Publication: Selection of Diagnostic Cutoffs for Murine Typhus IgM and IgG Immunofluorescence Assay: A Systematic Review
Issued Date
2020-07-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14761645
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85087871916
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene. Vol.103, No.1 (2020), 55-63
Suggested Citation
Sandhya Dhawan, Matthew T. Robinson, John Stenos, Stephen R. Graves, Tri Wangrangsimakul, Paul N. Newton, Nicholas P.J. Day, Stuart D. Blacksell Selection of Diagnostic Cutoffs for Murine Typhus IgM and IgG Immunofluorescence Assay: A Systematic Review. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene. Vol.103, No.1 (2020), 55-63. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.19-0818 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/57955
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Selection of Diagnostic Cutoffs for Murine Typhus IgM and IgG Immunofluorescence Assay: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Murine typhus is a neglected but widespread infectious disease that results in acute fever. The immunofluorescence assay (IFA) is the "gold standard" to identify IgM or IgG antibodies, although there is a lack of standardization in methodologies. The objective of this review is to summarize 1) the differences in published methodologies, 2) the diagnostic cutoff titers, and 3) the justification of diagnostic cutoffs. Searches were performed by combining the following search terms: "murine typhus," "rickettsia typhi," "immunofluorescence," "IFA," and "serologic" with restrictions (i.e., "rickettsia typhi" or "murine typhus," and "IFA" or "immunofluorescence," or "serologic*"). The search identified 78 studies that used IFA or immunoperoxidase assay (IIP) antibody cutoffs to diagnose murine typhus, 39 of which were case series. Overall, 45 studies (57.7%) provided little to no rationale as to how the cutoff was derived. Variation was seen locally in the cutoff titers used, but a 4-fold or greater increase was often applied. The cutoffs varied depending on the antibody target. No consensus was observed in establishing a cutoff, or for a single-value diagnostic cutoff. In conclusion, there is a lack of consensus in the establishment of a single-value cutoff. Further studies will need to be executed at each distinct geographic location to identify region-specific cutoffs, while also considering background antibody levels to distinguish between healthy and infected patients.