Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2007, p. 246-247, Vol. 45, No. 1
0095-1137/07/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JCM.01403-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

National Reference Laboratory for HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, and other STDs, STD/AIDS Cooperative Central Laboratory, Manila, Philippines
Received 7 July 2006/ Returned for modification 21 August 2006/ Accepted 18 October 2006
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
As a national reference laboratory for blood-borne infections (with a primary focus on AIDS, viral hepatitis, and sexually transmitted diseases), we undertook evaluation of the four serological test kits, all using the same set of test sera within a specified period of time. Two medical technologists, oblivious to the status of the test sera or the results of any foregoing tests, carried out the testing. When necessary, tests were repeated by two technologists independently and a consensus conclusion was reached. The instructions provided by each test kit manufacturer were followed. The kits examined were SD Bioline Typhoid (Standard Diagnostics, Kyonggi-do, Korea), TUBEX (IDL Biotech, Sollentuna, Sweden), Typhidot (Malaysian Biodiagnostic Research, Bangi, Malaysia), and Mega Salmonella (Mega Diagnostics, Los Angeles, CA). SD Bioline Typhoid uses an immunochromatographic method to visually and qualitatively detect IgM and IgG antibodies to serotype Typhi antigens (unspecified) that are indirectly labeled with colloidal gold (via an antibody). The antigen-bound antibodies are captured by anti-IgM or anti-IgG antibodies immobilized on the test strip. TUBEX uses particle separation to detect IgM antibodies from whole serum (5) to the serotype Typhi O9 lipopolysaccharide antigen. The patient's antibodies inhibit the binding between indicator particles coated with an anti-O9 monoclonal antibody and lipopolysaccharide-coated magnetic particles. It is not clear why only IgM and not IgG antibodies are inhibitory, although the latter can bind to the antigen-coated particles (5). Results are read visually and semiquantitatively against a color chart. Scores of
2 are considered negative. With Typhidot, antibodies are detected visually in this qualitative dot blot enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to a 50-kDa outer membrane protein developed using peroxidase-labeled anti-IgM (Typhidot-IgM) or anti-IgG (Typhidot-IgG) antibodies. With Mega Salmonella, patient antibodies bind to Salmonella antigens (unspecified) insolubilized on microplates and are quantitatively detected by ELISA with IgM-specific (Mega-IgM) or IgG-specific (Mega-IgG) peroxidase-labeled reagents. The results are read in a microplate ELISA reader. The cost in US dollars per test of the various kits sold in the Philippines in government tertiary hospitals was $4.90 for SD Bioline, TUBEX, and Mega and $6.86 for Typhidot; while in private tertiary hospitals, the cost per test was $51.68 for SD Bioline, TUBEX, and Mega and $23.52 for Typhidot.
In terms of turnaround time, TUBEX is most rapid. The tests in order from the most rapid to the least rapid are as follows: TUBEX (5 min) > SD Bioline (15 to 30 min) > Mega (2.5 to 3.0 h) > Typhidot (2.5 h). TUBEX and SD Bioline are also the simplest, involving two steps.
In the study, 177 cases (mean age, 2.5 years; 46.3% female) (Table 1) were randomly selected for the study from febrile patients suspected of having typhoid fever in the San Lazaro Hospital, an infectious disease hospital. From each patient, 10 ml of blood was obtained and cultured in tryptone soy broth medium for 3 to 7 days both by BACTEC (model no. 9120; Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) and by conventional methodology (7). In both methods, growth was examined further by Gram stain, culture on selective medium, and biochemical testing. Of the 177 specimens, 75 grew serotype Typhi by both methods. A total of 102 specimens were culture negative and considered nontyphoidal for the purpose of statistical computation (using EPInfo6 software [Centers for Disease Control]).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Demographics of the study cohort
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Comparative performance of the four serological test kitsa
|
Other organisms grew in 22 cases (21%) from the serotype Typhi culture-negative group. The most common (11 isolates) of these was coagulase-negative staphylococcus. Other organisms were Bacillus spp. (four isolates), Pseudomonas spp. (three isolates), Acinetobacter spp. (two isolates), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (two isolates). However, less than half of the patients infected by these organisms were positive according to the TUBEX or SD Bioline (IgM or IgG) result in each case. Since there is also no known antigenic cross-reactivity between these organisms and serotype Typhi, we suspect that the serological reactivities observed are unrelated to these infections.
It is apparent from Table 2 that tests which detect IgM antibodies are less sensitive but more specific than those of the same kind that detect IgG antibodies and vice versa. For a serological test to be useful for routine application and as an alternative to culture, it must perform well (>75%) in both sensitivity and specificity, not just in one alone, and have acceptable (>75%) positive and negative predictive values. TUBEX meets these criteria, scoring best among the four kits. SD Bioline-IgM came second. The findings for TUBEX accord well with previous observations made in Vietnam, where good sensitivity (80 to 85%) and specificity (75 to 80%) were also found (2, 4). Surprisingly, Typhidot performed poorly in contrast to previous findings (1, 4), although an earlier study by Membrebe and Chua (3), also carried out in the Philippines, had found very similar results to ours (72% sensitivity; 52% specificity). Mega appeared to be overly sensitive, resulting in poor specificities (39.2 to 49.0%). Sensitivity, on the other hand, may be affected for SD Bioline due to the competition between disease-specific and other antibodies present in whole serum for the capture antibody.
Published ahead of print on 25 October 2006. ![]()
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»