Limitations of typhoid fever diagnostics and the need for prevention

Bifunctionalized nanobioprobe based rapid color-shift assay for typhoid targeting Vi capsular polysaccharide

Typhoid fever is an acute illness caused by Salmonella Typhi and the current diagnostic gap leads to inaccurate, over-diagnosis of typhoid leading to excessive use of antibiotics. Herein, to address the challenges we describe a new rapid color-shift assay based on a novel bifunctional nanobioprobe (Vi-AgNP probe) that is functionalized with specific biomarker Vi polysaccharide and also has the co-presence of Ag as urease inhibitor. The immunoreactions between the Vi with specific antibodies (Abs) present in typhoid patient sample forms a shielding barrier over Vi-AgNP probe rendering the urease to be active, generating colored output. Vi polysaccharide coating on the AgNP was visualized using HRTEM. TEM was performed to get insight into shielding barrier formation by the Abs. MST (microscale thermophoresis) data showed less binding Kd of 7.43 μM in presence of Abs whereas probe with urease showed efficient binding with Kd 437 nM. The assay was validated using 53 human sera samples and proven effective with 100% sensitivity. The assay showed relative standard deviation (RSD) of 4.3% estimated using rabbit anti-Vi Abs. The entire procedure could be completed within 15 min. Unlike lateral flow based assays, our assay does not require multiple combination of Abs for detection. The assay format was also found compatible in paper strip test that provides promising opportunities to develop low-cost on-spot assay for clinical diagnostics.

Serodiagnostic evaluation of recombinant CdtB of S. Typhi as a potential candidate for acute typhoid

Typhoid fever caused by human restricted Salmonella typhi presents a considerable health burden on developing South-Asian nations like India. The suboptimal sensitivity and specificity associated with culture-based isolation of etiological agent and the extensively used surface antigen-based serological assays often lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate antimicrobial treatment. The increasing reports of the emergence of resistant strains and undefined disease burden signify the critical need for an inexpensive, reliable, easy-to-use, and highly sensitive diagnostic test for typhoid fever. Utilizing S. typhi-specific and immunogenic antigens in sero-diagnostic assays could lead to precise diagnosis of acute typhoid and prompt treatment. In this study, we report cloning, expression, and purification of recombinant Cytolethal distending toxin subunit B (CdtB) of S. typhi, which is reported to be highly specific, immunogenic, and expressed only upon S. typhi infection. We further evaluated the purified recombinant CdtB for its diagnostic potential in an IgM-based indirect ELISA format using 33 human samples. Twenty-one serum samples from blood culture confirmed cases (n = 21) of typhoid and 12 samples from healthy controls (n = 12) were tested. The assay showed sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 83.3% respectively with positive and negative predictive values of 91.3 and 100% respectively. Efficient detection of specific IgM antibodies indicates that CdtB could be highly valuable in sero-diagnosis of acute typhoid and rapid screening of clinical samples.

Rapid diagnostic tests for typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric) fever

BACKGROUND

Differentiating both typhoid (Salmonella Typhi) and paratyphoid (Salmonella Paratyphi A) infection from other causes of fever in endemic areas is a diagnostic challenge. Although commercial point-of-care rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for enteric fever are available as alternatives to the current reference standard test of blood or bone marrow culture, or to the widely used Widal Test, their diagnostic accuracy is unclear. If accurate, they could potentially replace blood culture as the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended main diagnostic test for enteric fever.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of commercially available rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and prototypes for detecting Salmonella Typhi or Paratyphi A infection in symptomatic persons living in endemic areas.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, IndMED, African Index Medicus, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 4 March 2016. We manually searched WHO reports, and papers from international conferences on Salmonella infections. We also contacted test manufacturers to identify studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies of enteric fever RDTs in patients with fever or with symptoms suggestive of enteric fever living in endemic areas. We classified the reference standard used as either Grade 1 (result from a blood culture and a bone marrow culture) or Grade 2 (result from blood culture and blood polymerase chain reaction, or from blood culture alone).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the test result data. We used a modified QUADAS-2 extraction form to assess methodological quality. We performed a meta-analysis when there were sufficient studies for the test and heterogeneity was reasonable.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria and included a total of 5080 participants (range 50 to 1732). Enteric fever prevalence rates in the study populations ranged from 1% to 75% (median prevalence 24%, interquartile range (IQR) 11% to 46%). The included studies evaluated 16 different RDTs, and 16 studies compared two or more different RDTs. Only three studies used the Grade 1 reference standard, and only 11 studies recruited unselected febrile patients. Most included studies were from Asia, with five studies from sub-Saharan Africa. All of the RDTs were designed to detect S.Typhi infection only.Most studies evaluated three RDTs and their variants: TUBEX in 14 studies; Typhidot (Typhidot, Typhidot-M, and TyphiRapid-Tr02) in 22 studies; and the Test-It Typhoid immunochromatographic lateral flow assay, and its earlier prototypes (dipstick, latex agglutination) developed by the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam (KIT) in nine studies. Meta-analyses showed an average sensitivity of 78% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71% to 85%) and specificity of 87% (95% CI 82% to 91%) for TUBEX; and an average sensitivity of 69% (95% CI 59% to 78%) and specificity of 90% (95% CI 78% to 93%) for all Test-It Typhoid and prototype tests (KIT). Across all forms of the Typhidot test, the average sensitivity was 84% (95% CI 73% to 91%) and specificity was 79% (95% CI 70% to 87%). When we based the analysis on the 13 studies of the Typhidot test that either reported indeterminate test results or where the test format means there are no indeterminate results, the average sensitivity was 78% (95% CI 65% to 87%) and specificity was 77% (95% CI 66% to 86%). We did not identify any difference in either sensitivity or specificity between TUBEX, Typhidot, and Test-it Typhoid tests when based on comparison to the 13 Typhidot studies where indeterminate results are either reported or not applicable. If TUBEX and Test-it Typhoid are compared to all Typhidot studies, the sensitivity of Typhidot was higher than Test-it Typhoid (15% (95% CI 2% to 28%), but other comparisons did not show a difference at the 95% level of CIs.In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients presenting with fever where 30% (300 patients) have enteric fever, on average Typhidot tests reporting indeterminate results or where tests do not produce indeterminate results will miss the diagnosis in 66 patients with enteric fever, TUBEX will miss 66, and Test-It Typhoid and prototype (KIT) tests will miss 93. In the 700 people without enteric fever, the number of people incorrectly diagnosed with enteric fever would be 161 with Typhidot tests, 91 with TUBEX, and 70 with Test-It Typhoid and prototype (KIT) tests. The CIs around these estimates were wide, with no difference in false positive results shown between tests.The quality of the data for each study was evaluated using a standardized checklist called QUADAS-2. Overall, the certainty of the evidence in the studies that evaluated enteric fever RDTs was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In 37 studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for enteric fever, few studies were at a low risk of bias. The three main RDT tests and variants had moderate diagnostic accuracy. There was no evidence of a difference between the average sensitivity and specificity of the three main RDT tests. More robust evaluations of alternative RDTs for enteric fever are needed.