-
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jun 2020We conducted a systematic review of relevant syphilis diagnostic literature to address the question, "What is the sensitivity and specificity of the treponemal tests...
We conducted a systematic review of relevant syphilis diagnostic literature to address the question, "What is the sensitivity and specificity of the treponemal tests currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the diagnosis of syphilis (by stage)?" There were 16 treponemal assays evaluated: 13 immunoassays and 3 manual assays (fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed test [FTA-ABS], microhemagglutination assay for Treponema pallidum antibodies [MHA-TP], Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay [TP-PA]). MHA-TP and FTA-ABS were less sensitive in primary and secondary syphilis than TP-PA; TP-PA is the most specific manual treponemal assay. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one particular treponemal immunoassay (eg, enzyme immunoassays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, microbead immunoassays) over another based on published performance data. For diagnosis of neurosyphilis, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) TP-PA has similar performance to CSF FTA-ABS in studies with patients with definitive or presumptive neurosyphilis. However, CSF treponemal testing has limitations in its sensitivity and specificity and should be interpreted within the context of the clinical scenario, additional CSF test results and syphilis prevalence.
Topics: Antibodies, Bacterial; Humans; Neurosyphilis; Sensitivity and Specificity; Syphilis; Syphilis Serodiagnosis; Treponema pallidum
PubMed: 32578866
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa349 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jan 2022Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) is an opportunistic infection commonly affecting immunocompromised people. Diagnosis usually requires invasive techniques to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) is an opportunistic infection commonly affecting immunocompromised people. Diagnosis usually requires invasive techniques to obtain respiratory specimens. Minimally invasive detection tests have been proposed, but their operating characteristics are poorly described.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review and meta-analyse the performance of minimally invasive PCP detection tests to inform diagnostic algorithms.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library (inception to 15 October 2020).
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies of minimally invasive PCP detection tests were included if they contained a minimum of ten PCP cases.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults at risk of PCP.
TESTS
Non-invasive PCP detection tests.
REFERENCE STANDARD
Diagnosis using the combination of clinical and radiographical features with invasive sampling.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK BIAS
Using the QUADAS-2 tool.
METHODS
We used bivariate and, when necessary, univariate analysis models to estimate diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity.
RESULTS
Fifty-two studies were included; most studies (40) comprised exclusively human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) -infected individuals; nine were mixed (HIV and non-HIV), two were non-HIV and one study did not report HIV status. Sampling sites included induced sputum, nasopharyngeal aspirate, oral wash and blood. The four testing modalities evaluated were cytological staining, fluorescent antibody, PCR and lactate dehydrogenase. Induced sputum had the most data available; this modality was both highly sensitive at 99% (95% CI 51%-100%) and specific at 96% (95% CI 88%-99%). Induced sputum cytological staining had moderate sensitivity at 50% (95% CI 39%-61%) and high specificity at 100% (95% CI 100%-100%), as did fluorescent antibody testing with sensitivity 74% (95% CI 62%-87%) and specificity 100% (95% CI 91%-100%).
CONCLUSION
There are several promising minimally invasive PCP diagnostic tests available, some of which may reduce the need for invasive respiratory sampling. Understanding the operating characteristics of these tests can augment current diagnostic strategies and help establish a more confident clinical diagnosis of PCP. Further studies in non-HIV infected populations are needed.
Topics: Adult; HIV Infections; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Pneumocystis carinii; Pneumonia, Pneumocystis; Sensitivity and Specificity; Sputum
PubMed: 34464734
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.08.017 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are antibodies with two binding sites directed at two different antigens or two different epitopes on the same antigen. The clinical...
Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are antibodies with two binding sites directed at two different antigens or two different epitopes on the same antigen. The clinical therapeutic effects of BsAbs are superior to those of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs), with broad applications for tumor immunotherapy as well as for the treatment of other diseases. Recently, with progress in antibody or protein engineering and recombinant DNA technology, various platforms for generating different types of BsAbs based on novel strategies, for various uses, have been established. More than 30 mature commercial technology platforms have been used to create and develop BsAbs based on the heterologous recombination of heavy chains and matching of light chains. The detailed mechanisms of clinical/therapeutic action have been demonstrated with these different types of BsAbs. Three kinds of BsAbs have received market approval, and more than 110 types of BsAbs are at various stages of clinical trials. In this paper, we elaborate on the classic platforms, mechanisms, and applications of BsAbs. We hope that this review can stimulate new ideas for the development of BsAbs and improve current clinical strategies.
Topics: Animals; Antibodies, Bispecific; Antibody Specificity; Binding Sites, Antibody; Biotechnology; Drug Design; Epitopes; Humans; Immunotherapy; Protein Engineering; Recombinant Proteins; Translational Research, Biomedical
PubMed: 34025638
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.626616 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.
SEARCH METHODS
The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Antibodies, Viral; Immunoglobulin G; COVID-19 Vaccines; Pandemics; Seroepidemiologic Studies; Immunoglobulin M
PubMed: 36394900
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013652.pub2 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Jan 2021The testing of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) takes an important place in the diagnostic workup to ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). Nowadays, it is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The testing of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) takes an important place in the diagnostic workup to ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). Nowadays, it is recommended to screen for the presence of PR3 and MPO specific antibodies first using immunoassay, without the need for ANCA measurement by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF). A literature search was performed to assess the diagnostic test value of ANCA IIF and PR3- and MPO-antibody immunoassay to diagnose AAV. This meta-analysis shows that the c-ANCA testing by IIF has a pooled sensitivity of 75.2% and a pooled specificity of 98.4%. For PR3-antibody immunoassay, the pooled sensitivity depended on the immunoassay method used, and ranged from 79.8% to 86.6%, whereas the pooled specificity ranged from 96.8% to 98.3%. For both p-ANCA IIF and MPO-antibody immunoassay (all methods) sensitivity varied considerably showing pooled values of respectively 46.3% and 58.1%, whereas respective pooled specificity was 91.4% and 95.6%. These findings support the 2017 international consensus that primary anti-PR3 and anti-MPO screening by immunoassay, based on superior immunoassay sensitivity without the need for IIF ANCA testing, improves the diagnostic workup of AAV.
Topics: Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis; Antibodies, Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect; Humans; Immunoassay; Myeloblastin; Peroxidase
PubMed: 33197574
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102716 -
The Journal of Infectious Diseases Nov 2023Adding additional specimen types (eg, serology or sputum) to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) increases respiratory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adding additional specimen types (eg, serology or sputum) to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) increases respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) detection among adults. We assessed if a similar increase occurs in children and quantified underascertainment associated with diagnostic testing.
METHODS
We searched databases for studies involving RSV detection in persons <18 years using ≥2 specimen types or tests. We assessed study quality using a validated checklist. We pooled detection rates by specimen and diagnostic tests and quantified performance.
RESULTS
We included 157 studies. Added testing of additional specimens to NP aspirate (NPA), NPS, and/or nasal swab (NS) RT-PCR resulted in statistically nonsignificant increases in RSV detection. Adding paired serology testing increased RSV detection by 10%, NS by 8%, oropharyngeal swabs by 5%, and NPS by 1%. Compared to RT-PCR, direct fluorescence antibody tests, viral culture, and rapid antigen tests were 87%, 76%, and 74% sensitive, respectively (pooled specificities all ≥98%). Pooled sensitivity of multiplex versus singleplex RT-PCR was 96%.
CONCLUSIONS
RT-PCR was the most sensitive pediatric RSV diagnostic test. Adding multiple specimens did not substantially increase RSV detection, but even small proportional increases could result in meaningful changes in burden estimates. The synergistic effect of adding multiple specimens should be evaluated.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections; Sensitivity and Specificity; Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human; Viruses; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Nasopharynx; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
PubMed: 37285396
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiad185 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Sep 2021Appropriate laboratory diagnostics for emerging arboviruses are key for patient management, surveillance and intervention, including molecular tests and serological...
BACKGROUND
Appropriate laboratory diagnostics for emerging arboviruses are key for patient management, surveillance and intervention, including molecular tests and serological tests detecting viral antigen or virus-specific antibodies.
OBJECTIVES
We provide an overview of the challenges towards serological testing for the most important emerging arboviruses, including Zika, dengue and chikungunya viruses.
SOURCES
We retrieved a data set on performance of commercially available antibody- and antigen-detecting tests from 89 peer-reviewed articles conducting a systematic literature research in PubMed.
CONTENT
We identified commonly used antibody- and antigen-detecting tests and analysed their overall performance. We discuss how timing of serological testing and the use of paired samples from acute and convalescent phases of infection are crucial to optimize diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. We then exemplify how serological diagnostics are challenged by the patient's infection history through the 'original antigenic sin' and cross-reactive antibodies in the context of global co-circulation of antigenically related viruses. We highlight how individual infection histories with different arboviruses and with other pathogens such as herpes viruses and Plasmodia can produce inaccurate test results. We show that rapid tests for antibody and antigen detection in point-of-care settings have a significantly lower sensitivity compared with laboratory-based tests such as ELISA. We show that the performance of antibody- and antigen-detecting tests varies greatly between tropical regions of endemic transmission and non-endemic regions. Finally, we highlight that test sensitivity and specificity have to be equilibrated carefully and frequently either of them must be prioritized over the other, depending on disease prevalence and intended use of tests.
IMPLICATIONS
For reliable serological diagnostics, it is essential to be aware of inherent test limitations. Although multiplexed testing and testing of convalescence samples can improve diagnostic performance, global spread of (re-)emerging viruses requires careful implementation and evaluation of serological testing and unambiguous results may not always be achievable.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Antigens, Viral; Arbovirus Infections; Arboviruses; Humans; Sensitivity and Specificity; Serologic Tests
PubMed: 34111589
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.05.047 -
Archives of Medical Science : AMS 2022The rapid transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires a fast, accurate, and affordable detection method. Despite doubts of their diagnostic accuracy,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The rapid transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires a fast, accurate, and affordable detection method. Despite doubts of their diagnostic accuracy, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are used worldwide due to their practicality. This systematic review aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based RDTs in detecting COVID-19.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A literature search was carried out on five journal databases using the PRISMA-P 2015 method. We included all studies published up to February 2021. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. Data regarding peer-review status, study design, test kit information, immunoglobulin class, target antigen, and the number of samples were extracted and tabulated. We estimated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with a 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies met the eligibility criteria. The pooled data results showed that the combined detection method of IgM or IgG had the highest sensitivity and NPV, which were 73.41% (95% CI: 72.22-74.57) and 75.34% (95% CI: 74.51-76.16), respectively. The single IgG detection method had the highest specificity and PPV of 96.68% (95% CI: 96.25-97.07) and 95.97% (95% CI: 95.47-96.42%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Antibody-based RDTs are not satisfactory as primary diagnostic tests but have utility as a screening tool.
PubMed: 35832707
DOI: 10.5114/aoms/135910 -
International Journal of Environmental... May 2023(1) Background: Immunological laboratory testing is known to be complex, and it is usually performed in tertiary referral centers. Many criticalities affect diagnostic... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Immunological laboratory testing is known to be complex, and it is usually performed in tertiary referral centers. Many criticalities affect diagnostic immunological testing, such as limited availability, the need for specifically trained laboratory staff, and potential difficulties in collecting blood samples, especially in the most vulnerable patients, i.e., the elderly and children. For this reason, the identification of a new feasible and reliable methodology for autoantibody detection is urgently needed. (2) Methods: We designed a systematic review to investigate the available literature on the utilization of saliva samples for immunological testing. (3) Results: A total of 170 articles were identified. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, accounting for 1059 patients and 671 controls. The saliva collection method was mostly represented by passive drooling (11/18, 61%), and the most frequently described methodology for antibody detection was ELISA (12/18, 67%). The analysis included 392 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 161 with systemic lupus erythematosus, 131 with type 1 diabetes mellitus, 116 with primary biliary cholangitis, 100 with pemphigus vulgaris, 50 with bullous pemphigoids, 49 with Sjogren syndrome, 39 with celiac disease, 10 with primary antiphospholipid syndromes, 8 with undifferentiated connective tissue disease, 2 with systemic sclerosis, and 1 with autoimmune thyroiditis. The majority of the reviewed studies involved adequate controls, and saliva testing allowed for a clear distinction of patients (10/12 studies, 83%). More than half of the papers showed a correlation between saliva and serum results (10/18, 55%) for autoantibody detection, with varying rates of correlation, sensitivity, and specificity. Interestingly, many papers showed a correlation between saliva antibody results and clinical manifestations. (4) Conclusions: Saliva testing might represent an appealing alternative to serum-based testing for autoantibody detection, considering the correspondence with serum testing results and the correlation with clinical manifestations. Nonetheless, standardization of sample collection processing, maintenance, and detection methodology has yet to be fully addressed.
Topics: Child; Humans; Aged; Saliva; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Sjogren's Syndrome; Autoantibodies; Arthritis, Rheumatoid
PubMed: 37239511
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20105782 -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2022Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to...
BACKGROUND
Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to have a diagnosis. Untreated coeliac disease may lead to malnutrition, anaemia, osteoporosis and lymphoma.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives were to define at-risk groups and determine the cost-effectiveness of active case-finding strategies in primary care.
DESIGN
(1) Systematic review of the accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease. (2) Routine data analysis to develop prediction models for identification of people who may benefit from testing for coeliac disease. (3) Systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease. (4) Systematic review of the accuracy of genetic tests for coeliac disease (literature search conducted in April 2021). (5) Online survey to identify diagnostic thresholds for testing, starting treatment and referral for biopsy. (6) Economic modelling to identify the cost-effectiveness of different active case-finding strategies, informed by the findings from previous objectives.
DATA SOURCES
For the first systematic review, the following databases were searched from 1997 to April 2021: MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cochrane Library, Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( WHO ICTRP ) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For the second systematic review, the following databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews ( KSR ) Evidence, WHO ICTRP and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For prediction model development, Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and a subcohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children were used; for estimates for the economic models, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum was used.
REVIEW METHODS
For review 1, cohort and case-control studies reporting on a diagnostic indicator in a population with and a population without coeliac disease were eligible. For review 2, diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting with coeliac disease symptoms who were tested with serological tests for coeliac disease and underwent a duodenal biopsy as reference standard were eligible. In both reviews, risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were fitted, in which binomial likelihoods for the numbers of true positives and true negatives were assumed.
RESULTS
People with dermatitis herpetiformis, a family history of coeliac disease, migraine, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis or chronic liver disease are 1.5-2 times more likely than the general population to have coeliac disease; individual gastrointestinal symptoms were not useful for identifying coeliac disease. For children, women and men, prediction models included 24, 24 and 21 indicators of coeliac disease, respectively. The models showed good discrimination between patients with and patients without coeliac disease, but performed less well when externally validated. Serological tests were found to have good diagnostic accuracy for coeliac disease. Immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase had the highest sensitivity and endomysial antibody the highest specificity. There was little improvement when tests were used in combination. Survey respondents ( = 472) wanted to be 66% certain of the diagnosis from a blood test before starting a gluten-free diet if symptomatic, and 90% certain if asymptomatic. Cost-effectiveness analyses found that, among adults, and using serological testing alone, immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase was most cost-effective at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening). Strategies using immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody plus human leucocyte antigen or human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability had similar cost-effectiveness results, which were also similar to the cost-effectiveness results of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase at a 1% pre-test probability. The most practical alternative for implementation within the NHS is likely to be a combination of human leucocyte antigen and immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing among those with a pre-test probability above 1.5%. Among children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase, but there was uncertainty around the most cost-effective pre-test probability. There was substantial uncertainty in economic model results, which means that there would be great value in conducting further research.
LIMITATIONS
The interpretation of meta-analyses was limited by the substantial heterogeneity between the included studies, and most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. The main limitations of the prediction models were that we were restricted to diagnostic indicators that were recorded by general practitioners and that, because coeliac disease is underdiagnosed, it is also under-reported in health-care data. The cost-effectiveness model is a simplification of coeliac disease and modelled an average cohort rather than individuals. Evidence was weak on the probability of routine coeliac disease diagnosis, the accuracy of serological and genetic tests and the utility of a gluten-free diet.
CONCLUSIONS
Population screening with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (1% pre-test probability) and of immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody followed by human leucocyte antigen testing or human leucocyte antigen testing followed by immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability appear to have similar cost-effectiveness results. As decisions to implement population screening cannot be made based on our economic analysis alone, and given the practical challenges of identifying patients with higher pre-test probabilities, we recommend that human leucocyte antigen combined with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing should be considered for adults with at least a 1.5% pre-test probability of coeliac disease, equivalent to having at least one predictor. A more targeted strategy of 10% pre-test probability is recommended for children (e.g. children with anaemia).
FUTURE WORK
Future work should consider whether or not population-based screening for coeliac disease could meet the UK National Screening Committee criteria and whether or not it necessitates a long-term randomised controlled trial of screening strategies. Large prospective cohort studies in which all participants receive accurate tests for coeliac disease are needed.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019115506 and CRD42020170766.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 26, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: United States; Adult; Child; Male; Humans; Female; Celiac Disease; Longitudinal Studies; Prospective Studies; Skin Neoplasms; Immunoglobulin A; Osteoporosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36321689
DOI: 10.3310/ZUCE8371