1887
Research article Open Access
Like 0

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate real-time PCR as a diagnostic method for Legionnaires’ disease (LD). Detection of DNA is among the laboratory criteria of a probable LD case, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, although the utility and advantages, as compared to culture, are widely recognised.

Methods

Two independent laboratories, one using an in-house and the other a commercial real-time PCR assay, analysed 354 respiratory samples from 311 patients hospitalised with pneumonia between 2010–15. The real-time PCR reliability was compared with that of culture and urinary antigen tests (UAT). Concordance, specificity, sensitivity and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) were calculated.

Results

Overall PCR detected eight additional LD cases, six of which were due to (Lp) non-serogroup 1. The two real-time PCR assays were concordant in 99.4% of the samples. Considering in-house real-time PCR as the reference method, specificity of culture and UAT was 100% and 97.9% (95% CI: 96.2–99.6), while the sensitivity was 63.6% (95%CI: 58.6–68.6) and 77.8% (95% CI: 72.9–82.7). PPV and NPV for culture were 100% and 93.7% (95% CI: 91.2-96.3). PPV and NPV for UAT were 87.5% (95% CI: 83.6-91.4) and 95.8% (95% CI: 93.5-98.2).

Conclusion

Regardless of the real-time PCR assay used, it was possible to diagnose LD cases with higher sensitivity than using culture or UAT. These data encourage the adoption of PCR as routine laboratory testing to diagnose LD and such methods should be eligible to define a confirmed LD case.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.50.1800032
2018-12-13
2019-08-24
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.50.1800032
Loading
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/eurosurveillance/23/50/eurosurv-23-50-3.html?itemId=/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.50.1800032&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Mercante JW, Winchell JM. Current and emerging Legionella diagnostics for laboratory and outbreak investigations. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28(1):95-133.  https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00029-14  PMID: 25567224 
  2. Phin N, Parry-Ford F, Harrison T, Stagg HR, Zhang N, Kumar K, et al. Epidemiology and clinical management of Legionnaires’ disease. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(10):1011-21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70713-3  PMID: 24970283 
  3. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Annual Epidemiological report for 2015. Legionnaires’ disease. Stockholm: ECDC; 2017. Available from: https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/legionnaires-disease-annual-epidemiological-report-2015
  4. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). European Union (EU) case definitions. Stockholm: ECDC; 2018. Available from: https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/infectious-diseases-public-health/surveillance-and-disease-data/eu-case-definitions
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012 National Notifiable Infectious Diseases (Historical). Atlanta: CDC; 2012. Available from: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/notifiable/2012/infectious-diseases/
  6. L’Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS). La legionellosi in Italia nel 2017. [Legionellosis in Italy in 2017]. Rome: ISS; 2018. Italian. Available from: http://old.iss.it/binary/publ/cont/ONLINE.pdf
  7. Rota MC, Fontana S, Montaño-Remacha C, Scaturro M, Caporali MG, Vullo V, et al. Legionnaires’ disease pseudoepidemic due to falsely positive urine antigen test results. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(6):2279-80.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00493-14  PMID: 24719437 
  8. Avni T, Bieber A, Green H, Steinmetz T, Leibovici L, Paul M. Diagnostic Accuracy of PCR Alone and Compared to Urinary Antigen Testing for Detection of Legionella spp.: a Systematic Review. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54(2):401-11.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02675-15  PMID: 26659202 
  9. Botelho-Nevers E, Grattard F, Viallon A, Allegra S, Jarraud S, Verhoeven P, et al. Prospective evaluation of RT-PCR on sputum versus culture, urinary antigens and serology for Legionnaire’s disease diagnosis. J Infect. 2016;73(2):123-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2016.04.039  PMID: 27306488 
  10. Chen DJ, Procop GW, Vogel S, Yen-Lieberman B, Richter SS. Utility of PCR, Culture, and Antigen Detection Methods for Diagnosis of Legionellosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(11):3474-7.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01808-15  PMID: 26292304 
  11. Benitez AJ, Winchell JM. Clinical application of a multiplex real-time PCR assay for simultaneous detection of Legionella species, Legionella pneumophila, and Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51(1):348-51.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02510-12  PMID: 23135949 
  12. Murdoch DR. Diagnosis of Legionella infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(1):64-9.  https://doi.org/10.1086/345529  PMID: 12491204 
  13. Murdoch DR, Podmore RG, Anderson TP, Barratt K, Maze MJ, French KE, et al. Impact of routine systematic polymerase chain reaction testing on case finding for Legionnaires’ disease: a pre-post comparison study. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57(9):1275-81.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cit504  PMID: 23899682 
  14. Mentasti M, Kese D, Echahidi F, Uldum SA, Afshar B, David S, et al. Design and validation of a qPCR assay for accurate detection and initial serogrouping of Legionella pneumophila in clinical specimens by the ESCMID Study Group for Legionella Infections (ESGLI). Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015;34(7):1387-93.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-015-2363-4  PMID: 25851812 
  15. Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS). Linee guida per la prevenzione ed il controllo della legionellosi [Guidelines for prevention and control of legionellosis]. Rome: ISS; 2015. Italian. Available from: http://old.iss.it/binary/iss4/cont/C_17_pubblicazioni_2362.pdf
  16. Peci A, Winter AL, Gubbay JB. Evaluation and Comparison of Multiple Test Methods, Including Real-time PCR, for Legionella Detection in Clinical Specimens. Front Public Health. 2016;4:175.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00175  PMID: 27630979 
  17. Svarrer CW, Lück C, Elverdal PL, Uldum SA. Immunochromatic kits Xpect Legionella and BinaxNOW Legionella for detection of Legionella pneumophila urinary antigen have low sensitivities for the diagnosis of Legionnaires’ disease. J Med Microbiol. 2012;61(2):213-7.  https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.035014-0  PMID: 21921112 
  18. Lee JV, Lai S, Exner M, Lenz J, Gaia V, Casati S, et al. An international trial of quantitative PCR for monitoring Legionella in artificial water systems. J Appl Microbiol. 2011;110(4):1032-44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.04957.x  PMID: 21276147 
  19. Vaccaro L, Izquierdo F, Magnet A, Hurtado C, Salinas MB, Gomes TS, et al. Correction: First Case of Legionnaire’s Disease Caused by Legionella anisa in Spain and the Limitations on the Diagnosis of Legionella non-pneumophila Infections. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162934.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162934  PMID: 27607064 
  20. Farnham A, Alleyne L, Cimini D, Balter S. Legionnaires’ disease incidence and risk factors, New York, New York, USA, 2002-2011. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014;20(11):1795-802.  https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2011.131872  PMID: 25513657 
/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.50.1800032
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Comment has been disabled for this content
Submit comment
Close
Comment moderation successfully completed
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error