• Clin. Infect. Dis. · Apr 2009

    Comparative Study

    Comparative study of the sensitivity of different diagnostic methods for the laboratory diagnosis of Buruli ulcer disease.

    • Karl-Heinz Herbinger, Ohene Adjei, Nana-Yaa Awua-Boateng, Willemien A Nienhuis, Letitia Kunaa, Vera Siegmund, Jörg Nitschke, William Thompson, Erasmus Klutse, Pius Agbenorku, Alexander Schipf, Simone Reu, Paul Racz, Bernhard Fleischer, Marcus Beissner, Erna Fleischmann, Kerstin Helfrich, Tjip S van der Werf, Thomas Löscher, and Gisela Bretzel.
    • Department of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany. herbinger@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
    • Clin. Infect. Dis. 2009 Apr 15; 48 (8): 1055-64.

    BackgroundSeveral diagnostic laboratory methods are available for case confirmation of Buruli ulcer disease. This study assessed the sensitivity of various diagnostic tests in relation to clinical presentation of the disease, type of diagnostic specimen, and treatment history.MethodsSwab samples, 3-mm punch biopsy tissue specimens, and surgically excised tissue specimens from 384 individuals with suspected Buruli ulcer disease were obtained at 9 different study sites in Ghana and were evaluated with dry reagent-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR), microscopic examination, culture, and histopathological analysis. The study subjects presented with nonulcerative and ulcerative lesions and were divided into 3 treatment groups: (1) previously untreated patients scheduled for antimycobacterial treatment, (2) patients treated with surgery alone, and (3) patients treated with surgery in combination with previous antimycobacterial treatment.ResultsOf 384 suspected cases of Buruli ulcer disease, 268 were confirmed by at least 1 positive test result. The overall sensitivity of PCR (85%) was significantly higher than that of microscopic examination (57%) and culture (51%). After data were stratified by treatment group, type of lesion, and diagnostic specimen type, analysis revealed that PCR of 3-mm punch biopsy tissue specimens (obtained from previously untreated nonulcerative lesions) and of swab samples (obtained from previously untreated ulcers) had the highest diagnostic sensitivity (94% and 90%, respectively). Although duration of the disease did not significantly influence the sensitivity of any test, previous antimycobacterial treatment was significantly associated with decreased sensitivity of PCR and culture.ConclusionsAcross all subgroups, PCR had the highest sensitivity. PCR assessment of 3-mm punch biopsy tissue specimens proved to be the best diagnostic tool for nonulcerative lesions, and PCR assessment of swab samples was the best diagnostic tool for ulcerative lesions. For monitoring of antimycobacterial treatment success within controlled trials, however, only culture is appropriate.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.