Rapid Diagnosis of Cholera Caused by
            <i>Vibrio cholerae</i>
            O139

Chaicumpa, Wanpen; Srimanote, Potjanee; Sakolvaree, Yuwaporn; Kalampaheti, Thareerat; Chongsa-nguan, Manas; Tapchaisri, Pramuan; Eampokalap, Boonchuay; Moolasart, Pikul; Nair, G. Balakrish; Echeverria, Peter

doi:10.1128/jcm.36.12.3595-3600.1998

Cited by 26 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in the broader literature covered during the course of this analysis, four larger cohorts were found, each reviewing tests that have not yet to our knowledge become commercialised (hence being excluded from the final analysis) [36] – [38] . The largest investigation by far was a collection of 6,497 hospital patients by Chaicumpa et al in 1998 [39] suggesting that such numbers are not impossible and that current sub-standard sample sizes should not be allowed to become the acceptable norm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Two Decades of Cholera Diagnostics – How Far Have We Really Come?

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCholera, an ancient scourge, continues to inflict high rates of mortality today. The rising incidence of epidemics in areas of poor sanitation and crowding highlight the need for better epidemic prevention and early response. Such interventions require the availability of rapid and accurate diagnostic techniques to trigger timely response and mitigate the scale of the outbreak. The current gold standard of bacterial culture is inadequate for rapid diagnosis, highlighting the overarching neglect of field diagnostic needs. This paper was written to support the World Health Organisation's Global Task Force on Cholera Control mandated Cholera and diarrhoeal disease laboratory Network (CholdiNet) in devising a protocol for the validation of Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) for Vibrio cholerae. The status of diagnostic tools for Vibrio cholerae is assessed, describing products that have been commercialised over the last two decades and discussing their peer-reviewed evaluation.MethodReview of post-1990 peer-reviewed and grey literature on rapid diagnostic tests for Vibrio cholerae.ResultsSince 1990, twenty four diagnostic tests have been developed for the detection of Vibrio cholerae in human faecal samples. Fourteen of these have also been described in the literature, with rapid chromatographic-immuno assays (CIA) featuring strongly. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays maintain the ability to detect the lowest amount of bacteria; however CIAs achieve both low detection thresholds and high sensitivity and specificity, making them possible candidates for use in field conditions. Field and laboratory studies were performed in a wide range of settings demonstrating variability in performance, however only a few of these studies were sufficiently stringent, highlighting five RDTs that showed promise in field conditions; COAT, IP cholera dipstick, SMART, IP dipstick and Medicos. In light of non-independent reporting, the authors would like to see these five products undergoing additional studies, with further technical improvements if needed and commercial production. The authors hope that public health use of such a RDT in limited-resource field conditions on stool samples may contribute to effective reduction in cholera epidemic spread.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Two Decades of Cholera Diagnostics – How Far Have We Really Come?

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of those tests intended for laboratory use, the bead ELISA and dot-blot ELISA were reported in more than one study, although on different samples from the same study groups. The highest sensitivities were found for the Cholera DFA [ 35 ] and dot-blot ELISA [ 27 ]. Chaicumpa 1998 [ 27 ] reported higher sensitivities for the dot-blot ELISA when stool samples were enriched versus directly tested (100% compared to 63%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The highest sensitivities were found for the Cholera DFA [ 35 ] and dot-blot ELISA [ 27 ]. Chaicumpa 1998 [ 27 ] reported higher sensitivities for the dot-blot ELISA when stool samples were enriched versus directly tested (100% compared to 63%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cholera diagnosis in human stool and detection in water: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cholera continues to pose a problem for low-resource, fragile and humanitarian contexts. Evidence suggests that 2.86 million cholera cases and 95,000 deaths due to cholera are reported annually. Without quick and effective diagnosis and treatment, case-fatality may be 50%. In line with the priorities of the Global Task Force on Cholera Control, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy and other test characteristics of current tests for cholera detection in stool and water. Methods We searched 11 bibliographic and grey literature databases. Data was extracted on test sensitivity, specificity and other product information. Meta-analyses of sensitivity and specificity were conducted for tests reported in three or more studies. Where fewer studies reported a test, estimates were summarised through narrative synthesis. Risk of Bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Results Searches identified 6,637 records; 41 studies reporting on 28 tests were included. Twenty-two tests had both sensitivities and specificities reported above 95% by at least one study, but there was, overall, wide variation in reported diagnostic accuracy across studies. For the three tests where meta-analyses were possible the highest sensitivity meta-estimate was found in the Cholera Screen test (98.6%, CI: 94.7%-99.7%) and the highest specificity meta-estimate in the Crystal VC on enriched samples (98.3%, CI: 92.8%-99.6%). There was a general lack of evidence regarding field use of tests, but where presented this indicated trends for lower diagnostic accuracy in field settings, with lesser-trained staff, and without the additional process of sample enrichment. Where reported, mean test turnaround times ranged from over 50% to 130% longer than manufacturer’s specification. Most studies had a low to unclear risk of bias. Conclusions Currently available Rapid Diagnostic Tests can potentially provide high diagnostic and detection capability for cholera. However, stronger evidence is required regarding the conditions required to secure these levels of accuracy in field use, particularly in low-resource settings. Registration PROSPERO (CRD42016048428).

show abstract

“…Иммунодиагностика холеры включает в себя комплекс иммунологических реакций, различающихся по регистрируемому эффекту и технике постановки, основанных на взаимодействии специфических антигенов холерного вибриона и гомологичных антител [3,42]. Иммунологические методы диагностики холеры используются как в рамках бактериологического исследования (ускоренные методы обнаружения возбудителя и идентификации культур) [3,14,42], так и самостоятельно -для индикации холерного вибриона в материале, зараженном этим возбудителем [31,47], и при проведении серологических исследований с целью ретроспективного выявления переболевших и вибриононосителей, а также оценки эффективности вакцинопрофилактики [3,14,20,42,48,55].…”

unclassified

“…Детекция V. cholerae в различных вариантах ИФА основывается на применении полии моноклональных антител к различным антигенам микроорганизма, например, кроличьих иммуноглобулинов к гликопротеину возбудителя холеры [10], белкам внешней мембраны V. cholerae О1 Огава, О1 Инаба и V. cholerae О139 [43], ЛПС V. cholerae О139 [25]. Быстрым и чувствительным способом обнаружения возбудителя в материале от больных представляется дот-ELISA на основе МКА к ЛПС V. cholerae О139, однако в единичных случаях были зафиксированы ложноположительные результаты[31].…”

unclassified