Comparative Evaluation of Tubex TF (Inhibition Magnetic Binding Immunoassay) for Typhoid Fever in Endemic Area

Hematology Parameter Based on Tubex TF® Color Scale Result in Typhoid Fever Patients

BACKGROUND: Infection with Salmonella enterica subspecies serovar Typhi and Paratyphi A, B, and C causes typhoid and paratyphoid fever. This is a major source of mortality and morbidity, especially in youngsters. Typhoid fever frequently causes non-specific symptoms. Symptoms that appear obstructively are comparable to those seen in other infectious illnesses and have similar clinical manifestations. Complications can be avoided with early detection and treatment. AIM: This study will look at the hematology parameter profile to determine whether there are any hematological differences between patients with high and low antibodies. METHODS: The research was conducted in Bengkulu, Indonesia, in June 2020 until July 2021. Subject collection was done according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subjects have given informed consent. The research included a total of 39 subject patients. Demographic data were collected using a questionnaire and 3 mL of blood was taken. Blood was examined for Tubex TF® and hematological examination. Statistical analysis used independent t-test and performed with SPSS. RESULTS: The research included a total of 39 subject patients. Most were male and most were aged 21–25 years. The most common symptom felt by the subject was gastrointestinal complaints. The analysis was carried out based on the color scale value of the Tubex TF® which was divided into two groups, 4 color scale groups and 6 color scale groups. Hematological parameters of hemoglobin, hematocrit, WBC, platelets, monocytes, lymphocytes, and neutrophils showed no significant difference. However, color scale group 6 showed lower value than 4 color scale group. CONCLUSION: Hematological indicators in typhoid fever were not substantially changed in Tubex TF®-positive typhoid fever patients. Clinicians can offer the same therapy in instances with typhoid fever, despite having differing positive Tubex TF® scores.

Achieving accurate laboratory diagnosis of typhoid fever: a review and meta-analysis of TUBEX® TF clinical performance

This review discusses currently available serological diagnostic methods for typhoid fever with a focus on the clinical utility of TUBEX® TF as an alternative to the Widal or Typhidot test. A literature search was conducted in PubMed for related publications written in English. A qualitative analysis was done to determine various serological tests used for typhoid fever diagnosis with emphasis on TUBEX® TF in comparison to the Widal of Typhidot test. Further, a meta-analysis was performed to obtain a pooled estimate of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) using different analysis models. A total of sixteen studies was included in the qualitative analysis. Further screening of these studies yielded ten studies that were used for the meta-analysis. The sensitivity/specificity range of different commonly used serological tests in typhoid patients is between 55-100%/58-100% for TUBEX® TF, 54-67%/54-95% for Typhidot, and 32-95%/4-98% for the Widal test. As for the pooled meta-analysis estimates, the TUBEX® TF showed superior results when differentiating individuals with febrile illness of unknown origin from those with typhoid fever. Overall, the results of this review and meta-analysis suggest that the TUBEX® TF is more advantageous to use as a serological test for typhoid fever diagnosis due its accuracy and simplicity. However, further studies are still needed to validate our results.

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.