METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients presenting with ocular inflammation to the Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia between 2005 and 2009 was undertaken. Visual acuity, clinical manifestations at presentation, toxoplasmosis antibody testing, and treatment records were analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 130 patients with ocular inflammation were reviewed retrospectively. The patients had a mean age of 38.41 (standard deviation 19.24, range 6-83) years. Seventy-one patients (54.6%) were found to be seropositive, of whom five (3.8%) were both IgG and IgM positive (suggestive of recently acquired ocular toxoplasmosis) while one (0.8%) showed IgG avidity ≤40% (suggestive of recently acquired ocular toxoplasmosis) and 65 patients (50.0%) showed IgG avidity >40% (suggestive of reactivation of toxoplasmosis infection). Chorioretinal scarring as an ocular manifestation was significantly more common in patients with seropositive toxoplasmosis (P = 0.036). Eighteen patients (13.8%) were diagnosed as having recent and/or active ocular toxoplasmosis based on clinical manifestations and serological testing.
CONCLUSION: Ocular toxoplasmosis is a clinical diagnosis, but specific toxoplasmosis antibody testing helps to support the diagnosis and to differentiate between reactivation of infection and recently acquired ocular toxoplasmosis.
METHODS: The test device was assembled with purified 31-kDa glycoprotein as diagnostic antigen and with gold-labelled anti-human immunoglublin-G as the detector reagent. A total of 97 serum samples were tested - 19 samples from clinically diagnosed patients with detectable A. cantonensis-specific antibody in immunoblotting; 43 samples from patients with other parasitic diseases, i.e. gnathostomiasis (n=13), toxocariasis (n=2), trichinellosis (n=2), hookworm infection (n=4), filariasis (n=5), cysticercosis (n=9), paragonimiasis (n=2), opisthorchiasis (n=3), and malaria (n=3); and 35 samples from normal healthy subjects.
RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of AcQuickDx Test to detect anti-A. cantonensis specific antibodies in serologically confirmed angiostrongyliasis cases, were 100%, 98.72%, 95% and 100%, respectively. Positive AcQuickDx was observed in 1 of 4 cases with hookworm infections. No positive AcQuickDx was observed in cases with other parasitic diseases, and the individual healthy subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: AcQuickDx Test is rapid, highly sensitive and specific, and easy to perform without additional equipment or ancillary supplies. It yields results that are interpreted visually, and possesses a long shelf-life at room temperature. Thus, it can be applied as an additional test for clinical diagnostic support of angiostrongyliasis either in conventional laboratories or for remote areas where laboratory infrastructure is not available.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of multiple reports and kit inserts on the diagnostic performance of rapid tests from various manufacturers that are commercially available were performed. Only preliminary data are available currently.
RESULTS: From a total of nine rapid detection test (RDT) kits, three kits offer total antibody detection, while six kits offer combination SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection in two separate test lines. All kits are based on colloidal gold-labeled immunochromatography principle and one-step method with results obtained within 15 minutes, using whole blood, serum or plasma samples. The sensitivity for both IgM and IgG tests ranges between 72.7% and 100%, while specificity ranges between 98.7% to 100%. Two immunochromatography using nasopharyngeal or throat swab for detection of COVID-19 specific antigen are also reviewed.
CONCLUSIONS: There is much to determine regarding the value of serological testing in COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring. More comprehensive evaluations of their performance are rapidly underway. The use of serology methods requires appropriate interpretations of the results and understanding the strengths and limitations of such tests.