4.6 Article

Diagnostic value of serological tests against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a large cystic fibrosis population

Journal

THORAX
Volume 61, Issue 8, Pages 689-693

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thx.2005.054726

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Serological methods to monitor Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonisation in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) are advocated but the diagnostic value of a commercially available P aeruginosa antibody test to detect early and chronic P aeruginosa colonisation in a non-research setting has not been assessed. Methods: Colonisation with P aeruginosa was estimated by regular culture of sputum or oropharyngeal swabs during three consecutive years in 220 patients with CF aged 0-65 years. Commercially available ELISA tests with three P aeruginosa antigens ( elastase, exotoxin A, alkaline protease) were performed at the end of the study period. In a subgroup of 57 patients ( aged 4-14 years) serological tests were performed annually. Results: Using culture as the reference standard, the ELISA tests using the advised cut off values had a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 89% for chronic colonisation. Receiver-operator characteristic curves were created to optimise cut off values. Applying these new cut off values resulted in a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 79%. All three individual serological tests discriminated well between the absence and presence of chronic P aeruginosa colonisation. The sensitivity of the individual antibody test was 87% for elastase, 79% for exotoxin A, and 76% for alkaline protease. First colonisation was preceded by positive serological results in only five of 13 patients (38%). Conclusion: In patients with CF, serological tests using specific antigens are sensitive for diagnosing chronic P aeruginosa colonisation. However, the failure of serological tests to detect early colonisation in young patients emphasises the need for continued reliance on cultures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available