En este trabajo hemos estudiado la capacidad de la prueba Brucellacapt® para sustituir a la prueba de Coombs en el diagnóstico de la brucelosis humana.
MétodosSe estudiaron sueros de 66 pacientes de brucelosis. Los pacientes se dividieron en dos grupos: grupo 1 (42 pacientes primoinfectados) y grupo 2 (24 pacientes con antecedentes de la enfermedad). Como población complementaria se utilizaron 100 sueros de individuos de población general para el grupo 1, y 28 sueros de individuos sanos con antecedentes de brucelosis para el grupo 2. A todos los sueros se les practicaron las pruebas de Coombs y Brucellacapt®, y se estudió el rendimiento diagnóstico de ambas en los dos grupos mediante la elaboración de curvas ROC (receiver operating characteristic).
A 397 sueros de 66 pacientes con brucelosis se les practicaron las pruebas de Coombs y Brucellacapt® y los resultados obtenidos se compararon mediante una prueba no paramétrica.
ResultadosEn el grupo 1 ambas pruebas mostraron una sensibilidad de 1 y especificidades de 0,98 (Coombs) y 0,95 (Brucellacapt®). En el grupo 2 las sensibilidades fueron de 1 (Coombs) y 0,95 (Brucellacapt®), y las especificidades de 0,80 (Coombs) y 0,74 (Brucellacapt®). En dicho grupo las áreas bajo la curva fueron de 0,950 (Coombs) y 0,904 (Brucellacapt®). Al comparar los resultados de ambas pruebas mediante la prueba de Wilcoxon no se observaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas (Z= -0,213; p=0,8).
ConclusionesLos resultados obtenidos en las pruebas de Brucellacapt® y Coombs, empleando sueros en diferentes fases de la enfermedad, pueden considerarse intercambiables ya que ofrecen un rendimiento diagnóstico similar.
Throughout this work we have studied the capacity of Brucellacapt® test to replace Coombs test in the serological diagnosis of human brucellosis.
MethodsA total of 66 initial sera from patients with diagnostic of brucellosis were studied. The patients were divided in two groups: 42 patients showing a primo-infection (group1), and 24 patients with a previous case of brucellosis (group 2). As a controls, for the group 1 we have used 100 sera from healthy donors, and for group 2, 28 sera from people that have had clinical brucellosis but actually are in good health. All serum samples were tested in either Coombs and Brucellacapt® tests. The diagnostic yield was calculated using ROC (receiver-operating characteristic) plots.
Moreover, the results obtained in Coombs and Brucellacapt® tests with 397 serum samples from 66 patients with brucellosis were compare with a non-parametric method.
ResultsThe sensibility and specificity for group1 were respectively 1 and 0.98 for Coombs and, 1 and 0.95 for Brucellacapt® tests. For group 2, the results in Coombs test were 1 and 0.80, and in Brucellacapt® test 0.95 and 0.74. In this second group, the area under the ROC plot was 0.950 for Coombs and 0.904 for Brucellacapt® tests. Non statistical differences were observed comparing both serological tests using the Wilcoxon method (Z= -0.213; p=0.8).
ConclusionsBrucellacapt® and Coombs tests yield similar diagnostic results in the follow-up of serological samples from patients with brucellosis, and its should consider as interchangeables.