Purpose

Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is caused by the larval form of Echinococcus granulosus. Clinical, radiologic, pathologic, and serologic findings should be evaluated together for the diagnosis of CE. The sensitivity and specificity oalf serologic tests may vary depending on the method used. In this study, we aimed to detect IgG antibodies specific to E. granulosus using indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), indirect fluorescent antibodies (IFA) and western blot (WB) tests.

Methods

In our study, the serum samples of 74 patients sent to our laboratory with suspicion of CE were studied using two different commercial IHA tests, ELISA, IFA and WB test. The test results were evaluated along with radiological findings and histopathological examinations, the latter being the gold standard.

Results

Of all the patients, 51 (69%) were female and 23 (31%) were male. There was a statistically significant difference between males and females (χ² = 9.7, p = 0.002). Out of 74 patients, positivity rates for Siemens IHA, Fumouze IHA, ELISA, IFA and WB test were positive as 33 (44.6%), 35 (47.3%), 43 (58.1%), 42 (56.7%) and 38 (51.3%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests were as follows: 66.67 and 2.31% for Siemens IHA; 70.83% and 96.15% for Fumouze IHA; 85.42%, and 88.46% for ELISA; 83.33% and 88.46% for IFA; 72.92% and 88.46% for WB test.

Conclusion

There were statistically significant differences in between all five methods (p < 0,001). While the tests with the highest specificity was Fumouze IHA, the test with the highest sensitivity was the ELISA test. It was concluded that IHA and ELISA tests were more practical in practice because of their greater applicability.

中文翻译：

---

囊型包虫病血清学诊断方法比较

目的

囊性包虫病 (CE) 是由细粒棘球蚴幼虫引起的。 CE 的诊断应结合临床、放射学、病理学和血清学检查结果进行评估。血清学检测的敏感性和特异性可能因所使用的方法而异。在本研究中，我们旨在使用间接血凝测定（IHA）、酶联免疫吸附测定（ELISA）、间接荧光抗体（IFA）和蛋白质印迹（WB）测试来检测细粒棘球绦虫特异性IgG抗体。

方法

在我们的研究中，使用两种不同的商业 IHA 测试（ELISA、IFA 和 WB 测试）对送往我们实验室的 74 名疑似 CE 患者的血清样本进行了研究。测试结果与放射学检查结果和组织病理学检查一起进行评估，后者是金标准。

结果

所有患者中，51 名（69%）为女性，23 名（31%）为男性。男性和女性之间存在统计学显着差异（χ ²  = 9.7，p  = 0.002）。 74 例患者中，Siemens IHA、Fumouze IHA、ELISA、IFA 和 WB 检测的阳性率分别为 33 例 (44.6%)、35 例 (47.3%)、43 例 (58.1%)、42 例 (56.7%) 和 38 例 (51.3%)。 ％）， 分别。测试的敏感性和特异性如下：西门子IHA为66.67%和2.31%； Fumouze IHA 为 70.83% 和 96.15%； ELISA 为 85.42%，88.46%； IFA 为 83.33% 和 88.46%； WB 测试为 72.92% 和 88.46%。

结论

所有五种方法之间均存在统计学显着差异 ( p  < 0,001)。虽然特异性最高的测试是 Fumouze IHA，但灵敏度最高的测试是 ELISA 测试。结论是 IHA 和 ELISA 测试在实践中更实用，因为它们具有更大的适用性。