Diagnostic serology test comparison for Q fever and Rift Valley fever in humans and livestock from pastoral communities

Valerie Hungerbühler, Ranya Özcelik, Mahamat Fayiz Abakar, Fatima Abdelrazak Zakaria, Martin Eiden, Sonja Hartnack, Pidou Kimala, Sonja Kittl, Janine Michel, Franziska Suter-Riniker, Salome Dürr
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.20.24309222

Abstract

Q fever (QF) and Rift Valley fever (RVF) are endemic zoonotic diseases in African countries, causing significant health and economic burdens. Accurate prevalence estimates, crucial for disease control, rely on robust diagnostic tests. While enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) are not the gold standard, they offer rapid, cost-effective, and practical alternatives. However, varying results from different tests and laboratories can complicate comparing epidemiological studies. This study aimed to assess the agreement of test results for QF and RVF in humans and livestock across different laboratory conditions and, for humans, different types of diagnostic tests.

We measured inter-laboratory agreement using concordance, Cohen’s kappa, and prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) on 91 human and 102 livestock samples collected from rural regions in Chad. The samples were tested using ELISA in Chad, and indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) (for human QF and RVF) and ELISA (for livestock QF and RVF) in Switzerland and Germany. Additionally, we examined demographic factors influencing test agreement, including district, setting (village vs. camp), sex, age, and livestock species of the sampled individuals.

The inter-laboratory agreement ranged from fair to moderate. For humans, QF concordance was 62.5%, Cohen’s kappa was 0.31, RVF concordance was 81.1%, and Cohen’s kappa was 0.52. For livestock, QF concordance was 92.3%, Cohen’s kappa was 0.59, RVF concordance was 94.0%, and Cohen’s kappa was 0.59. Multivariable analysis revealed that QF test agreement is significantly higher in younger humans and people living in villages compared to camps and tends to be higher in livestock from Danamadji compared to Yao, and in small ruminants compared to cattle. Additionally, RVF agreement was found to be higher in younger humans.

Our findings emphasize the need to consider sample conditions, test performance, and influencing factors when conducting and interpreting epidemiological seroprevalence studies.

Author Summary Q fever (QF) and Rift Valley fever (RVF) are zoonotic diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans, causing health problems and economic losses in African countries. While various diagnostic tests for these diseases are available, they can be impractical, especially in resource-limited settings.

For this study, human and livestock samples from Chad were first tested in a local laboratory using a routine test. The same samples were then sent to laboratories in Germany or Switzerland for retesting, using the same test type for livestock and a different test type for human samples.

We analysed the agreement between the test results and investigated the influence of the demographic characteristics of the sampled individual on this agreement. Our findings are crucial as they reveal discrepancies in test results, even though the samples originated from the same individuals. Additionally, we found that factors such as the age of the sampled individual influenced test agreement.

This study underscores the importance of considering sample conditions, test performance, and influencing factors when conducting and interpreting disease prevalence studies. Enhancing diagnostic procedures will aid in more effective disease control management, benefiting local communities and global health efforts.

1. Introduction

Q Fever (QF) and Rift Valley fever (RVF) are zoonotic diseases prevalent in several African countries. Reported prevalence rates range from 7.8% to 39% for QF and 9.5% to 44.2% for RVF in livestock, and from 27% to 49.2% for QF and 13.2% to 28.4% for RVF in humans [1–4]. QF and RVF impact human health by causing a flu-like syndrome that can lead to a range of severe manifestations. QF and RVF also result in significant production losses in animals due to abortions [5,6].

High-quality samples and robust diagnostic tests are essential for obtaining accurate prevalence estimates. Epidemiological studies play a critical role in generating the necessary data, subsequently influencing government prioritization of health interventions [7,8]. This prioritization is fundamental to effective disease control.

For QF diagnostics, the indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) can differentiate between acute and chronic infections and is regarded as the gold standard test for humans [9,10]. Commercial kits are not available for veterinary use [11]. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the most widely used test and is recommended by the WOAH (World Organisation for Animal Health) for rapid routine screening and large-scale epidemiological studies in ruminant populations [8]. For RVF, the virus neutralisation test (VNT) is the most specific diagnostic serological test, but it can only be performed with live viruses and is not recommended for use in laboratories without appropriate biosecurity facilities and vaccinated personnel [6,7]. For both diseases, ELISAs offer a rapid, cost-effective, and practical alternative with less stringent biosafety requirements, making them suitable for routine use in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) [7,8].

The use of ELISA in some studies and the gold standard test, which may differ between countries, in others can lead to discrepancies in estimated prevalence, making comparisons challenging; thus, harmonized monitoring and reporting schemes for QF and RVF have been proposed to enable consistent comparisons over time and across countries [12–14].

Several studies have assessed the inter-test agreement of ELISA for QF and RVF compared to other diagnostic tests, reporting variable agreement ranging from poor to good for QF and from good to excellent for RVF [15–21]. Diagnostic test validation can be achieved through various methods, including assessing the agreement between different tests without assuming one as the gold standard [22]. Concordance, the proportion of test results in agreement over the number of all tests performed, is a straightforward measure but does not account for agreement beyond chance. Therefore, Cohen’s kappa statistic, which adjusts for random matches, is often used to measure the agreement between two test results [22]. Cohen’s kappa values range from zero (agreement is equal to that expected by chance) to one (complete agreement beyond chance), with benchmarks between agreement categories varying among authors [23–25]. Although Cohen’s kappa is a standard measure, it has limitations such as prevalence and bias effects. Prevalence effects arise when the proportion of positive results deviates significantly from 50% [26]. The effect of prevalence depends on the method of modeling agreement and can substantially reduce kappa values [26]. Bias effects occur when there is a disparity in the proportion of positive results between the two tests, which leads to reduced kappa values [26]. To address these effects, the prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) can be calculated [27,28].

The reasons for disagreement between diagnostic tests have rarely been thoroughly investigated. Potential factors include poor sample quality, variability in tests used, and discrepancies arising from the same test being conducted in different laboratories [17,21,29]. Additionally, biological factors such as age, sex, other diseases, and species may influence the consistency of test results for the same sample. Previous studies have suggested associations between test performance and variables such as region, age, and livestock species [30–32]. However, these studies have not provided conclusive evidence or statistical significance.

The objective of this study was to assess the inter-laboratory agreement, measured by the concordance, Cohen’s kappa, and PABAK, of results obtained from commercial ELISA tests conducted in a laboratory in Chad and results obtained from ELISA and indirect IFA tests for livestock and human samples respectively, performed in laboratories in Germany and Switzerland. Additionally, we evaluated the influence of demographic factors on the agreement between the two test results. The study enhances our understanding of the inter-laboratory agreement of diagnostic test results across laboratory conditions and, for humans, test types, which is crucial for accurately interpreting results from epidemiological seroprevalence studies.

2. Material and Methods

2.1 Ethics statement

The study has been submitted to and approved by the Ethics Committee of Northwest and Central Switzerland (EKNZ) (project id 2017-00884) and by the Comité National de Bioéthique du Tchad (CNB-Tchad) (project id 134/PR/MESRS/CNBT/2018). Formal written consent was obtained from study participants and animal owners after we presented our study to the community and before data collection occurred.

2.2 Sample collection and laboratory analysis in Chad

The samples analysed in this study were collected between January and February 2018 [4]. In brief, a cross-sectional study in livestock (cattle, sheep, goats, horses, and donkeys) and human populations was conducted in the two rural health districts, Yao and Danamadji, in Chad. Multistage cluster sampling was used, with villages and nomadic camps serving as cluster units. In Danamadji and Yao, respectively, blood samples were collected from apparently healthy 571 and 389 humans and 560 and 483 livestock. The samples were subsequently analysed at the Institut de Recherche en Élevage pour le Développement (IRED) in N’Djamena, Chad. Livestock and human samples were analysed using different indirect ELISAs: ID Screen® Q Fever Indirect Multi-species ELISA from IDvet for livestock and the Panbio® Coxiella burnetii IgG ELISA from Abbott for humans. For RVF, a competitive ELISA (ID Screen® Rift Valley Fever Competition Multi-species from IDvet) was used for human and livestock samples. The diagnostic test procedure and thresholds were applied according to the manufacturer’s protocols without modification (Table S1 – Table S3). Equivocal samples were retested once.

2.3 Diagnostic testing in Switzerland and Germany

Following the initial diagnostic analysis at IRED, 10% of the human and livestock samples from each region were randomly selected and sent to laboratories in Switzerland and Germany in 2021 for repeated diagnostic analysis for QF and RVF, respectively. In Switzerland, two indirect ELISAs (IDEXX Q Fever IgG Antibody and ID Screen® Q Fever Indirect Multispecies from IDvet) were used at the Center for Zoonoses, Animal Bacterial Diseases, and Antimicrobial Resistance (ZOBA) for QF diagnostics in livestock samples (ruminants and equids, respectively). At the Institute for Infectious Diseases (IFIK) of the University of Bern, an indirect IFA (Q Fever IFA IgG assay from Focus Diagnostics, US) was used for QF diagnostics in human samples. For RVF, livestock samples were analysed using a competitive ELISA (ID Screen® Rift Valley Fever Competition Multi-species ELISA from IDvet) at the Federal Research Institute for Animal Health (FLI), and human samples were analysed using an indirect IFA (Anti-Rift-Tal-Fieber-Viren-IIFT [IgG] from EUROIMMUN) at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). The diagnostic test procedure and thresholds were applied according to the manufacturer’s protocols without modification (Table S1, Table S3, Table S4 – Table S6). Equivocal samples were not retested.

2.4 Statistical analysis

The inter-laboratory agreement of the test results from Chad and Switzerland or Germany was evaluated using concordance, Cohen’s Kappa, and PABAK for each of the four datasets: QF results in human samples, QF results in livestock samples, RVF results in human samples, and RVF results in livestock samples. Cohen’s kappa and PABAK values were interpreted according to the standard scale: ‘fair’ agreement (kappa = 0.21–0.40), ‘moderate’ agreement (kappa = 0.41–0.60), ‘substantial’ agreement (kappa = 0.61–0.80), and ‘almost perfect’ agreement (kappa > 0.80) [25].

In addition, we investigated factors associated with test agreement by assigning to each sample a value of 0 if there was disagreement between the two test results (i.e., negative in Chad and positive in Switzerland/Germany, or the opposite) and 1 if the test results were consistent (i.e., both positive or both negative). This binary outcome was used as the dependent variable in logistic regression models to identify the statistical association between test agreement and demographic factors, including the district (Yao versus Danamadji) and setting (village versus camp) where the sample was collected, and sex, age, and livestock species (cattle, small ruminants, and equids) of the sampled individual. The variable age was analysed in two ways, as a continuous and as a categorical variable. For the continuous variable, a unit of 1 year was used for livestock and of 10 years for humans. For the categorical variable, samples were stratified as < 2 years (age group 1), 2–3 years (age group 2), 4 years and older (age group 3) for livestock, and < 30 years (age group 1), 30–39 years (age group 2), 40–60 years (age group 3), 61 years and older (age group 4) for humans.

Univariable logistic regressions were initially performed to assess individual predictors. In cases where the univariable model was infeasible due to perfect agreement in one group, Chi-square tests were applied. Odds ratios (OR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for these analyses. To consider potential interdependencies between the variables, we applied multivariable logistic regressions to estimate adjusted coefficients and OR. We included all variables and selected age as categorical variable.

Statistical calculations, modeling, and data visualization were conducted in R (version 4.2.2). The package “irr” was used to calculate the concordance and Cohen’s kappa. The package “vcd” was used to obtain confidence intervals of Cohen’s kappa, computed using the standard method based on normal approximation [33]. The epi.kappa() function from the “epiR” package was used to calculate PABAK and corresponding confidence intervals. The confidence intervals for the OR were calculated using the output values of the associated regression model and the functions exp(coefficients(model)) for the upper CI and exp(confint.default(model)) for the lower CI was used.

3. Results

3.1 Study population and samples

From 103 livestock and 96 human samples sent to Switzerland and Germany, not all of them could be used for statistical analysis. Reasons for excluding them include unsuccessful matching of test identity due to labelling errors, missing serum upon arrival at the laboratory, and equivocal results (Table1). Finally, 91 human and 102 livestock samples were tested for either one of both tests, depending on the availability of serum (Table S7 and Table 1, Fig. 1).

Fig 1:
Fig 1:

Sample collection and laboratory analysis at IRED in Chad and diagnostic testing in Switzerland and Germany. The numbers of samples at each stage are indicated.

View this table:
Table 1: Overview of diagnostic tests from Chad and Switzerland (CH) or Germany (GE).

Of the 91 human and 102 livestock samples that were used to perform the intra-laboratory test agreement analysis, most samples were collected in Danamadji, with 62% of human samples and 57% of livestock samples originating from this region (Table S7). Fifty-six percent of human samples and 58% of livestock samples were collected from camps. The sex distribution was uneven, with 70% of human samples being men and 70% of livestock samples being females. Among humans, age groups 1-3 were evenly represented (30%, 28%, 33%), while only 9% belonged to age group 4. In livestock, 50% of the samples were from age group 2, with 17% and 33% from age groups 1 and 3, respectively. Most livestock samples were from cattle (46%), followed by small ruminants (41%) and equids (13%).

3.2 Diagnostic tests agreement

3.2.1 Level of inter-laboratory test agreement

Concordance values ranged from 62.5% to 94% (Table 2). Cohen’s kappa values, which ranged from 0.31 to 0.59, indicated that livestock QF and RVF, and human RVF tests had ‘moderate’ agreement, while human QF tests had ‘fair’ agreement (Table 2). PABAK values showed that the livestock QF and RVF tests had ‘almost perfect’ agreement, the human RVF test had ‘substantial’ agreement, and the human QF tests had ‘fair’ agreement (Table 2).

View this table:
Table 2: Analyses of test agreement (concordance and Cohen’s kappa) of samples tested in an inter-laboratory test agreement study.

3.2.1 Influence of factors on inter-laboratory test agreement

For QF in livestock, none of the investigated demographic factors significantly impacted the agreement between the two test results in both univariable and multivariable analyses (Table S8 and Table 3). However, some notable trends (p < 0.15) emerged: small ruminants tended to show better agreement than cattle, and samples from Yao showed lower agreement compared to those from Danamadji (Table 3). For QF in humans, samples from villages had significantly higher agreement compared to those from camps, with odds of agreement being 13.4 times higher (Table 3). Additionally, older age groups had significantly lower agreement compared to the youngest age group (Table 3).

View this table:
Table 3:

Results of multivariable logistic regression models investigating the effect of demographic factors as independent variables on the inter-laboratory test agreement of Q fever (QF) and Rift Valley Fever (RVF) in humans and livestock. Goodness of fit of the models are presented as pseudo-R-squared (R2). Bold p-values indicate significance based on a threshold of 0.05.

For RVF in humans and livestock, none of the demographic factors significantly influenced test agreement. However, some trends were observed for RVF test agreement in humans, with older age groups showing lower agreement compared to the youngest age group (Table 3).

Across diseases and populations, there was a consistent trend of lower agreement with increasing age, which was significant for human QF and almost reached significance for human RVF (Table 3, Fig. 2). For livestock RVF tests, the odds ratio for agreement was also lower in older age groups, although the p-value was 0.26 (Table 3).

Fig. 2:
Fig. 2:

In the mosaic plot illustrating the association between age groups and inter-laboratory test agreement, the widths of the adjacent rectangles represent the proportion of individuals within each age group. The heights of the rectangles represent the proportion of individuals within each age group who exhibit a specific test agreement outcome (concordant or discrepant).

4. Discussion

QF and RVF are important zoonotic diseases in sub-Saharan Africa, for which several epidemiological questions remain open. Reliable diagnostics are highly relevant for generating prevalence data, and it has been emphasized that there is a need for cost-effective surveillance tools for low and middle-income countries [5,34].

Our study revealed varying levels of test agreement, ranging from fair to moderate (Cohen’s kappa) or almost perfect when considering PABAK. The good inter-laboratory agreement of livestock test results for RVF was in line with other studies on RVF test agreement, although it is important to note that literature is scarce [19,20]. The inter-laboratory agreement for livestock QF was slightly better than expected, based on previous studies that assessed ELISA’s agreement with different test types [15,17,18]. We observed a notably lower agreement for human tests for both diseases that can be attributed to using two different tests for human samples, ELISA in Chad and indirect IFA in Switzerland or Germany. Previous studies have shown varying sensitivities and specificities of the commercial diagnostic test for QF used in this study (Panbio®), ranging from 71% to 100% [10,35–37]. In these studies, indirect IFA was used as a reference method to evaluate the ELISA, revealing varying agreement between the results of the two tests. The variability in sensitivity for the same test raises the question of whether it is due to the scope for interpretation in indirect IFA, which is considered a challenge, even though indirect IFA is regarded as the gold standard for human QF diagnostics [5,8]. A study that compared QF indirect IFA results from different reference centres in three countries (United Kingdom, France, and Australia) found a concordance between the indirect IFA results of only 35% [38]. Our results presented here reflect this uncertainty and underline the complexity of QF diagnostics [5,8,39]. In addition, commercial QF ELISA kits, unlike indirect IFA, cannot distinguish between acute or chronic infection and vaccination, which can sometimes lead to misinterpretation and discordant test results, even between different ELISA kits [21,40]. For RVF, lower inter-laboratory agreement for human tests compared to livestock tests can also be attributed to using different tests in Chad (ELISA) and Germany (indirect IFA). The literature on RVF test agreement, particularly for human diagnostics, is notably scarce.

A possible reason for disagreement between test results could be the hemolytic quality of some of our samples. Although we lack quantitative information on the quality of the individual samples in our study, laboratory staff in Switzerland and Germany indicated that haemolysis was a concern. In recent literature, haemolysis in specimens was reported to be the most common cause of test result discrepancies in clinical laboratories [41]. There are many in vitro causes of haemolysis, mostly pre-analytical problems such as incorrect procedures and/or materials used in blood collection, while transport, processing, and storage account for only a minority of cases [42]. This limitation shows the importance of careful planning and execution of the pre-analytical phase, especially in prevalence studies where the outcome can be influenced by the quality of the sample material. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize the challenges associated with collecting samples under difficult field conditions, where access to centrifuges may be limited until several days after blood sampling. In addition, the samples in our study were stored for 2.5 years with repeated freeze-thaw cycles between the performance of the two tests for some of the samples, which probably affected sample quality. Therefore, extended transport to secondary laboratories for subsequent analysis can additionally adversely affect sample quality. We emphasize the importance of considering these challenges when discussing the outcomes of epidemiological prevalence studies or diagnostic test evaluation studies.

Our results demonstrate a statistical relationship between test agreement and age of the sampled individuals, with higher agreement observed in younger individuals for both diseases and in humans and livestock. This finding aligns with a study by de Bronsvoort et al. (2019), which suggested that lower agreement in older individuals may be due to their higher likelihood of previous exposure to other pathogens over their lifetime [30]. This may result in cross-reactivity in serological tests, making serological differentiation between diseases more difficult [39]. Cross-reactions caused by antibodies provoked by other pathogens, such as C. burnetii antigens, the agent causing QF, with antibodies produced against Bartonella spp., Legionella spp., and Chlamydiae spp. has been reported [43–45], or RVF virus antigens with antibodies produced against Rio Grande virus [46–48]. Furthermore, with increasing age, the likelihood of exposure to the causative agent of QF and RVF increases [49,50], as does the chance of having residual antibodies titres against these diseases in the blood [6,51–53].In addition in QF, antigen-lipopolysaccharide complexes remaining in the host after infection with C. burnetii can trigger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses, producing interfering antibodies [54,55]. Such antibody titres can potentially produce ambiguous results that are neither clearly positive nor negative, leading to misinterpretation and discordant test results. These findings underscore the need for further research to develop age-specific diagnostic protocols and improve test accuracy across diverse populations.

The district-level analysis showed a trend toward higher agreement for livestock QF tests in samples from Danamadji compared to Yao. This regional variation may be influenced by varying local environmental conditions, disease prevalence, or livestock management practices. However, we did not capture such information, so we were not able to identify a potential latent factor that can explain the difference in test agreement detected for the two regions. Continuing with the focus on sampling location, the sample collection setting (village versus camp) was identified as a significant factor in the multivariable model for human QF test agreement. One hypothesis for this finding is that villages generally have shorter distances from the sampling location to the laboratory, allowing for more appropriate storage conditions compared to remote camps. This shorter travel time likely preserves sample integrity, resulting in higher test agreement. The significant role of the setting variable suggests that environmental and logistical factors may be crucial for diagnostic test result interpretation, although we did not observe the influence of the setting for RVF in humans nor for livestock species. Future studies should investigate the impact of environmental and logistical factors on test results and gather detailed data on local conditions and practices that affect sample quality and test agreement.

Small ruminants exhibited a trend towards higher agreement in QF test results compared to cattle. In a different type of QF ELISA, Stellfeld et al. (2020) observed significant differences in the ranges of OD450 values obtained from sera of sheep, goats, and cattle [56]. Sheep exhibited a large range of OD450 values, whereas cattle showed a smaller range [56]. Greater distribution between OD450 values allows for more precise grading of ELISA results, which may explain the better inter-test agreement for small ruminants compared to cattle. These differences in OD450 ranges are likely due to species-specific immune responses to C. burnetii, suggesting varying immune reactions among ruminant species [56]. Although females showed lower inter-laboratory test agreement compared to males for both diseases and populations, the high p-values and wide confidence intervals of OR indicate that these results are not statistically robust and should be interpreted with caution. Epidemiological studies suggest similar QF exposure rates between genders, but symptoms are 2.5 times more common in men [5]. This variability in inflammatory immune response between genders [57–60] could lead to less clear antibody titers in samples from females, a hypothesis that should be tested by further studies investigating the influence of demographic factors on diagnostic test agreement.

Conclusion

Our study highlights the variability in inter-laboratory diagnostic test agreement for QF and RVF serology in humans and livestock based on samples collected in Chad. Despite differences in laboratories, personnel, and test types, test agreements ranged from fair to moderate (Cohen’s kappa) or almost perfect considering PABAK. Given the reliance on serological profiles for QF and RVF epidemiological studies, it is crucial to consider factors that may complicate accurate diagnosis. We identified that human QF test agreement was significantly higher in individuals living in villages and younger individuals, with the latter trend also observed in human RVF tests. Our findings emphasize the need to recognize that diagnostic tests may yield varying results, impacting the outcome and interpretation of disease prevalence studies.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Additional data underlying the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. All data are fully anonymized to protect the privacy of the participants involved in the study.

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

While preparing this work, the author used ChatGPT to correct the English in the revised sentences (using the command: ‘correct the English’). After using this tool, the author reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.

References

  1. [1].↵
    Fayiz Abakar M, Naré NB, Schelling E, Hattendorf J, Alfaroukh IO, Zinsstag J. Seroprevalence of Rift Valley fever, Q fever, and brucellosis in ruminants on the southeastern shore of Lake Chad. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 2014;14: 757–62. doi: 10.1089/VBZ.2014.1585.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. [2].
    Blomström AL, Scharin I, Stenberg H, Figueiredo J, Nhambirre O, Abilio A, et al. Seroprevalence of Rift Valley fever virus in sheep and goats in Zambézia, Mozambique. Infect Ecol Epidemiol 2016;6. doi: 10.3402/IEE.V6.31343.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. [3].
    Ibrahim M, Schelling E, Zinsstag J, Hattendorf J, Andargie E, Tschopp R. Sero-prevalence of brucellosis, Q-fever and Rift Valley fever in humans and livestock in Somali Region, Ethiopia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2021;15: 1–18. doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PNTD.0008100.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. [4].↵
    Özcelik R, Abakar MF, Counotte MJ, Zakaria FA, Kimala P, Issa R, et al. Seroprevalence and associated risk factors of brucellosis, Rift Valley fever and Q fever among settled and mobile agro-pastoralist communities and their livestock in Chad. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2023;17: e0011395. doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PNTD.0011395.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. [5].↵
    Eldin C, Mélenotte C, Mediannikov O, Ghigo E, Million M, Edouard S, et al. From Q fever to Coxiella burnetii infection: A paradigm change. Clin Microbiol Rev 2017;30: 115–90. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00045-16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. [6].↵
    Wright D, Kortekaas J, Bowden TA, Warimwe GM. Rift Valley fever: biology and epidemiology. J Gen Virol 2019;100: 1187–99. doi: 10.1099/JGV.0.001296.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. [7].↵
    Rift Valley fever - WOAH - World Organisation for Animal Health [cited 17 June 2024]. Available from: https://www.woah.org/en/disease/rift-valley-fever/.
  8. [8].↵
    Q fever - WOAH - World Organisation for Animal Health [cited 17 June 2024]. Available from: https://www.woah.org/en/disease/q-fever/.
  9. [9].↵
    Imbert G, La Scola B. Diagnosis of Q fever using indirect microimmunofluorescence. Methods Mol Biol 2006;345: 197–202. doi: 10.1385/1-59745-143-6:197.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. [10].↵
    Dangel L, Koempf D, Fischer SF. Comparison of different commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays with immunofluorescence test for detection of phase II IgG and IgM antibodies to coxiella burnetii. J Clin Microbiol 2020;58. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00951-19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. [11].↵
    Wood C, Muleme M, Tan T, Bosward K, Gibson J, Alawneh J, et al. Validation of an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) for the detection of IgG antibodies against Coxiella burnetii in bovine serum. Prev Vet Med 2019;169: 104698. doi: 10.1016/J.PREVETMED.2019.104698.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. [12].↵
    Wilson WC, Weingartl HM, Drolet BS, Davé K, Harpster MH, Johnson PA, et al. Diagnostic Approaches for Rift Valley Fever. Dev Biol (Basel) 2013;135: 73–8. doi: 10.1159/000276828.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. [13].
    Gerken KN, Labeaud AD, Mandi H, Jackson ML, Breugelmans JG, King CH. Paving the way for human vaccination against Rift Valley fever virus: A systematic literature review of RVFV epidemiology from 1999 to 2021. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2022;16. doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PNTD.0009852.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. [14].↵
    Sidi-Boumedine K, Rousset E, Henning K, Ziller M, Niemczuck K, Roest H, et al. Development of harmonised schemes for the monitoring and reporting of Q-fever in animals in the European Union. EFSA Supporting Publications 2017;7. doi: 10.2903/SP.EFSA.2010.EN-48.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. [15].↵
    Sadiki V, Gcebe N, Mangena ML, Ngoshe YB, Adesiyun AA. Prevalence and risk factors of Q fever (Coxiella burnetii) in cattle on farms of Limpopo province, South Africa. Front Vet Sci 2023;10: 1101988. doi: 10.3389/FVETS.2023.1101988/BIBTEX.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. [16].
    Natale A, Bucci G, Capello K, Barberio A, Tavella A, Nardelli S, et al. Old and new diagnostic approaches for Q fever diagnosis: Correlation among serological (CFT, ELISA) and molecular analyses. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;35: 375–9. doi: 10.1016/J.CIMID.2012.03.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. [17].↵
    Kittelberger R, Mars J, Wibberley G, Sting R, Henning K, Horner GW, et al. Comparison of the Q-fever complement fixation test and two commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for the detection of serum antibodies against Coxiella burnetii (Q-fever) in ruminants: Recommendations for use of serological tests on imported animals in New Zealand. N Z Vet J 2009;57: 262–8. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2009.58619.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. [18].↵
    Rousset E, Durand B, Berri M, Dufour P, Prigent M, Russo P, et al. Comparative diagnostic potential of three serological tests for abortive Q fever in goat herds. Vet Microbiol 2007;124: 286–97. doi: 10.1016/J.VETMIC.2007.04.033.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. [19].↵
    Kortekaas J, Kant J, Vloet R, Cêtre-Sossah C, Marianneau P, Lacote S, et al. European ring trial to evaluate ELISAs for the diagnosis of infection with Rift Valley fever virus. J Virol Methods 2013;187: 177–81. doi: 10.1016/J.JVIROMET.2012.09.016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. [20].↵
    Pawęska JT, van Vuren PJ, Msimang V, Lô MM, Thiongane Y, Mulumba-Mfumu LK, et al. Large-Scale International Validation of an Indirect ELISA Based on Recombinant Nucleocapsid Protein of Rift Valley Fever Virus for the Detection of IgG Antibody in Domestic Ruminants. Viruses 2021;13. doi: 10.3390/V13081651.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. [21].↵
    Horigan MW, Bell MM, Pollard TR, Sayers AR, Pritchard GC. Q fever diagnosis in domestic ruminants: comparison between complement fixation and commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. J Vet Diagn Invest 2011;23: 924–31. doi: 10.1177/1040638711416971.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. [22].↵
    Thrusfield M, Christley R, Brown H, Diggle PJ, French N, Howe K, et al. Veterinary Epidemiology: Fourth Edition. Veterinary Epidemiology: Fourth Edition 2017: 1–861. doi: 10.1002/9781118280249.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. [23].↵
    Fleiss JL, Levin B, Cho Paik M. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, Third Edition. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, Third Edition 2004: 1–760. doi: 10.1002/0471445428.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. [24].
    Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Practical Statistics for Medical Research 1990. doi: 10.1201/9780429258589.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. [25].↵
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 1977;33: 159. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. [26].↵
    Hoehler FK. Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53: 499–503. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00174-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. [27].↵
    Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46: 423–9. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-V.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. [28].↵
    Lantz CA, Nebenzahl E. Behavior and interpretation of the κ statistic: Resolution of the two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49: 431–4. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00571-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. [29].↵
    Paul S, Toft N, Agerholm JS, Christoffersen AB, Agger JF. Bayesian estimation of sensitivity and specificity of Coxiella burnetii antibody ELISA tests in bovine blood and milk. Prev Vet Med 2013;109: 258–63. doi: 10.1016/J.PREVETMED.2012.10.007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. [30].↵
    de Bronsvoort BMC, Bagninbom JM, Ndip L, Kelly RF, Handel I, Tanya VN, et al. Comparison of Two Rift Valley Fever Serological Tests in Cameroonian Cattle Populations Using a Bayesian Latent Class Approach. Front Vet Sci 2019;6: 258. doi: 10.3389/FVETS.2019.00258/BIBTEX.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. [31].
    Emery MP, Ostlund EN, Schmitt BJ. Comparison of Q fever serology methods in cattle, goats, and sheep. J Vet Diagn Invest 2012;24: 379–82. doi: 10.1177/1040638711434943.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. [32].↵
    Lurier T, Rousset E, Gasqui P, Sala C, Claustre C, Abrial D, et al. Evaluation using latent class models of the diagnostic performances of three ELISA tests commercialized for the serological diagnosis of Coxiella burnetii infection in domestic ruminants. Vet Res 2021;52. doi: 10.1186/S13567-021-00926-W.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. [33].↵
    Package “vcd” Title Visualizing Categorical Data 2023. [cited 17 June 2024]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vcd/vcd.pdf
  34. [34].↵
    Mariner J. Rift Valley fever surveillance. FAO Animal Production and Health Manual No. 21. Food and Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations (FAO). [cited 17 June 2024]. Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/4052d2f0-88e5-4a3f-9ae5-049d3c78413c/content
  35. [35].↵
    Field PR, Mitchell JL, Santiago A, Dickeson DJ, Chan S-W, Ho DWT, et al. Comparison of a Commercial Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay with Immunofluorescence and Complement Fixation Tests for Detection of Coxiella burnetii (Q Fever) Immunoglobulin M. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38: 1645. doi: 10.1128/JCM.38.4.1645-1647.2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. [36].
    Field PR, Santiago A, Chan SW, Patel DB, Dickeson D, Mitchell JL, et al. Evaluation of a novel commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay detecting Coxiella burnetii-specific immunoglobulin G for Q fever prevaccination screening and diagnosis. J Clin Microbiol 2002;40: 3526–9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.9.3526-3529.2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. [37].↵
    Sanz JC, De Los Ríos R, Martín F, Ángeles Tébar M, Jado I, Anda P. Aplicación de cuatro técnicas de ELISA (dos para IgM y dos para IgG) en el diagnóstico serológico de un brote de fiebre Q. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2006;24: 178–81. doi: 10.1157/13086551.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. [38].↵
    Healy B, Van Woerden H, Raoult D, Graves S, Pitman J, Lloyd G, et al. Chronic Q Fever: Different Serological Results in 3 Countries-Results of a Follow-up Study 6 Years After a Point Source Outbreak. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52: 1013–1019. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir132.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. [39].↵
    Ferrara G, Colitti B, Pagnini U, Iovane G, Rosati S, Montagnaro S. Characterization of recombinant Ybgf protein for the detection of Coxiella antibodies in ruminants. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 2022;34: 646–53. doi: 10.1177/10406387221093581.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. [40].↵
    Gerlach C, Škultéty L, Henning K, Neubauer H, Mertens K. Coxiella burnetii immunogenic proteins as a basis for new Q fever diagnostic and vaccine development. Acta Virol 2017;61: 377–90. doi: 10.4149/AV_2017_320.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. [41].↵
    Lippi G, Von Meyer A, Cadamuro J, Simundic AM. Blood sample quality. Diagnosis (Berl) 2019;6: 25–31. doi: 10.1515/DX-2018-0018.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. [42].↵
    Lippi G, Plebani M, Di Somma S, Cervellin G. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences Hemolyzed specimens: a major challenge for emergency departments and clinical laboratories 2011. doi: 10.3109/10408363.2011.600228.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. [43].↵
    Edouard S, Million M, Casalta JP, Collart F, Amphoux B, Raoult D. Low antibodies titer and serological cross-reaction between Coxiella burnetii and Legionella pneumophila challenge the diagnosis of mediastinitis, an emerging Q fever clinical entity. Infection 2017;45: 911–5. doi: 10.1007/S15010-017-1048-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. [44].
    La Scola B, Raoult D. Serological cross-reactions between Bartonella quintana, Bartonella henselae, and Coxiella burnetii. J Clin Microbiol 1996;34: 2270–4. doi: 10.1128/JCM.34.9.2270-2274.1996.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. [45].↵
    Lukacova M, Melnicakova J, Kazar J. Cross-Reactivity between Coxiella burnetii and Chlamydiae. Folia Microbiol 1999;44: 579–84. doi:10.1007/BF02816263.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. [46].↵
    Scott RM, Feinsod FM, Allam IH, Ksiazek,’ TG, Peters CJ, Botros,’ And Bam, et al. Serological Tests for Detecting Rift Valley Fever Viral Antibodies in Sheep from the Nile Delta. J Clin Microbiol 1986;24: 612–4. doi: 10.1128/jcm.24.4.612-614.1986.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. [47].
    Swanepoel R, Struthers JK, Erasmus MJ, Shepherd SP, Mcgillivray GM, Erasmus BJ, et al. Comparison of techniques for demonstrating antibodies to Rift Valley fever virus. J Hyg (Lond) 1986;97: 317–29. doi: 10.1017/S0022172400065414.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. [48].↵
    Szymczak MS, Reeves WK, Miller MM. Further Characterization of Rio Grande Virus and Potential for Cross Reactivity with Rift Valley Fever Virus Assays. Viruses 2021;13. doi: 10.3390/V13091719.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. [49].↵
    Edouard S, Mahamat A, Demar M, Abboud P, Djossou F, Raoult D. Comparison between emerging Q fever in French Guiana and endemic Q fever in Marseille, France. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2014;90: 915–9. doi: 10.4269/AJTMH.13-0164.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. [50].↵
    Tumusiime D, Isingoma E, Tashoroora OB, Ndumu DB, Bahati M, Nantima N, et al. Mapping the risk of Rift Valley fever in Uganda using national seroprevalence data from cattle, sheep and goats. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2023;17: e0010482. doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PNTD.0010482.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. [51].↵
    Murphy AM, Field PR. The persistence of complement-fixing antibodies to q–fever (coxiella burneti) after infection. Medical Journal of Australia 1970;1: 1148–50. doi: 10.5694/J.1326-5377.1970.TB84481.X.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. [52].
    Pepin M, Bouloy M, Bird BH, Kemp A, Paweska J. Rift Valley fever virus (Bunyaviridae: Phlebovirus): an update on pathogenesis, molecular epidemiology, vectors, diagnostics and prevention. Vet Res 2010;41. doi: 10.1051/VETRES/2010033.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. [53].↵
    Brown RD, Scott GR, Dalling T. Persistence of antibodies to rift valley fever in man. The Lancet 1957;270: 345. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(57)92243-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. [54].↵
    Sukocheva OA, Marmion BP, Storm PA, Lockhart M, Turra M, Graves S. Long-term persistence after acute Q fever of non-infective Coxiella burnetii cell components, including antigens. QJM 2010;103: 847–63. doi: 10.1093/QJMED/HCQ113.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. [55].↵
    Marmion BP, Sukocheva O, Storm PA, Lockhart M, Turra M, Kok T, et al. Review Q fever: persistence of antigenic non-viable cell residues of Coxiella burnetii in the host-implications for post Q fever infection fatigue syndrome and other chronic sequelae. QJM. 2009;102(10): 673–684. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcp077.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. [56].↵
    Stellfeld M, Gerlach C, Richter IG, Miethe P, Fahlbusch D, Polley B, et al. Evaluation of the Diagnostic Potential of Recombinant Coxiella burnetii Com1 in an ELISA for the Diagnosis of Q Fever in Sheep, Goats and Cattle. Microorganisms 2020;8: 1–19. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8081235.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. [57].↵
    Mehraj V, Textoris J, Capo C, Raoult D, Leone M, Mege JL. Overexpression of the per2 gene in male patients with acute Q fever. Journal of Infectious Diseases 2012;206: 1768–70. doi: 10.1093/INFDIS/JIS600.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. [58].
    Gay L, Melenotte C, Lopez A, Desnues B, Raoult D, Leone M, et al. Impact of Sex Hormones on Macrophage Responses to Coxiella burnetii. Front Immunol 2021;12: 5510. doi: 10.3389/FIMMU.2021.705088/BIBTEX.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. [59].
    Leone M, Honstettre A, Lepidi H, Capo C, Bayard F, Raoult D, et al. Effect of sex on Coxiella burnetii infection: protective role of 17beta-estradiol. J Infect Dis 2004;189: 339–45. doi: 10.1086/380798.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. [60].↵
    Schoffelen T, Wong A, Rümke HC, Netea MG, Timen A, van Deuren M, et al. Adverse events and association with age, sex and immunological parameters of Q fever vaccination in patients at risk for chronic Q fever in the Netherlands 2011. Vaccine 2014;32: 6622–30. doi: 10.1016/J.VACCINE.2014.09.061.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top
Posted June 21, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Diagnostic serology test comparison for Q fever and Rift Valley fever in humans and livestock from pastoral communities
Valerie Hungerbühler, Ranya Özcelik, Mahamat Fayiz Abakar, Fatima Abdelrazak Zakaria, Martin Eiden, Sonja Hartnack, Pidou Kimala, Sonja Kittl, Janine Michel, Franziska Suter-Riniker, Salome Dürr
medRxiv 2024.06.20.24309222; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.20.24309222
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area