JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garringer, T. O.
Right arrow Articles by Brizendine, E. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Garringer, T. O.
Right arrow Articles by Brizendine, E. J.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, August 2000, p. 2909-2913, Vol. 38, No. 8
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparison of an Established Antibody Sandwich Method with an Inhibition Method of Histoplasma capsulatum Antigen Detection

Todd O. Garringer,1,2,* L. Joseph Wheat,1,2,3,4 and Edward J. Brizendine1

Departments of Medicine1 and Pathology,4 Indiana University School of Medicine, and Roudebusch Veterans' Affairs Medical Center3 and Histoplasmosis Reference Laboratory,2 Indianapolis, Indiana

Received 23 March 2000/Returned for modification 21 April 2000/Accepted 6 June 2000

The Histoplasma antigen immunoassay utilizes an antibody sandwich method that provides a rapid and reliable means of diagnosing the more severe forms of histoplasmosis. Inhibition assays have been developed for antigen detection and offer at least one potential advantage, namely, reduced antibody requirements. We have developed an inhibition assay using the polyclonal antibody employed in our standard sandwich assay. Urine and serum specimens from patients with culture-proven histoplasmosis and controls were tested using both methods. The two methods had similar sensitivities for detection of antigen in urine (antibody sandwich = 92.5% versus inhibition = 87.5%, P = 0.500) and serum (82.5% versus 80.0%, P = 1.000). With serum, the specificities of both methods were similar (antibody sandwich assay = 95.0% versus inhibition assay = 92.5%, P = 1.000), and with urine, the specificity of the antibody sandwich method was superior (97.5% versus 80.0%, P = 0.039). While the overall reproducibility of both methods was excellent (with urine, antibody sandwich assay intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.9975 and with serum = 0.9949; correlation coefficient of the inhibition assay with urine = 0.9736 and with serum = 0.9850), that of the inhibition method was only fair to poor for the controls: urine -0.0152, serum = 0.5595. Reproducibility was good for the controls using the sandwich method: urine = 0.7717, serum = 0.9470. Cross-reactivity was observed in specimens from patients infected with Blastomyces dermatitidis, Paracoccidioides brasiliensis, and Penicillium marneffei. In conclusion, the decreased specificity and inferior reproducibility with control specimens suggest that the inhibition assay has poorer precision toward the lower end of the detection range.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Indiana University Department of Medicine, 1001 W. 10th St., Rm. OPW 430, Indianapolis, IN 46202. Phone: (317) 630-6262. Fax: (317) 630-7522. E-mail: TGARRING{at}IUPUI.EDU.


Journal of Clinical Microbiology, August 2000, p. 2909-2913, Vol. 38, No. 8
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2000 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.