RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Diagnostic serology test comparison for Q fever and Rift Valley fever in humans and livestock from pastoral communities
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.06.20.24309222
DO 10.1101/2024.06.20.24309222
A1 Hungerbühler, Valerie
A1 Özcelik, Ranya
A1 Abakar, Mahamat Fayiz
A1 Zakaria, Fatima Abdelrazak
A1 Eiden, Martin
A1 Hartnack, Sonja
A1 Kimala, Pidou
A1 Kittl, Sonja
A1 Michel, Janine
A1 Suter-Riniker, Franziska
A1 Dürr, Salome
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/21/2024.06.20.24309222.abstract
AB 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementYesAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical 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 took place.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll 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.