Abstract
AbstractELISA methods are the diagnostic tools recommended for the serological diagnosis of Coxiella burnetii infection in ruminants but their respective diagnostic performances are difficult to assess because of the absence of a gold standard. This study focused on three commercial ELISA tests with the following objectives (1) assess their sensitivity and specificity in sheep, goats and cattle, (2) assess the between- and within-herd seroprevalence distribution in these species, accounting for diagnostic errors, and (3) estimate optimal sample sizes considering sensitivity and specificity at herd level. We comparatively tested 1413 cattle, 1474 goat and 1432 sheep serum samples collected in France. We analyzed the cross-classified test results with a hierarchical zero-inflated beta-binomial latent class model considering each herd as a population and conditional dependence as a fixed effect. Potential biases and coverage probabilities of the model were assessed by simulation. Conditional dependence for truly seropositive animals was high in all species for two of the three ELISA methods. Specificity estimates were high, ranging from 94.8% [92.1; 97.8] to 99.2% [98.5; 99.7], whereas sensitivity estimates were generally low, ranging from 39.3 [30.7; 47.0] to 90.5% [83.3; 93.8]. Between- and within-herd seroprevalence estimates varied greatly among geographic areas and herds. Overall, goats showed higher within-herd seroprevalence levels than sheep and cattle. The optimal sample size maximizing both herd sensitivity and herd specificity varied from 3 to at least 20 animals depending on the test and ruminant species. This study provides better interpretation of three widely used commercial ELISA tests and will make it possible to optimize their implementation in future studies. The methodology developed may likewise be applied to other human or animal diseases.
Funder
Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail
Direction générale de l'Alimentation
French National Animal Health Farmers’ Organization
French Institute for Research in Agriculture, Food & the Environment
VetAgro Sup
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference62 articles.
1. CDC (2019) Epidemiology and Statistics | Q Fever | CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/qfever/stats/index.html. Accessed 8 May 2020
2. ECDC (2019) Q fever - Annual Epidemiological Report for 2018. In: Eur. Cent. Dis. Prev. Control. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/q-fever-annual-epidemiological-report-2018. Accessed 5 Feb 2020
3. van der Hoek W, Morroy G, Renders NHM, Wever PC, Hermans MHA, Leenders ACAP, Schneeberger PM (2012) Epidemic Q fever in humans in the Netherlands. Adv Exp Med Biol 984:329–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4315-1_17
4. EFSA (2019) The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J 17:e05926. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5926
5. Gache K, Rousset E, Perrin JB, Cremoux DE, R, Hosteing S, Jourdain E, Guatteo R, Nicollet P, Touratier A, Calavas D, Sala C, (2017) Estimation of the frequency of Q fever in sheep, goat and cattle herds in France: results of a 3-year study of the seroprevalence of Q fever and excretion level of Coxiella burnetii in abortive episodes. Epidemiol Infect 145:3131–3142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268817002308
Cited by
7 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