figure 1Effect of sample timing on admision diagnostic positivity rates.
Sample timing in terms of ‘days of fever prior diagnosis’ was significantly associated with LAMP positivity rates. Overall, the LAMP assay was superior at demonstrating positivity up 8 days of fever prior admission. Combination of the LAMP assay and the PanBio IgM ICT rapid test improved the overall sensitivity and expanded the temporal spectrum of O. tsutsugamushi detection in the acute setting.