| Literature DB >> 26880775 |
Sabine Dittrich, William E Rudgard, Kate L Woods, Joy Silisouk, Weerawat Phuklia, Viengmon Davong, Manivanh Vongsouvath, Koukeo Phommasone, Sayaphet Rattanavong, Michael Knappik, Scott B Craig, Steven L Weier, Suhella M Tulsiani, David A B Dance, Paul N Newton.
Abstract
Leptospirosis is an important zoonosis worldwide, with infections occurring after exposure to contaminated water. Despite being a global problem, laboratory diagnosis remains difficult with culture results taking up to 3 months, serology being retrospective by nature, and polymerase chain reaction showing limited sensitivity. Leptospira have been shown to survive and multiply in blood culture media, and we hypothesized that extracting DNA from incubated blood culture fluid (BCF), followed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) could improve the accuracy and speed of leptospira diagnosis. We assessed this retrospectively, using preincubated BCF of Leptospira spp. positive (N= 109) and negative (N= 63) febrile patients in Vientiane, Lao PDR. The final method showed promising sensitivities of 66% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55-76) and 59% (95% CI: 49-68) compared with direct or direct and indirect testing combined, as the respective reference standards (specificities > 95%). Despite these promising diagnostic parameters, a subsequent prospective evaluation in a Lao hospital population (N= 352) showed that the sensitivity was very low (∼30%) compared with qPCR on venous blood samples. The disappointingly low sensitivity does suggest that venous blood samples are preferable for the clinical microbiology laboratory, although BCF might be an alternative if leptospirosis is only suspected postadmission after antibiotics have been used. © The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26880775 PMCID: PMC4824212 DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0674
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg ISSN: 0002-9637 Impact factor: 2.345
Figure 1.Sensitivity and specificity characteristics plotted for different threshold values. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays were analyzed using three different fluorescent thresholds (0.05, 0.075, 0.1), which were set manually. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to determine sensitivity and specificity values at different Cq-values. Using (A) culture and (B) both culture and qPCR (blood) as gold standards for the ROC analysis.
Diagnostic characteristics obtained by ROC analysis for three different fluorescent cutoffs and different gold standard comparators
| Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | Positive/negative | AUC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold: 0.05 | ||||
| Culture | 89.0% (79.5–95.2) | 74.6% (62.1–84.7) | 73/63 | 0.94 |
| qPCR | 84.2% (60.4–96.6) | 25.4% (15.3–37.9) | 19/63 | 0.57 |
| Culture + qPCR | 74.7% (64.5–83.3) | 74.6% (62.1–84.7) | 91/63 | 0.82 |
| Culture + qPCR + MAT | 66.1% (56.4–74.9) | 74.6% (62.1–84.7) | 109/63 | 0.76 |
| Threshold: 0.075 | ||||
| Culture | 87.7% (77.9–94.2) | 87.3% (76.5–94.3) | 73/63 | 0.95 |
| qPCR | 84.2% (60.4–96.6) | 25.4% (15.3–37.9) | 19/63 | 0.57 |
| Culture + qPCR | 72.5% (62.2–81.4) | 87.3% (76.5–94.3) | 91/63 | 0.85 |
| Culture + qPCR + MAT | 64.2% (54.5–73.2) | 87.3% (76.5–94.3) | 109/63 | 0.79 |
| Threshold: 0.1 | ||||
| Culture | 82.2% (71.5–90.2) | 95.8% (89.0–99.6) | 73/63 | 0.94 |
| qPCR | 89.5% (66.7–98.7) | 25.4% (15.3–37.9) | 19/63 | 0.60 |
| Culture + qPCR | 65.9% (55.3–75.6) | 95.2% (86.7–99.0) | 91/63 | 0.85 |
| Culture + qPCR + MAT | 58.7% (48.9–68.1) | 95.2% (86.71–99.0) | 109/63 | 0.79 |
AUC = area under the curve; CI = confidence interval; MAT = microscopic agglutination test; ROC = receiver operator characteristics; qPCR = quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction.
Number of positive/negative samples included in the ROC calculation.
AUC quantifies the overall ability of the test to discriminate between those individuals with the disease and those without the disease (interpretation: 0.9–1 = excellent; 0.8–0.9 = good; 0.7–0.8 = fair; 0.6–0.7 = poor).19
Sensitivity and specificity of BCF compared with blood when different inclusion criteria are applied for the BCF qPCR
| Venous blood qPCR | Final diagnostic characteristics for using BCF | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | PPV | NPV | ||
| BCF: Cq ≤ 40 | |||||||
| BCF | Positive | 3 | 4 | 30% (10.3–60.7) | 99% (97–100) | 43 | 98 |
| Negative | 7 | 338 | |||||
| BCF: Cq ≤ 42 | |||||||
| Positive | 3 | 18 | 30% (10.3–60.7) | 95% (92–97) | 14 | 98 | |
| Negative | 7 | 324 | |||||
| BCF: Cq ≤ 45 | |||||||
| Positive | 5 | 41 | 50% (23.7–76.3) | 88% (84–91) | 11 | 98 | |
| Negative | 5 | 301 | |||||
BCF = blood culture fluid; CI = confidence interval; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV = positive predictive value; qPCR = quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction.
PPV is the proportion of positive results that are truly positive, and NPV is the proportion of negative results that are truly negative.