Synovial Fluid Calprotectin for the Preoperative Diagnosis of Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents a challenge in clinical practice and the analysis of synovial fluid is a useful diagnostic tool. Calprotectin is an inflammatory biomarker widely used in the evaluation of chronic inflammatory diseases; however, little is known about its role in PJI. The purpose of this study is to determine the reliability of synovial calprotectin in the diagnosis of PJI. METHODS: Seventy-six patients with painful knee arthroplasty were included in this prospective observational study. Synovial fluid was analyzed for cell count, percentage of polymorphonuclear neutrophils, microbiological culture, leukocyte esterase strip test, alpha-defensin rapid test, and calprotectin immunoassay dosage. The 2018 Consensus Statements criteria for PJI were used as standard reference to define the presence of infection. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and receiver-operation characteristic curve were calculated for calprotectin immunoassay test. RESULTS: By 2018 Consensus Statements criteria for PJI, 28 patients were considered infected, 44 patients were considered not infected, and 4 patients were classified as inconclusive. The calprotectin synovial fluid test resulted in 2 false-positive results and no false-negative results. The calprotectin synovial fluid test demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 99.96-100) and specificity of 95% (95% CI 89.4-100) for the diagnosis of PJI. The positive likelihood ratio was 22 (95% CI 5.680-85.209) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0 (95% CI 0-0.292). The area under the receiver-operation characteristic curve was 0.996 (95% CI 94.3-100). CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that synovial calprotectin immunoassay test has a high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of knee PJI. Moreover, it is easily applied, quick and valuable in clinical practice.

Prevalence of Pol d 1 Sensitization in Polistes dominula Allergy and Its Diagnostic Role in Vespid Double-Positivity.

BACKGROUND: Stings by Polistes species frequently cause allergic reactions. However, standard allergy diagnostics are often unable to differentiate between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity in case of Vespula/Polistes double-sensitization because antigen 5 is the only Polistes venom molecule currently available in diagnostics (Pol d 5). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of phospholipase A1 in Polistes venom allergy (Pol d 1) and its diagnostic role in vespid allergy. METHODS: We performed component-resolved diagnostics in patients with vespid allergic reactions who were positive to Polistes venom. A prevalence analysis was performed and the diagnostic accuracy of Pol d 1 was evaluated to detect primary Polistes sensitization in double-sensitized patients. RESULTS: Blood samples were collected from 132 patients. Pol d 1 was present in 97% to 100% of 128 Polistes-positive patients. It was frequently involved in case of positivity to a single Polistes molecule (48% in double- and 80% in mono-sensitized patients). Furthermore, Pol d 1 was positive in 95% of Pol d 5-negative subjects. The diagnostic accuracy of Pol d 1 was good (folded type: area under the curve = 87%; 82% sensitivity and 77% specificity at the best cutoff of 5.773), and even better when used combined with the whole extract ratio (area under the curve = 99%; 91% sensitivity and 100% specificity). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that Pol d 1 is the most frequent Polistes allergen in Italian patients. It can distinguish Polistes primary sensitizations with good diagnostic accuracy, which supports its use in clinical practice.

Honeybee venom immunotherapy: a comparative study using purified and nonpurified aqueous extracts in patients with normal Basal serum tryptase concentrations.

In this study, we compared a purified aqueous extract and the corresponding nonpurified aqueous preparation under the same build-up protocol in bee venom allergic patients with a normal baseline mast cell tryptase concentration. Eighty patients with a history of a systemic reaction were enrolled for immunotherapy using a 5-day rush protocol. Patients treated with the purified extract and those treated with the non purified aqueous extract who developed a systemic reaction underwent maintenance therapy with the purified aluminium hydroxide adsorbed preparations. Patients treated with the nonpurified aqueous extract who did not experience a systemic reaction during the rush phase underwent the maintenance phase with that extract. Systemic reactions during the build-up phase occurred significantly more often in patients treated with nonpurified aqueous extract than in those treated with the corresponding purified aqueous preparations. During the one-year maintenance phase, no systemic reactions occurred in either of the groups. Neither age nor baseline mast cell tryptase concentration presented a significant correlation with the occurrence of a systemic reaction during the treatment, while the type of extract did. In conclusion, nonpurified aqueous extracts induced more frequent systemic reactions than the purified aqueous preparations, during the same rush protocol. The efficacy seemed to be comparable.