| Literature DB >> 31242932 |
Xiumin Han1,2, Jeong-Geun Kim3, Hu Wang2,4, Huixia Cai2,3, Xiao Ma2, Duc Hieu Duong3, Chun-Seob Ahn3, Insug Kang5, Yoon Kong6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Echinococcoses, caused by metacestodes of Echinococcus granulosus (cystic echinococcosis; CE) and E. multilocularis (alveolar echinococcosis; AE), represent major emerging parasitic diseases. These enzootic helminthiases invoke significant public health concerns and social burdens in endemic areas. The diseases are prevalent in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China, while community-based epidemiological studies have been scarcely reported. We surveyed echinococcosis patients in the southeastern Qinghai Province, China, to better understand the concurrent epidemiological situation in this area.Entities:
Keywords: Antigen B isoforms; E. multilocularis; Echinococcoses; Echinococcus granulosus; Immunoreactivity; Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau; Ultrasonography
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31242932 PMCID: PMC6593596 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-019-3569-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Map showing surveyed areas. We surveyed patients as part of diagnostic campaigns for echinococcoses at Chengduo and Yushu Counties (Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture) and Dari and Banma Counties (Golog Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture), Qinghai Province, China, during July and August of 2013 and 2014
Age and sex distribution of persons surveyed and patients identified based on abdominal ultrasonography
| Age (years) | No. examined (%) | No. positive (%) | No. of healthy controls (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Total | Male | Female | Total | Male | Female | Total | |
| < 10 | 175 | 182 | 357 | 4 (2.3) | 4 (2.2) | 8 (2.2) | 1 (0.6) | 2 (1.1) | 3 (0.8) |
| 10–19 | 358 | 428 | 786 | 14 (3.9) | 18 (4.2) | 32 (4.1) | 6 (1.7) | 7 (1.6) | 13 (1.7) |
| 20–29 | 201 | 245 | 446 | 7 (3.5) | 6 (2.5) | 13 (2.9) | 3 (1.5) | 3 (1.2) | 6 (1.3) |
| 30–39 | 289 | 302 | 591 | 10 (3.5) | 16 (5.3) | 26 (4.4) | 5 (1.7) | 7 (2.3) | 12 (2.0) |
| 40–49 | 151 | 161 | 312 | 13 (8.6) | 15 (9.3) | 28 (9.0) | 7 (4.6) | 7 (4.3) | 14 (4.5) |
| 50–59 | 95 | 104 | 199 | 4 (4.2) | 7 (6.7) | 11 (5.5) | 2 (2.1) | 4 (3.8) | 6 (3.0) |
| > 60 | 77 | 88 | 165 | 10 (13.0) | 6 (6.8) | 16 (9.7) | 5 (6.5) | 3 (3.4) | 8 (4.8) |
| Total | 1346 (47.1) | 1510 (52.9) | 2856 (100) | 62 (4.6) | 72 (4.8) | 134 (4.7) | 29 (2.2) | 33 (2.2) | 62 (2.2) |
Patients with cystic echinococcosis (CE) and alveolar echinococcosis (AE) diagnosed by ultrasonographic findings
| Disease category | Stage | No. of patients (mean age, years) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Totala | ||
| CE | CE1 | 17 (33.2) | 10 (20.3) | 27 (28.4) |
| CE2 | 6 (41.2) | 13 (31.3) | 19 (34.4) | |
| CE3a | 5 (33.6) | 5 (34.8) | 10 (34.2) | |
| CE3b | 5 (25.4) | 16 (39.4) | 21 (35.9) | |
| CE4 | 9 (43.6) | 14 (35.9) | 23 (38.7) | |
| CE5 | 10 (52.3) | 5 (46.0) | 15 (50.2) | |
| Subtotal | 52 (38.9) | 63 (34.1) | 115 (36.2) | |
| AE | Early AE | 5 (18.6) | 3 (27.3) | 8 (21.9) |
| Advanced AE | 6 (24.8) | 6 (21.3) | 12 (23.1) | |
| Subtotal | 11 (22.0) | 9 (23.3) | 20 (22.6) | |
| Total | 63 (35.9) | 72 (32.7) | 135a (34.2) | |
aTotal number exceeded 134 due to one case with double infection of both AE and CE
Fig. 2Ultrasonogram of a 48-year-old herdsman who might be concomitantly infected with cystic echinococcosis (CE) and alveolar echinococcosis (AE). a Ultrasonographic (US) examination revealing a 42 × 60 mm sized cystic lesion with diffuse internal calcification and hyperechoic indistinct margin (arrow) on the right hepatic lobe (CE5 stage). b Another view of the US scan showing a 74 × 50 mm sized cystic mass with clusters of multiple echogenic small nodules and a calcified margin (arrow) on the right hepatic lobe (early AE stage)
Serodiagnostic performance of recombinant E. granulosus antigen Bs (rEgAgBs) against serum samples from different stages of cystic echinococcosis (CE) and alveolar echinococcosis (AE) cases
| No. tested | No. positive (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rEgAgB1 | rEgAgB2 | rEgAgB3 | rEgAgB4 | rEgAgB5 | ||
| CE1 | 26 | 21 (80.8) | 24 (92.3) | 23 (88.5) | 16 (61.5) | 21 (80.8) |
| CE2 | 19 | 16 (84.2) | 18 (94.7) | 18 (94.7) | 12 (63.2) | 14 (73.7) |
| CE3a | 10 | 9 (90.0) | 10 (100) | 10 (100) | 9 (90.0) | 9 (90.0) |
| CE3b | 20 | 20 (100) | 20 (100) | 20 (100) | 16 (80.0) | 15 (75.0) |
| CE4 | 22 | 18 (81.8) | 20 (90.9) | 18 (81.8) | 15 (68.2) | 20 (90.9) |
| CE5 | 13 | 9 (69.2) | 10 (76.9) | 10 (76.9) | 7 (53.8) | 9 (69.2) |
| AE | 12 | 6 (50.0) | 4 (33.3) | 4 (33.3) | 9 (75.0) | 10 (83.3) |
| Controls | 62 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 9 (14.5) | 17 (27.4) |
| Sensitivity | 110 | 93 (84.5) | 102 (92.7) | 99 (90.0) | 75 (68.2) | 88 (80.0) |
| Specificity | 74 | 6 (91.9) | 4 (94.6) | 4 (94.6) | 18 (75.7) | 27 (63.5) |
| AUC ± SE | 0.9216 ± 0.02007 | 0.9613 ± 0.01283 | 0.9517 ± 0.01641 | 0.8049 ± 0.03247 | 0.7693 ± 0.03562 | |
| 95% CI | 0.8823–0.9610 | 0.9362–0.9864 | 0.9196–0.9839 | 0.7413–0.8686 | 0.6995–0.8391 | |
| Cut-offsa | 0.1625 | 0.1760 | 0.2000 | 0.1705 | 0.1190 | |
| PLR | 10.43 | 17.15 | 16.65 | 2.8 | 2.19 | |
| NLR | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.42 | 0.31 | |
| PPV (%) | 93.9 | 96.2 | 96.1 | 80.7 | 76.5 | |
| NPV (%) | 80.0 | 89.7 | 86.4 | 61.5 | 68.1 | |
| Youden’s index | 0.76 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.44 | 0.44 | |
aCut-off values were determined by analysis of ROC curves
Abbreviations: AE, alveolar echinococcosis; AUC, area under the ROC curve; CE, cystic echinococcosis; CI, confidence interval; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; NPV, negative predictive value; rEgAgB, recombinant E. granulosus antigen B; SE, standard error; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; PPV, positive predictive value
Fig. 3Specific IgG antibody levels in sera of patients with different stages of cystic echinococcosis (CE) and alveolar echinococcosis (AE) and those from healthy controls (NH) against rEgAgB1-5. The Y-axis displays absorbance values of detected sera. The X-axis indicates the following sera groups: CE1 (n = 26); CE2 (n = 19); CE3 (n = 30; 10 and 20 samples of CE3a and CE3b, respectively); CE4 (n = 22); CE5 (n = 13); AE (n = 12); and NH (n = 62). The cut-off values for respective rEgAgBs are determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis (red dotted lines). Horizontal blue bars denote average specific antibody levels in each group
Fig. 4Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for rEgAgB1-5 assay in serum samples by ELISA. These curves represent plots of sensitivity (%) versus 100-specificity (%) for respective rEgAgBs. The reference line is also shown (dotted diagonal line). ROC curves are used to determine cutoff values and areas under the curve (AUC) each for rEgAgB isoforms against serum samples from patients with CE (n = 110)