LEGIONELLA - World Health Organization
LEGIONELLA - World Health Organization LEGIONELLA - World Health Organization
In the clinical setting, serology is limited in its usefulness as a diagnostic tool for legionellosis because of the length of time required, the need for paired sera, and the difficulty of obtaining appropriate convalescent samples (Stout & Yu, 1997). Although diagnosis by antibody detection from tissues is still useful for epidemiological studies in outbreaks or to establish an infection retrospectively, it has generally been superseded by the urinary antigen test, as discussed above. A single high titre with clinical symptoms suggestive of legionellosis gives a presumptive diagnosis. However, in one study, a single acute-phase antibody titre of 1:256 could not discriminate between cases of Legionella and non-cases (Plouffe et al., 1995). Cross-reactions with other bacteria, such as Campylobacter and Pseudomonas species, have also occurred (Marshall, Boswell & Kudesia, 1994; Boswell, Marshall & Kudesia, 1996; Harrison, 1997). Indirect IFAT is used to diagnose legionellosis by incubating samples with a hyperimmune antiserum and then visualizing them by applying a fluorescently tagged anti-Legionella antibody, fluorescein–isothiocyanate-conjugated immunoglobulin (FITC). A positive control (human reference serum) and a negative control (human serum from a healthy individual) are required (Rose et al., 2002). The sensitivity and specificity of IFAT have only been evaluated using L. pneumophila serogroup 1 antigen; sensitivity and specificity for other serogroups or species are not known (Muder 2000; Lück, Helbig & Schuppler, 2002). Because of the formation of cross-reactive antibodies, about 50% of patients infected by L. pneumophila non-serogroup 1 seroconvert with antigens specific to L. pneumophila serogroup 1 (Edelstein, 2002). A negative result does not exclude legionellosis, and care needs to be taken to confirm a positive result when low numbers of bacteria are seen (Benson & Ward, 1992). Antigen preparation differs between laboratories and manufacturers, resulting in different critical titre levels. For some antigen preparations, specificity could be relatively high for a single specimen, and low for another antigen (Rose et al., 2002). A number of companies produce FITC-labelled antibodies for the detection of L. pneumophila. An FITC-conjugated monoclonal antibody (MAb) directed against L. pneumophila common outer-membrane protein is commercially available, and is preferred because it is more specific than polyclonal reagents. The MAb has the advantage of reacting with all L. pneumophila serogroups, but only identifying L. pneumophila. Genus-specific MAbs are not suitable for immunofluorescence. Direct immunofluorescence assays Direct immunofluorescence assays (DFAs) using antibody conjugated with a fluorochrome require 2–3 hours to complete the staining procedure. DFAs for Legionella species other than L. pneumophila should not ordinarily be used. DFA of sputum remains positive for 2–4 days after the initiation of the specific legionellosis antibiotic therapy, and often for a longer period in cases of a cavitary pulmonary disease (Lück, Helbig & Schuppler, 2002). LEGIONELLA AND THE PREVENTION OF LEGIONELLOSIS
DFA has been used successfully with expectorated sputum, endotracheal suction aspirates, lung biopsies and transtracheal aspirate (Stout, Rihs & Yu, 2003). Pleural fluid examination in patients with legionellosis by culture or DFA rarely yields positive results, but has occasionally been helpful. Between 25% and 70% of patients with culture-proven legionellosis have positive DFA for L. pneumophila, and the test’s specificity is higher than 99.9%. Therefore, a negative result does not rule out legionellosis but a positive result is almost always diagnostic, provided that the slide is read correctly. Care must be taken to prevent false-positive results of DFA. These can result from clinical specimens coming into contact with contaminated water, such as contaminated buffers or organisms washed from positive control slides (Lück, Helbig & Schuppler, 2002). In addition, skill and experience are required to interpret the DFA; therefore, laboratories lacking expertise should be discouraged from using it. Enzyme immunoassays Microagglutination or enzyme immunoassay (EIA) methods can be used to serologically diagnose L. pneumophila serogroup 1 in tissues (Edelstein, 2002). Several EIA serologic diagnostic kits are commercially available, with sensitivity ranging from 80% to 90% and a specificity of about 98%. The sensitivity of kits for testing antibody from serotypes 2–6 is still unknown. The conformity of EIA tests with the immunofluorescence method is about 91% (Edelstein, 2002). 11.2.3 Diagnosing legionellosis using nucleic acid detection Overview of polymerase chain reaction assays L. pneumophila DNA was first detected in clinical samples by a commercial nucleic acid hybridization assay that used a radioisotopically labelled RNA (ribonucleic acid) probe. However, concerns about the sensitivity and specificity of the assay led to its subsequent withdrawal (Fields, Benson & Besser, 2002). Since then, Legionella polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays have been used more actively to detect DNA from environmental samples, but can also be used for analysing clinical samples, particularly those from the respiratory tract. Detection of Legionella and L. pneumophila DNA has been reported using PCR assays (with or without confirmation by blot hybridization or sequencing) (Mahbubani et al., 1990; Lisby & Dessau, 1994; Ko et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2003), including those targeting: • ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes or their intergenic spacer regions • a gene coding for heat-shock protein (dnaJ) • the RNA polymerase gene (rpoB) • the macrophage infectivity potentiator (mip) gene. LEGIONELLA AND THE PREVENTION OF LEGIONELLOSIS
- Page 155 and 156: Nutrients — control measures Bath
- Page 157 and 158: Various additives may also be used
- Page 159 and 160: • descriptions of any significant
- Page 161 and 162: Table . Examples of m crob olog cal
- Page 163 and 164: Chapter 9 Disease surveillance and
- Page 165 and 166: Exposure histories allow cases to b
- Page 167 and 168: F gure . Invest gat ng a s ngle cas
- Page 169 and 170: Box . (cont nued) Since the incepti
- Page 171 and 172: Country United Kingdom All reported
- Page 173 and 174: F gure . Annual reported cases, - 0
- Page 175 and 176: Training opportunities Trainees in
- Page 177 and 178: Box . Example of terms of reference
- Page 179 and 180: ecause doing anything more could un
- Page 181 and 182: 9.4 Case studies This section descr
- Page 183 and 184: 9.4.4 Concrete batcher process on a
- Page 185 and 186: Chapter 10 Regulatory aspects David
- Page 187 and 188: • validation of the effectiveness
- Page 189 and 190: • operating conditions, such as t
- Page 191 and 192: 10.4.6 Outbreak investigation and n
- Page 193 and 194: hot water (e.g. health-care facilit
- Page 195 and 196: General prevent on Country DW Wp SB
- Page 197 and 198: Country General prevent on DW Wp SB
- Page 199 and 200: Chapter 11 Laboratory aspects of Le
- Page 201 and 202: • detection of the bacterium in t
- Page 203 and 204: Method Sens t v ty (%) PCR • Rapi
- Page 205: 11.2.2 Detecting Legionella antigen
- Page 209 and 210: • Serologic testing can be used f
- Page 211 and 212: Although not all strains can be rel
- Page 213 and 214: Generally, any water source that ma
- Page 215 and 216: During outbreak investigations, swa
- Page 217 and 218: • other Legionella species that d
- Page 219 and 220: Appendix 1 Example of a water syste
- Page 221 and 222: Weekly water system check list Week
- Page 223 and 224: Appendix 2 Example of a 2-week foll
- Page 225 and 226: Travel Work/travel in the UK: ❑ Y
- Page 227 and 228: Checklist of local places Health/sp
- Page 229 and 230: Appendix 3 Example of a national su
- Page 231 and 232: Strictly Confidential 2 Hospital Ac
- Page 233 and 234: Glossary aerobic bacteria Bacteria
- Page 235 and 236: health-care acquired Legionellosis
- Page 237 and 238: surveillance The process of systema
- Page 239 and 240: References Abu KY, Eisenstein BI, E
- Page 241 and 242: Barbaree JM et al. (1987). Protocol
- Page 243 and 244: Blatt SP et al. (1994). Legionnaire
- Page 245 and 246: Byrne B, Swanson MS (1998). Express
- Page 247 and 248: Crespi S (1993). Legionella y legio
- Page 249 and 250: Edelstein PH (1982b). Comparative s
- Page 251 and 252: Falguera M et al. (2001). Nonsevere
- Page 253 and 254: Gaia V et al. (2003). Sequence-base
- Page 255 and 256: Hayden RT et al. (2001). Direct det
In the clinical setting, serology is limited in its usefulness as a diagnostic tool for legionellosis<br />
because of the length of time required, the need for paired sera, and the difficulty of obtaining<br />
appropriate convalescent samples (Stout & Yu, 1997). Although diagnosis by antibody detection<br />
from tissues is still useful for epidemiological studies in outbreaks or to establish an infection<br />
retrospectively, it has generally been superseded by the urinary antigen test, as discussed above.<br />
A single high titre with clinical symptoms suggestive of legionellosis gives a presumptive<br />
diagnosis. However, in one study, a single acute-phase antibody titre of 1:256 could not<br />
discriminate between cases of Legionella and non-cases (Plouffe et al., 1995). Cross-reactions<br />
with other bacteria, such as Campylobacter and Pseudomonas species, have also occurred (Marshall,<br />
Boswell & Kudesia, 1994; Boswell, Marshall & Kudesia, 1996; Harrison, 1997).<br />
Indirect IFAT is used to diagnose legionellosis by incubating samples with a hyperimmune<br />
antiserum and then visualizing them by applying a fluorescently tagged anti-Legionella antibody,<br />
fluorescein–isothiocyanate-conjugated immunoglobulin (FITC). A positive control (human<br />
reference serum) and a negative control (human serum from a healthy individual) are required<br />
(Rose et al., 2002). The sensitivity and specificity of IFAT have only been evaluated using<br />
L. pneumophila serogroup 1 antigen; sensitivity and specificity for other serogroups or species<br />
are not known (Muder 2000; Lück, Helbig & Schuppler, 2002). Because of the formation of<br />
cross-reactive antibodies, about 50% of patients infected by L. pneumophila non-serogroup 1<br />
seroconvert with antigens specific to L. pneumophila serogroup 1 (Edelstein, 2002). A negative<br />
result does not exclude legionellosis, and care needs to be taken to confirm a positive result<br />
when low numbers of bacteria are seen (Benson & Ward, 1992).<br />
Antigen preparation differs between laboratories and manufacturers, resulting in different<br />
critical titre levels. For some antigen preparations, specificity could be relatively high for a single<br />
specimen, and low for another antigen (Rose et al., 2002).<br />
A number of companies produce FITC-labelled antibodies for the detection of L. pneumophila.<br />
An FITC-conjugated monoclonal antibody (MAb) directed against L. pneumophila common<br />
outer-membrane protein is commercially available, and is preferred because it is more specific<br />
than polyclonal reagents. The MAb has the advantage of reacting with all L. pneumophila<br />
serogroups, but only identifying L. pneumophila. Genus-specific MAbs are not suitable for<br />
immunofluorescence.<br />
Direct immunofluorescence assays<br />
Direct immunofluorescence assays (DFAs) using antibody conjugated with a fluorochrome<br />
require 2–3 hours to complete the staining procedure. DFAs for Legionella species other than<br />
L. pneumophila should not ordinarily be used. DFA of sputum remains positive for 2–4 days<br />
after the initiation of the specific legionellosis antibiotic therapy, and often for a longer period<br />
in cases of a cavitary pulmonary disease (Lück, Helbig & Schuppler, 2002).<br />
<strong>LEGIONELLA</strong> AND THE PREVENTION OF LEGIONELLOSIS