[Comparative study of 2 technics for the diagnosis of XXXX ].

@entity5132 @entity1 @entity281 @entity3
BACKGROUND: We evaluate test for the detection of antibodies against- @entity5132 by indirect immunofluorescence (Candida Spot-IF, BioM  rieux, Lyon, France and a test developed in our laboratory to detect anti-germ tube antibodies) comparatively for the serodiagnosis of @entity3 . METHODS: A total of 121 sera from 62 @entity1 were studied retrospectively. They were divided into two groups: group I included 71 sera from 28 @entity1 with @entity3 and group II, used as control, included 50 sera from 34 @entity1 with @entity3 or without evidence of @entity281 by Candida. RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of group I samples presented anti-germ tube antibodies and 57% of the @entity1 in this group were positive by the Candida Spot-IF test. Both techniques were negative in 5 @entity1 . Five @entity1 in group II showed false positive results by Candida Spot-IF and two of them presented anti-germ tube antibodies also. Both techniques presented a poor correlation (R2 = 0.159; p < 0.001). Detection of anti-germ tube antibodies showed a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 94% and Candida Spot-IF showed a sensitivity of 57% and a specificity of 85%. Detection of anti-germ tube antibodies in immunocompetent @entity1 showed a sensitivity of 90% but it decreased to 62% in immunocompromised @entity1 . With the Candida Spot-IF test the sensitivity was 70 and 25%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The detection of anti-germ tube antibodies was more sensitive and specific than detection of antibodies by the Candida Spot-IF test and it can be used for the serodiagnosis and follow up of @entity1 with @entity3 .
