Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care aMMP-8 test in the discrimination of periodontal health and disease.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To assess the diagnostic utility of an oral rinse active matrix metalloproteinase-8 (aMMP-8) point-of-care test (POCT) for differentiating periodontal health, gingivitis, as well as different stages and grades of periodontitis.

Materials & methods

The aMMP-8 index test was undertaken in 408 consecutive adults, followed by a full-mouth periodontal examination. The reference standard was the 2017 World Workshop classification of periodontal diseases. Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were assessed.

Results

68.6% of the participants were diagnosed with periodontitis, including Stages I (15.9%), II (15.9%), III (29.7%) and IV (7.1%). A positive aMMP-8 POCT was associated with periodontitis after adjusting for age, gender, tobacco smoking and systemic diseases, while it was unable to differentiate among the stages/grades of periodontitis and between gingivitis/periodontal health. This test showed a sensitivity of 33.2% and a specificity of 93.0% for detecting periodontitis (threshold level >10 ng/ml). The levels of aMMP-8 adjusted by the number of teeth present (aMMP-8/NTP) performed better for periodontitis (sensitivity: 67.1%; specificity: 68.8%). Notably, aMMP-8/NTP were strongly predictive for Stage IV periodontitis (threshold level =0.4312 ng/ml) (sensitivity: 89.7%; specificity: 73.6%; and AUROC: 0.856). The test performance greatly improved in combination with age and smoking, with a sensitivity of 82.5%, a specificity of 84.4%, and an AUROC of 0.883.

Conclusion

This aMMP-8 POCT is able to detect periodontitis with better specificity than sensitivity across the spectrum of its severity. This test may be useful for periodontal screening in conjunction with subject characteristics and/or other sensitive screening tools. Further validation studies are needed.

SUBMITTER: Deng K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8362205 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMost tuberculosis-related deaths in people with HIV could be prevented with earlier diagnosis and treatment. The only commercially available tuberculosis point-of-care test (Alere Determine TB LAM Ag [AlereLAM]) has suboptimal sensitivity, which restricts its use in clinical practice. The novel Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (FujiLAM) assay has been developed to improve the sensitivity of AlereLAM. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the FujiLAM assay for the detection of tuberculosis in hospital inpatients with HIV compared with the AlereLAM assay.MethodsFor this diagnostic accuracy study, we assessed biobanked urine samples obtained from the FIND Specimen Bank and the University of Cape Town Biobank, which had been collected from hospital inpatients (aged ≥18 years) with HIV during three independent prospective cohort studies done at two South African hospitals. Urine samples were tested using FujiLAM and AlereLAM assays. The conduct and reporting of each test was done blind to other test results. The primary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of FujiLAM compared with AlereLAM, against microbiological and composite reference standards (including clinical diagnoses).FindingsBetween April 18, 2018, and May 3, 2018, urine samples from 968 hospital inpatients with HIV were evaluated. The prevalence of microbiologically-confirmed tuberculosis was 62% and the median CD4 count was 86 cells per μL. Using the microbiological reference standard, the estimated sensitivity of FujiLAM was 70·4% (95% CI 53·0 to 83·1) compared with 42·3% (31·7 to 51·8) for AlereLAM (difference 28·1%) and the estimated specificity of FujiLAM was 90·8% (86·0 to 94·4) and 95·0% (87·7-98·8) for AlereLAM (difference -4·2%). Against the composite reference standard, the specificity of both assays was higher (95·7% [92·0 to 98·0] for FujiLAM vs 98·2% [95·7 to 99·6] for AlereLAM; difference -2·5%), but the sensitivity of both assays was lower (64·9% [50·1 to 76·7] for FujiLAM vs 38·2% [28·1 to 47·3] for AlereLAM; difference 26·7%).InterpretationIn comparison to AlereLAM, FujiLAM offers superior diagnostic sensitivity, while maintaining specificity, and could transform rapid point-of-care tuberculosis diagnosis for hospital inpatients with HIV. The applicability of FujiLAM for settings of intended use requires prospective assessment.FundingGlobal Health Innovative Technology Fund, UK Department for International Development, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Wellcome Trust, Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation of South Africa, and South African Medical Research Council.

Project description:AimTo assess the accuracy of self-reported gingival bleeding on brushing (GBoB) for differentiating between periodontal health and disease and explore the optimal haemoglobin concentration that enables visual detection of GBoB.Materials and methodsSelf-assessment of GBoB was conducted in supervised sessions for 408 consecutive adults. The haemoglobin levels in saliva/toothpaste slurry (TPS) were analysed, followed by a full-mouth periodontal examination. Periodontal diagnoses were made based on the 2017 classification of periodontal diseases. Gingival inflammation was defined as presence of at least 10% of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP). Logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analyses were applied to assess the accuracy of GBoB.ResultsOverall, 37.1% of the subjects claimed self-reported GBoB, and they had higher values of BOP (median: 25.0%; interquartile range (IQR): 16.0%-37.5%) than those without GBoB (median: 13.5%; IQR: 8.0%-24.8%, p < .001). The concentration/total amount of haemoglobin in TPS was positively correlated with the number of bleeding sites (r = .409/r = .520, p < .001). Haemoglobin concentration of 90.58 μg/ml or 0.51 μl blood volume enabled visual detection of GBoB with an AUROC of 0.848. Self-reported GBoB exhibited significantly increased values of diagnostic odds ratios (3-8) for varying degrees of gingival inflammation and periodontal disease (gingivitis and periodontitis). It showed low to moderate accuracy for discriminating periodontitis and gingivitis from periodontal health, with a sensitivity of 37.1% and 61.3% and a specificity of 84.8% and 84.4%, respectively. Absence of self-reported GBoB and low levels of haemoglobin had 93%-98% predictive values for periodontal health.ConclusionsDespite its low sensitivity for the discrimination of periodontitis, self-reported GBoB is a promising sentinel sign for periodontal health and disease, and gingival inflammation in particular. It is visually detectable after minor blood loss. After validation in an independent population, identification of GBoB may promote earlier detection and better prevention and treatment of periodontal disease, thereby eventually reducing the global burden of the disease.

Project description:BackgroundAccess to rapid diagnosis is key to the control and management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Laboratory RT-PCR testing is the current standard of care but usually requires a centralised laboratory and significant infrastructure. We describe our diagnostic accuracy assessment of a novel, rapid point-of-care real time RT-PCR CovidNudge test, which requires no laboratory handling or sample pre-processing.MethodsBetween April and May, 2020, we obtained two nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals in three hospitals in London and Oxford (UK). Samples were collected from three groups: self-referred health-care workers with suspected COVID-19; patients attending emergency departments with suspected COVID-19; and hospital inpatient admissions with or without suspected COVID-19. For the CovidNudge test, nasopharyngeal swabs were inserted directly into a cartridge which contains all reagents and components required for RT-PCR reactions, including multiple technical replicates of seven SARS-CoV-2 gene targets (rdrp1, rdrp2, e-gene, n-gene, n1, n2 and n3) and human ribonuclease P (RNaseP) as sample adequacy control. Swab samples were tested in parallel using the CovidNudge platform, and with standard laboratory RT-PCR using swabs in viral transport medium for processing in a central laboratory. The primary analysis was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the point-of-care CovidNudge test with laboratory-based testing.FindingsWe obtained 386 paired samples: 280 (73%) from self-referred health-care workers, 15 (4%) from patients in the emergency department, and 91 (23%) hospital inpatient admissions. Of the 386 paired samples, 67 tested positive on the CovidNudge point-of-care platform and 71 with standard laboratory RT-PCR. The overall sensitivity of the point-of-care test compared with laboratory-based testing was 94% (95% CI 86-98) with an overall specificity of 100% (99-100). The sensitivity of the test varied by group (self-referred healthcare workers 94% [95% CI 85-98]; patients in the emergency department 100% [48-100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [29-100]). Specificity was consistent between groups (self-referred health-care workers 100% [95% CI 98-100]; patients in the emergency department 100% [69-100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [96-100]). Point of care testing performance was similar during a period of high background prevalence of laboratory positive tests (25% [95% 20-31] in April, 2020) and low prevalence (3% [95% 1-9] in inpatient screening). Amplification of viral nucleocapsid (n1, n2, and n3) and envelope protein gene (e-gene) were most sensitive for detection of spiked SARS-CoV-2 RNA.InterpretationThe CovidNudge platform was a sensitive, specific, and rapid point of care test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 without laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. The device, which has been implemented in UK hospitals since May, 2020, could enable rapid decisions for clinical care and testing programmes.FundingNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University in partnership with Public Health England, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, and DnaNudge.