Collaborative Studies for the Detection of Taenia spp. Infections in Humans within CYSTINET, the European Network on Taeniosis/Cysticercosis

Abstract

Laboratory tools for diagnosing taeniosis/cysticercosis in non-endemic countries are available; however, there is little data on their performance. To provide information on the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of these tools, inter-laboratory studies were organized within the EU COST-Action CYSTINET (TD1302). Two serological and one coprological Ring Trials (RTs) were organized to test a panel of human-derived sera and stool samples using assays routinely conducted by the participating laboratories to detect Taenia spp. infections. Four Western blots (WBs) and five ELISAs were used by nine laboratories for cysticercosis diagnosis. In the first serological RT, the overall sensitivity was 67.6% (95% CI, 59.1–75.4), whereas specificity was 97% (95% CI, 89.8–99.6). WBs recorded the best accuracy. A second serological RT was organized, to assess the three tests most frequently used during the first RT. Two out of six laboratories performed all the three tests. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 52.8% (95% CI, 42.8–62.7) and 98.1% (95% CI, 93.2–99.7), respectively. Laboratory performance strongly affected test results. Twelve laboratories participated in the coprological RT using conventional microscopy and six laboratories used molecular assays. Traditional diagnosis by microscopy yielded better results than molecular diagnosis. This may have been influenced by the lack of standardization of molecular tests across participating laboratories.

Taenia martis Neurocysticercosis-Like Lesion in Child, Associated with Local Source, the Netherlands

“…Initially, a brain tumor of undefined origin was proposed, but a second viewing suggested neurocysticercosis. Results of serologic testing of 2 samples collected 3 weeks apart, tested for T. solium tapeworms via a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention immunoblot recombinant antigen (rT24H antigen and LLGP) ( 8 , 9 ), were, however, negative.…”