Cargando…

Performance evaluation of an indirect immunofluorescence kit for the serological diagnosis of dengue

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of indirect immunofluorescence for serological diagnosis of dengue virus in a population with high prevalence of arboviruses. METHODS: Two-hundred serum samples from patients with clinical suspicion of dengue fever were tested by immunoenzymatic and indirect im...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arai, Karina Emy, Bo, Carolina Rodrigues Dal, da Silva, Ana Paula Marques Aguirra, Rodrigues, Silvia Sanches, Mangueira, Cristóvão Luis Pitangueira
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6910063/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31859787
http://dx.doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2020AO5078
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of indirect immunofluorescence for serological diagnosis of dengue virus in a population with high prevalence of arboviruses. METHODS: Two-hundred serum samples from patients with clinical suspicion of dengue fever were tested by immunoenzymatic and indirect immunofluorescence assay BIOCHIP® mosaic. Specificity, sensitivity and Kappa coefficient were calculated. Discordant samples were tested by polymerase chain reaction for confirmation. RESULTS: Of the 200 samples, 20% were positive and 80% negative for anti-dengue virus IgM antibodies in the immunoenzymatic test. Of the 40 positives, 25% were negative in indirect immunofluorescence. Of these ten discordant results, only 20% were also negative in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Of the 160 negatives in the immunoenzymatic test, 5% were positive in indirect immunofluorescence. Of these nine discordant results, 33% were positive in the PCR. The Kappa coefficient was 0.7 (0.572-0.829). Sensitivity and specificity of indirect immunofluorescence were respectively 75% and 94%. For anti-dengue virus IgG antibodies, of the 200 samples, 15.5% were positive and 84.5% were negative in the immunoenzymatic test. Of the 31 positives, 12.9% were negative in indirect immunofluorescence. Of these four discordant results, 25% were negative in the PCR. Of the 169 negatives, 8% were positive in indirect immunofluorescence. Of these 14 discordant results, 64% were also positive in the PCR. The Kappa coefficient was 0.695 (0.563-0.83). Sensitivity and specificity of indirect immunofluorescence were 87.1% and 91.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: For diagnosis of acute infection, the immunoenzymatic test is enough, and the use of additional methods is not warranted. Replacing the immunoenzymatic test by indirect immunofluorescence would compromise the sensitivity for IgM. However, indirect immunofluorescence can distinguish three arboviruses simultaneously, an advantage during concomitant epidemics.