Assessment of the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of an indirect ELISA kit for the diagnosis of Brucella ovis infection in rams

BMC Veterinary Research

Bruno Garin-Bastuji²  Laurence Meyer³  Antoine Drapeau²  Yannick Corde²  Jean-Luc Champion⁴  Anne Praud¹ 

[1] National Veterinary School of Alfort (ENVA) / French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES), USC Epidemiology of Animal Infectious Diseases Unit (Epi-MAI), 94700, Maisons-Alfort, France;ANSES, Animal Health Laboratory, EU/OIE/FAO Brucellosis Reference Laboratory, 94706, Maisons-Alfort, France;INSERM, Centre for research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), U1018, Faculté de Médecine Paris-Sud, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre; AP-HP, Hopital Bicêtre, Epidemiology and Public Health Service, Université Paris-Sud, 94276, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France;Groupement de Défense Sanitaire des Alpes de Haute Provence, 04000, Digne les Bains, France

关键词: Bayesian approach;    Specificity;    Sensitivity;    I-ELISA;    CFT;    Diagnostic tests;    Brucella ovis;   

Others  :  1119819
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-6148-8-68

 received in 2011-09-28, accepted in 2012-05-28,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Brucella ovis causes an infectious disease responsible for infertility and subsequent economic losses in sheep production. The standard serological test to detect B. ovis infection in rams is the complement fixation test (CFT), which has imperfect sensitivity and specificity in addition to technical drawbacks. Other available tests include the indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (I-ELISA) but no I-ELISA kit has been fully evaluated.

The study aimed to compare an I-ELISA kit and the standard CFT. Our study was carried out on serum samples from 4599 rams from the South of France where the disease is enzootic. A Bayesian approach was used to estimate tests characteristics (diagnostic sensitivity, Se and diagnostic specificity, Sp). The tests were then studied together in order to optimise testing strategies to detect B. ovis.

Results

After optimising the cut-off values in order to avoid doubtful results without deteriorating the concordance between the results of the two tests, the I-ELISA appeared to be slightly more sensitive than CFT (Se _I-ELISA = 0.917 [0.822; 0.992], 95% Credibility Interval (CrI) compared to Se _CFT = 0.860 [0.740; 0.967], 95% CrI). However, CFT was slightly more specific than I-ELISA (Sp _CFT = 0.988 [0.947; 1.0], 95% CrI) compared to Sp _I-ELISA =0.952 [0.901; 1.0], 95% CrI).

The tests were then associated with two different interpretation schemes. The series association increased the specificity of screening and could be used for pre-movement testing in rams from uninfected flocks. The parallel association increased sequence sensitivity, thus appearing more suitable for eradicating the disease in infected flocks.

Conclusions

The high sensitivity and acceptable specificity of this I-ELISA kit support its potential interest to avoid the limitations of CFT. The two tests could also be used together or combined with other diagnostic methods such as semen culture to improve the testing strategy. The choice of test sequence and interpretation criteria depends on the epidemiological context, screening objectives and the financial and practical constraints.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Praud et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Grilló M, Marín M, Barberan M, Blasco J: Experimental Brucella ovis infection in pregnant ewes. Vet Rec 1999, 144(20):555.
• [2]Muhammed S, Lauerman L, Mesfin G, Otim C: Duration of Brucella ovis infection in ewes. Cornell Vet 1975, 65(2):221.
• [3]Marco J, Gonzalez L, Cuervo L, de Heredia FB, Barberan M, Marin C, Blasco J: Brucella ovis infection in two flocks of sheep. Vet Rec 1994, 135(11):254-256.
• [4]Afzal M, Kimberling C: How to control Brucella ovis-induced epididymitis in rams. Vet Med 1986, 81(4):364-371.
• [5]Robles C: Evaluación de una tecnica de doble difusion en gel de agar para el diagnostico de la infección por Brucella ovis en carneros. Vet Arg 1998, 15(142):119-124.
• [6]OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health): Ovine epididymitis (Brucella ovis). In Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. OIE, Paris; 2011.
• [7]Lamb Epididymitis. http://www.optimalag.com/cleonscorner/Article002.aspx webcite
• [8]Paolicchi FA, Bartolomé J, Patitucci A, Solanet C, Campero CM: Seguimiento clínico, serológico y bacteriológico en carneros naturalmente infectados con Brucella ovis. Rev Med Vet 1992, 73:46-52.
• [9]Blasco JM: Brucella ovis. In Animal brucellosis. CRCPress, Boca Raton; 1990:351-378.
• [10]Worthington R, Stevenson B, De Lisle G: Serology and semen culture for the diagnosis of Brucella ovis infection in chronically infected rams. N Z Vet J 1985, 33(6):84-86.
• [11]European Union: Council Directive of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals (91/68/EEC) In: 1991L0068- EN- 03092008–012001. 2008, 1-34.
• [12]OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health): Ovine epididymitis (Brucella ovis). In Terrestrial Animal Health Code. OIE, Paris; 2011.
• [13]Searson J: Sensitivity and specificity of two microtitre complement fixation tests for the diagnosis of Brucella ovis infection in rams. Aust Vet J 1982, 58(1):5-7.
• [14]Marin C, de Jimenez Bagues M, Blasco J, Gamazo C, Moriyon I, Diaz R: Comparison of three serological tests for Brucella ovis infection of rams using different antigenic extracts. Vet Rec 1989, 125(20):504.
• [15]Gall D, Nielsen K, Vigliocco A, Smith P, Perez B, Rojas X, Robles C: Evaluation of an indirect enzyme-linked immunoassay for presumptive serodiagnosis of Brucella ovis in sheep. Small Ruminant Research 2003, 48(3):173-179.
• [16]Estein S: Immunological aspects in the diagnosis and control of contagious epididymitis of rams caused by Brucella ovis; Aspectos inmunológicos en el diagnóstico y control de la epididimitis contagiosa del carnero por Brucella ovis. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria (Chile) 1999, 31:5-17.
• [17]Spencer T, Burgess G: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for Brucella ovis specific antibody in ram sera. Res Vet Sci 1984, 36(2):194.
• [18]Nunez-Torres E, Diaz-Aparicio E, Hernandez-Andrade L, Trigo-Tavera F, Suárez-Güemes F: Sensitivity and specificity of an ELISA as a screening test for the diagnosis of Brucella ovis in sheep. Rev Latinoam Microbiol 1997, 39(3–4):123.
• [19]Alvarez J, Veneros R, González O: Validación operacional de un ELISA comercial para Brucella ovis, Chile. Arch med vet 2007, 39(3):275-279.
• [20]AFSSA: Avis de l'Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments sur un protocole de lutte contre l'épididymite contagieuse ovine (Brucella ovis) dans les Pyrénées Atlantiques. 2007-SA-0405; 16 avril 2008 http://www.anses.fr/Documents/SANT2007sa0405.pdf webcite
• [21]Branscum A, Gardner I, Johnson W: Estimation of diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity through Bayesian modeling. Prev Vet Med 2005, 68(2–4):145-163.
• [22]Meyer N, Vinzio S, Goichot B: La statistique bayésienne: une approche des statistiques adaptée la clinique. La Revue de médecine interne 2009, 30(3):242-249.
• [23]Rutjes A, Reitsma J, Coomarasamy A, Khan K, Bossuyt P: Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. Health Technol Assess 2007, 11(50):1-51.
• [24]Gardner IA, Stryhn H, Lind P, Collins MT: Conditional dependence between tests affects the diagnosis and surveillance of animal diseases. Prev Vet Med 2000, 45(1–2):107-122.
• [25]Dendukuri N, Joseph L: Bayesian approaches to modeling the conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometrics 2001, 57(1):158-167.
• [26]Georgiadis MP, Johnson WO, Gardner IA, Singh R: Correlation adjusted estimation of sensitivity and specificity of two diagnostic tests. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 2003, 52(1):63-76.
• [27]Enøe C, Georgiadis MP, Johnson WO: Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests and disease prevalence when the true disease state is unknown. Prev Vet Med 2000, 45(1–2):61-81.
• [28]Johnson WO, Gastwirth JL: Bayesian inference for medical screening tests: approximations useful for the analysis of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological) 1991, 53(2):427-439.
• [29]Cho H, Niilo L: Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the diagnosis of Brucella ovis infection in rams. Can J Vet Res 1987, 51(1):99.
• [30]Kittelberger R, Hansen M, Ross GP, Hilbink F: A sensitive immunoblotting technique for the serodiagnosis of Brucella ovis infections. J Vet Diagn Invest 1994, 6(2):188.
• [31]Ficapal A, Jordana J, Blasco J, Moriyón I: Diagnosis and epidemiology of Brucella ovis infection in rams. Small Ruminant Research 1998, 29(1):13-19.
• [32]Vigliocco AM, Silva Paulo PS, Mestre J, Briones GC, Draghi G, Tossi M, Nielsen K: Development and validation of an indirect enzyme immunoassay for detection of ovine antibody to Brucella ovis. Vet Microbiol 1997, 54(3–4):357-368.
• [33]Cerri D, Ebani V, Pedrini A, Bassi S, Bey R, Andreani E, Farina R: Evaluation of tests employed in serological diagnosis of brucellosis caused by Brucella ovis. New Microbiol 2000, 23(3):281-288.
• [34]Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D: WinBUGS-a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing 2000, 10(4):325-337.
• [35]Weinstein S, Obuchowski NA, Lieber ML: Clinical evaluation of diagnostic tests. Am J Roentgenol 2005, 184(1):14.
• [36]OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health): Principles and methods of validation of diagnostic assays for infectious diseases. In Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. OIE, Paris; 2011.