Open AccessDiagnostic accuracy of serological tests for the diagnosis of Chikungunya virus infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Author(s) -
Anna Andrew,
Tholasi Nadhan Navien,
Tzi Shien Yeoh,
Marimuthu Citartan,
Ernest Mangantig,
Magdline Sia Henry Sum,
Ewe Seng Ch’ng,
TheanHock Tang
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
plos neglected tropical diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.99
H-Index - 135
eISSN - 1935-2735
pISSN - 1935-2727
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010152
Subject(s) - chikungunya , serology , meta analysis , medicine , dengue fever , dengue virus , immunoglobulin m , diagnostic test , virology , immunology , antibody , immunoglobulin g , pediatrics
Background Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) causes febrile illnesses and has always been misdiagnosed as other viral infections, such as dengue and Zika; thus, a laboratory test is needed. Serological tests are commonly used to diagnose CHIKV infection, but their accuracy is questionable due to varying degrees of reported sensitivities and specificities. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests currently available for CHIKV. Methodology and principal findings A literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL Complete, and Scopus databases from the 1 st December 2020 until 22 nd April 2021. Studies reporting sensitivity and specificity of serological tests against CHIKV that used whole blood, serum, or plasma were included. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability, while R software was used for statistical analyses. Thirty-five studies were included in this meta-analysis; 72 index test data were extracted and analysed. Rapid and ELISA-based antigen tests had a pooled sensitivity of 85.8% and 82.2%, respectively, and a pooled specificity of 96.1% and 96.0%, respectively. According to our meta-analysis, antigen detection tests serve as a good diagnostic test for acute-phase samples. The IgM detection tests had more than 90% diagnostic accuracy for ELISA-based tests, immunofluorescence assays, in-house developed tests, and samples collected after seven days of symptom onset. Conversely, low sensitivity was found for the IgM rapid test (42.3%), commercial test (78.6%), and for samples collected less than seven of symptom onset (26.2%). Although IgM antibodies start to develop on day 2 of CHIKV infection, our meta-analysis revealed that the IgM detection test is not recommended for acute-phase samples. The diagnostic performance of the IgG detection tests was more than 93% regardless of the test formats and whether the test was commercially available or developed in-house. The use of samples collected after seven days of symptom onset for the IgG detection test suggests that IgG antibodies can be detected in the convalescent-phase samples. Additionally, we evaluated commercial IgM and IgG tests for CHIKV and found that ELISA-based and IFA commercial tests manufactured by Euroimmun (Lübeck, Germany), Abcam (Cambridge, UK), and Inbios (Seattle, WA) had diagnostic accuracy of above 90%, which was similar to the manufacturers’ claim. Conclusion Based on our meta-analysis, antigen or antibody-based serological tests can be used to diagnose CHIKV reliably, depending on the time of sample collection. The antigen detection tests serve as a good diagnostic test for samples collected during the acute phase (≤7 days post symptom onset) of CHIKV infection. Likewise, IgM and IgG detection tests can be used for samples collected in the convalescent phase (>7 days post symptom onset). In correlation to the clinical presentation of the patients, the combination of the IgM and IgG tests can differentiate recent and past infections.