| Literature DB >> 35511816 |
Federica Obber1, Roberto Celva1, Graziana Da Rold1, Karin Trevisiol1, Silvia Ravagnan1, Patrizia Danesi1, Lucia Cenni2,3, Chiara Rossi2, Paola Bonato1, Katia Capello1, Heidi C Hauffe2, Alessandro Massolo3, Rudi Cassini4, Valentina Benvenuti4, Andreas Agreiter5, Davide Righetti5, Marco Ianniello6, Debora Dellamaria1, Gioia Capelli1, Carlo V Citterio1.
Abstract
Surveillance of Echinococcus multilocularis at the edge of its range is hindered by fragmented distributional patterns and low prevalence in definitive hosts. Thus, tests with adequate levels of sensitivity are especially important for discriminating between infected and non-infected areas. In this study we reassessed the prevalence of E. multilocularis at the southern border of its distribution in Province of Bolzano (Alto Adige, northeastern Alps, Italy), to improve surveillance in wildlife and provide more accurate estimates of exposure risk. We compared the diagnostic test currently implemented for surveillance based on coproscopy and multiplex PCR (CMPCR) to a real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) in 235 fox faeces collected in 2019 and 2020. The performances of the two tests were estimated using a scraping technique (SFCT) applied to the small intestines of a subsample (n = 123) of the same foxes as the reference standard. True prevalence was calculated and the sample size required by each faecal test for the detection of the parasite was then estimated. True prevalence of E. multilocularis in foxes (14.3%) was markedly higher than reported in the last decade, which was never more than 5% from 2012 to 2018 in the same area. In addition, qPCR showed a much higher sensitivity (83%) compared to CMPCR (21%) and agreement with the reference standard was far higher for qPCR (0.816) than CMPCR (0.298) meaning that for the latter protocol, a smaller sample size would be required to detect the disease. Alto Adige should be considered a highly endemic area. Routine surveillance on definitive hosts at the edges of the E. multilocularis distribution should be applied to smaller geographic areas, and rapid, sensitive diagnostic tools using directly host faeces, such as qPCR, should be adopted.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35511816 PMCID: PMC9070940 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Distribution of individual fox faecal samples from Alto Adige in 2019–2020 (n = 235), indicating the subset examined for adult Echinococcus multilocularis worms by SFCT (n = 123).
The DEM used as baselayer is provided by TINITALY. The data are available under license CC BY 4.0.
Fig 2Results of CMPCR, qPCR and the SFCT- reference standard used to detect Echinococcus multilocularis in fox faecal samples collected in 2019–2020 (n = 123).
The DEM used as baselayer is provided by TINITALY. The data are available under license CC BY 4.0.
Matrix of the results of the two faecal tests (CMPCR and qPCR) and the reference standard (SFCT) for the detection of Echinococcus multilocularis in 123 foxes.
| TEST | CMPCR | qPCR | SFCT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| POS | NEG | POS | NEG | POS | NEG | |
| CMPCR |
|
| ||||
| qPCR | 5 | 100 |
|
| ||
| SFCT | 5 | 99 | 20 | 96 |
|
|
Sensitivity, specificity and agreement (K) for two diagnostic methods (CMPCR and qPCR) for detecting Echinococcus multilocularis in fox fecal samples compared to the SFCT—reference standard.
| Index | CMPCR versus SFCT (95% CI) | qPCR versus SFCT (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.21 (0.07–0.42) | 0.83 (0.63–0.95) |
|
| 1 (0.96–1) | 0.97 (0.91–0.99) |
|
| 0.30 (0.09–0.50) | 0.82 (0.68–0.95) |
Fig 3Sample size required to detect Echinococcus multilocularis at various expected prevalence estimates (with 95% CI) in a population of 300 foxes.