Author:
Lukambagire AbdulHamid S.,Mendes Ângelo J.,Bodenham Rebecca F.,McGiven John A.,Mkenda Nestory A.,Mathew Coletha,Rubach Matthew P.,Sakasaka Philoteus,Shayo Davis D.,Maro Venance P.,Shirima Gabriel M.,Thomas Kate M.,Kasanga Christopher J.,Kazwala Rudovick R.,Halliday Jo E. B.,Mmbaga Blandina T.
Abstract
AbstractThe control of brucellosis across sub-Saharan Africa is hampered by the lack of standardized testing and the use of tests with poor performance. This study evaluated the performance and costs of serological assays for human brucellosis in a pastoralist community in northern Tanzania. Serum collected from 218 febrile hospital patients was used to evaluate the performance of seven index tests, selected based on international recommendation or current use. We evaluated the Rose Bengal test (RBT) using two protocols, four commercial agglutination tests and a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, Youden’s index, diagnostic accuracy, and per-sample cost of each index test were estimated. The diagnostic accuracy estimates ranged from 95.9 to 97.7% for the RBT, 55.0 to 72.0% for the commercial plate tests, and 89.4% for the cELISA. The per-sample cost range was $0.69–$0.79 for the RBT, $1.03–$1.14 for the commercial plate tests, and $2.51 for the cELISA. The widely used commercial plate tests performed poorly and cost more than the RBT. These findings provide evidence for the public health value of discontinuing the use of commercial agglutination tests for human brucellosis in Tanzania.
Funder
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
DELTAS Africa Initiative Afrique One-ASPIRE scholarship scheme
The University of Glasgow’s Lord Kelvin/Adam Smith (LKAS) PhD scholarship
Zoonoses and Emerging Livestock Systems – Associated Studentship (ZELS-AS) programme
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference78 articles.
1. Dean, A. S., Crump, L., Greter, H., Schelling, E. & Zinsstag, J. Global burden of human brucellosis: A systematic review of disease frequency. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 6, 66 (2012).
2. Franco, M. P., Mulder, M., Gilman, R. H. & Smits, H. L. Human brucellosis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 7, 775–786 (2007).
3. Al-Dahouk, S., Sprague, L. D. & Neubauer, H. New developments in the diagnostic procedures for zoonotic brucellosis in humans. Sci. Tech. Rev. Off. Int. des Epizoot. 32, 177–188 (2013).
4. Jamil, T. et al. Brucella abortus: Current research and future trends. Curr. Clin. Microbiol. Rep. 4, 1–10 (2017).
5. Rubach, P. M., Halliday, J. E. B., Cleaveland, S. & Crump, A. J. Brucellosis in low-income and middle-income countries. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 26, 404–412 (2014).
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献