Search

Background: Cholera remains a substantial health burden in Asia and Africa particularly in resource poor settings. The standard procedures to identify the etiological organism V. cholerae are isolation from microbiological culture from stool as well as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Both the processes are highly lab oriented, labor extensive, time consuming, and expensive. In an effort to control for outbreaks and epidemics; an effective, convenient, quick and relatively less expensive detection method is imperative, without compromising the sensitivity and specificity that exists at present. The objective of this component of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a locally produced rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for cholera diagnosis. Methods: In Bangladesh, nationwide cholera surveillance is ongoing in 22 hospitals covering all 8 divisions of the country since June, 2016. In the surveillance, stool samples have been collected from patients presenting to hospitals with acute watery diarrhea. Crystal VCTM (Span diagnostics, India) and Cholkit (locally produced RDT) have been used to detect V. cholerae from stool samples. Samples have also been sent to the main laboratory at icddr,b where the culture based isolation is routinely performed. All the tests were carried out for both direct and enriched stool samples. RDT sensitivity and specificity were calculated using stool culture as the gold standard. Results: A total of 7720 samples were tested. Among these, 5865 samples were solely tested with Crystal VC and 1355 samples with Cholkit whereas 381 samples were tested with both the RDTs. In comparison with culture, direct testing with Crystal VC showed a sensitivity of 72% (95% CI: 50.6% to 87.9%) and specificity of 86.8% (95% CI: 82.8% to 90.1%). After enrichment the sensitivity and specificity was 68% (95% CI: 46.5% to 85.1%) and 97.5% (95% CI: 95.3% to 98.8%) respectively. The direct Cholkit test showed sensitivity of 76% (95% CI: 54.9% to 90.6%) and specificity of 90.2% (95% CI: 86.6% to 93.1%). Conclusion: This evaluation has demonstrated that the sensitivity and specificity of Cholkit is similar to the commercially available test, Crystal VC when used in field settings for detecting V. cholerae from stool specimens. The findings from this study suggest that the Cholkit could be a possible alternative for cholera endemic regions where V. cholerae O1 is the major causative organism causing cholera. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recognizing cholera cases early, especially in the initial phase of an outbreak and in areas where cholera has not previously circulated, is a high public health priority. Laboratory capacity in such settings is often limited. To address this, we have developed a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) termed Cholkit that is based on an immunochromatographic lateral flow assay for the diagnosis of cholera cases using stool. Cholkit contains a monoclonal antibody (ICL-33) to the O-specific polysaccharide (OSP) component of V. cholerae O1 lipopolysaccharide, and recognizes both Inaba and Ogawa serotypes. We tested the Cholkit dipstick using fresh stool specimens of 76 adults and children presenting with acute watery diarrhea at the icddr,b hospital in Dhaka, Bangladesh. We compared Cholkit’s performance with those of microbial culture, PCR (targeting the rfb and ctxA genes of V. cholerae) and the commercially available RDT, Crystal VC (Span Diagnostics; Surat, India). We found that all stool specimens with a positive culture for V. cholerae O1 (n = 19) were positive by Cholkit as well as Crystal VC. We then used Bayesian latent class modeling to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic assay. The sensitivity of Cholkit, microbiological culture, PCR and Crystal VC was 98% (95% CI: 88–100), 71% (95% CI: 59–81), 74% (95% CI: 59–86) and 98% (95% CI: 88–100), respectively. The specificity for V. cholerae O1 was 97% (95% CI: 89–100), 100%, 97% (95% CI: 93–99) and 98% (95% CI: 92–100), respectively. Of note, two Crystal VC dipsticks were positive for V. cholerae O139 but negative by culture and PCR in this area without known circulating epidemic V. cholerae O139. In conclusion, the Cholkit dipstick is simple to use, requires no dedicated laboratory capacity, and has a sensitivity and specificity for V. cholerae O1 of 98% and 97%, respectively. Cholkit warrants further evaluation in other settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aimed to examine for the first time the spectra of viral and bacterial pathogens along with the antibiotic susceptibility of the isolated bacteria in under-5 children with acute respiratory infections (ARIs) in hospital settings of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Nasal swabs were collected from 200 under-five children hospitalized with clinical signs of ARIs. Nasal swabs from 30 asymptomatic children were also collected. Screening of viral pathogens targeted ten respiratory viruses using RT-qPCR. Bacterial pathogens were identified by bacteriological culture methods and antimicrobial susceptibility of the isolates was determined following CLSI guidelines. About 82.5% (n = 165) of specimens were positive for pathogens. Of 165 infected cases, 3% (n = 6) had only single bacterial pathogens, whereas 43.5% (n = 87) cases had only single viral pathogens. The remaining 36% (n = 72) cases had coinfections. In symptomatic cases, human rhinovirus was detected as the predominant virus (31.5%), followed by RSV (31%), HMPV (13%), HBoV (11%), HPIV-3 (10.5%), and adenovirus (7%). Streptococcus pneumoniae was the most frequently isolated bacterial pathogen (9%), whereas Klebsiella pneumaniae, Streptococcus spp., Enterobacter agglomerans, and Haemophilus influenzae were 5.5%, 5%, 2%, and 1.5%, respectively. Of 15 multidrug-resistant bacteria, a Klebsiella pneumoniae isolate and an Enterobacter agglomerans isolate exhibited resistance against more than 10 different antibiotics. Both ARI incidence and predominant pathogen detection rates were higher during post-monsoon and winter, peaking in September. Pathogen detection rates and coinfection incidence in less than 1-year group were significantly higher (P = 0.0034 and 0.049, respectively) than in 1–5 years age group. Pathogen detection rate (43%) in asymptomatic cases was significantly lower compared to symptomatic group (P<0.0001). Human rhinovirus, HPIV-3, adenovirus, Streptococcus pneumonia, and Klebsiella pneumaniae had significant involvement in coinfections with P values of 0.0001, 0.009 and 0.0001, 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. Further investigations are required to better understand the clinical roles of the isolated pathogens and their seasonality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is an urgent need for an improved diagnostic assay for typhoid fever. In this current study, we compared the recently developed TPTest (Typhoid and Paratyphoid Test) with the Widal test, blood culture, and two commonly used commercially available kits, Tubex and Typhidot. Methodology: For analysis, we categorized 92 Bangladeshi patients with suspected enteric fever into four groups: S. Typhi bacteremic patients (n = 28); patients with a fourfold change in Widal test from day 0 to convalescent period (n = 7); patients with Widal titer ≥1:320 (n = 13) at either acute or convalescent stage of disease; and patients suspected with enteric fever, but with a negative blood culture and Widal titer (n = 44). We also tested healthy endemic zone controls (n = 20) and Bangladeshi patients with other febrile illnesses (n = 15). Sample size was based on convenience to facilitate preliminary analysis. Principle findings: Of 28 S. Typhi bacteremic patients, 28 (100%), 21 (75%) and 18 (64%) patients were positive by TPTest, Tubex and Typhidot, respectively. In healthy endemic zone controls, the TPTest method was negative in all, whereas Tubex and Typhidot were positive in 3 (15%) and 5 (25%), respectively. We then estimated sensitivity and specificity of all diagnostic tests using Bayesian latent class modeling. The sensitivity of TPTest, Tubex and Typhidot were estimated at 96.0% (95% CI: 87.1%-99.8%), 60.2% (95% CI: 49.3%-71.2%), and 59.6% (95% CI: 50.1%-69.3%), respectively. Specificity was estimated at 96.6% (90.7%-99.2%) for TPTest, 89.9% (79.6%-96.8%) for Tubex, and 80.0% (67.7%-89.7%) for Typhidot. Conclusion: These results suggest that the TPTest is highly sensitive and specific in diagnosing individuals with typhoid fever in a typhoid endemic setting, outperforming currently available and commonly used alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]