Cargando…

Comparison of Three Serologic Tests for the Detection of Anti-Coxiella burnetii Antibodies in Patients with Q Fever

The performance of a commercial immunofluorescence assay (IFA commercial), an in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA in-house) and an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were evaluated in the detection of antibodies anti-C. burnetii in the serum of Q fever patients and persons without...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de França, Danilo Alves, Mioni, Mateus de Souza Ribeiro, Fornazari, Felipe, Rodrigues, Nássarah Jabur Lot, Polido, Lucas Roberto Ferreira, Appolinario, Camila Michele, Ribeiro, Bruna Letícia Devidé, Duré, Ana Íris de Lima, Silva, Marcos Vinicius Ferreira, Richini-Pereira, Virgínia Bodelão, Langoni, Helio, Megid, Jane
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386034/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37513720
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070873
_version_ 1785081560484020224
author de França, Danilo Alves
Mioni, Mateus de Souza Ribeiro
Fornazari, Felipe
Rodrigues, Nássarah Jabur Lot
Polido, Lucas Roberto Ferreira
Appolinario, Camila Michele
Ribeiro, Bruna Letícia Devidé
Duré, Ana Íris de Lima
Silva, Marcos Vinicius Ferreira
Richini-Pereira, Virgínia Bodelão
Langoni, Helio
Megid, Jane
author_facet de França, Danilo Alves
Mioni, Mateus de Souza Ribeiro
Fornazari, Felipe
Rodrigues, Nássarah Jabur Lot
Polido, Lucas Roberto Ferreira
Appolinario, Camila Michele
Ribeiro, Bruna Letícia Devidé
Duré, Ana Íris de Lima
Silva, Marcos Vinicius Ferreira
Richini-Pereira, Virgínia Bodelão
Langoni, Helio
Megid, Jane
author_sort de França, Danilo Alves
collection PubMed
description The performance of a commercial immunofluorescence assay (IFA commercial), an in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA in-house) and an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were evaluated in the detection of antibodies anti-C. burnetii in the serum of Q fever patients and persons without the disease. For the study, seropositive and seronegative samples for Q fever (n = 200) from a serum bank of the Instituto Adolfo Lutz in Brazil were used. Commercial IFA was considered in this study as the gold standard for diagnosing Q fever. The in-house IFA demonstrated good agreement with the commercial test, showing high sensitivity (91%) and specificity (97%) compared to the gold standard, with a Kappa coefficient of 0.8954. The indirect ELISA test showed lower agreement with the gold standard, showing low sensitivity (67%), although the specificity of the technique was high (97%) and the Kappa coefficient was moderate (0.6631). In-house IFA is an excellent alternative for diagnosing Q fever.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10386034
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103860342023-07-30 Comparison of Three Serologic Tests for the Detection of Anti-Coxiella burnetii Antibodies in Patients with Q Fever de França, Danilo Alves Mioni, Mateus de Souza Ribeiro Fornazari, Felipe Rodrigues, Nássarah Jabur Lot Polido, Lucas Roberto Ferreira Appolinario, Camila Michele Ribeiro, Bruna Letícia Devidé Duré, Ana Íris de Lima Silva, Marcos Vinicius Ferreira Richini-Pereira, Virgínia Bodelão Langoni, Helio Megid, Jane Pathogens Article The performance of a commercial immunofluorescence assay (IFA commercial), an in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA in-house) and an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were evaluated in the detection of antibodies anti-C. burnetii in the serum of Q fever patients and persons without the disease. For the study, seropositive and seronegative samples for Q fever (n = 200) from a serum bank of the Instituto Adolfo Lutz in Brazil were used. Commercial IFA was considered in this study as the gold standard for diagnosing Q fever. The in-house IFA demonstrated good agreement with the commercial test, showing high sensitivity (91%) and specificity (97%) compared to the gold standard, with a Kappa coefficient of 0.8954. The indirect ELISA test showed lower agreement with the gold standard, showing low sensitivity (67%), although the specificity of the technique was high (97%) and the Kappa coefficient was moderate (0.6631). In-house IFA is an excellent alternative for diagnosing Q fever. MDPI 2023-06-26 /pmc/articles/PMC10386034/ /pubmed/37513720 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070873 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
de França, Danilo Alves
Mioni, Mateus de Souza Ribeiro
Fornazari, Felipe
Rodrigues, Nássarah Jabur Lot
Polido, Lucas Roberto Ferreira
Appolinario, Camila Michele
Ribeiro, Bruna Letícia Devidé
Duré, Ana Íris de Lima
Silva, Marcos Vinicius Ferreira
Richini-Pereira, Virgínia Bodelão
Langoni, Helio
Megid, Jane
Comparison of Three Serologic Tests for the Detection of Anti-Coxiella burnetii Antibodies in Patients with Q Fever
title Comparison of Three Serologic Tests for the Detection of Anti-Coxiella burnetii Antibodies in Patients with Q Fever
title_full Comparison of Three Serologic Tests for the Detection of Anti-Coxiella burnetii Antibodies in Patients with Q Fever
title_fullStr Comparison of Three Serologic Tests for the Detection of Anti-Coxiella burnetii Antibodies in Patients with Q Fever
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Three Serologic Tests for the Detection of Anti-Coxiella burnetii Antibodies in Patients with Q Fever
title_short Comparison of Three Serologic Tests for the Detection of Anti-Coxiella burnetii Antibodies in Patients with Q Fever
title_sort comparison of three serologic tests for the detection of anti-coxiella burnetii antibodies in patients with q fever
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386034/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37513720
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070873
work_keys_str_mv AT defrancadaniloalves comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever
AT mionimateusdesouzaribeiro comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever
AT fornazarifelipe comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever
AT rodriguesnassarahjaburlot comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever
AT polidolucasrobertoferreira comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever
AT appolinariocamilamichele comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever
AT ribeirobrunaleticiadevide comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever
AT dureanairisdelima comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever
AT silvamarcosviniciusferreira comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever
AT richinipereiravirginiabodelao comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever
AT langonihelio comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever
AT megidjane comparisonofthreeserologictestsforthedetectionofanticoxiellaburnetiiantibodiesinpatientswithqfever