Suppr超能文献

两种丝虫病血清学诊断检测方法在非流行区的应用。

Performance of two serodiagnostic tests for loiasis in a Non-Endemic area.

机构信息

IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Center for Tropical Diseases, Negrar, Verona, Italy.

Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), UMI 233-INSERM U1175-Montpellier University, Montpellier, France.

出版信息

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 May 26;14(5):e0008187. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008187. eCollection 2020 May.

Abstract

Loiasis, caused by the filarial nematode Loa loa, is endemic in Central and West Africa where about 10 million people are infected. There is a scarcity of convenient, commercial diagnostics for L. loa. Microscopy requires trained personnel and has low sensitivity, while the serodiagnosis is currently not standardized. Individual case management is also important in non-endemic countries to treat migrants, expatriates and tourists. We retrospectively compared the performance of a Loa Antibody Rapid Test (RDT) and a commercial ELISA pan-filarial test on 170 patients, 65 with loiasis [8 with eyeworm, 29 with positive microfilaremia, 28 with neither microfilaremia nor history of eyeworm but eosinophilia and history of Calabar swelling (probable loiasis)], 95 with other common parasitic infections and no previous exposure to L. loa (37 with M. perstans, 1 with Brugia sp., 18 with strongyloidiasis, 20 with schistosomiasis, 5 with hookworm, 4 with Ascaris lumbricoides infection, 10 with hyper-reactive malarial splenomegaly), and 10 uninfected controls. The sensitivity of the RDT and of the ELISA were 93.8% (61/65) and 90.8% (59/65), respectively. For the RDT, most of the cross-reactions were observed in patients with M. perstans: 7/37 (18.9%), followed by 1/10 (10%) with hyper-reactive malarial splenomegaly and 1/20 (5%) with schistosomiasis. None of the 27 subjects infected with intestinal nematodes was found positive at this test. The ELISA is meant to be a pan-filarial assay, and reacted extensively with cases of M. perstans (95%), as expected, and also in 11/18 (61.1%) patients with strongyloidiasis and in 3/5 (60%) with hookworm infection. The RDT and the ELISA are both highly sensitive for the diagnosis of loiasis. The main difference lies in the extent of cross-reactivity with other parasites. Considering that the RDT is specifically meant for Loa loa infection, and its high sensitivity, this test could be a useful tool for the diagnosis of occult loiasis.

摘要

罗阿丝虫病由罗阿丝虫引起,流行于中非和西非,约有 1000 万人感染。目前,方便的商业化诊断方法稀缺。显微镜检查需要经过培训的人员,且敏感性低,而血清诊断目前尚未标准化。在非流行国家,个体病例管理也很重要,需要治疗移民、侨民和游客。我们回顾性地比较了 170 名患者(65 例罗阿丝虫病患者[8 例眼丝虫病,29 例微丝蚴血症阳性,28 例既无微丝蚴血症也无眼丝虫病史但嗜酸性粒细胞增多和卡拉巴尔肿胀史(可能的罗阿丝虫病)],95 例其他常见寄生虫感染且无罗阿丝虫既往暴露史(37 例曼氏血吸虫病,1 例布鲁氏虫病,18 例强力霉素病,20 例血吸虫病,5 例钩虫病,4 例蛔虫感染,10 例疟原虫性脾肿大)和 10 例未感染对照)中,一种罗阿丝虫抗体快速检测试剂盒(RDT)和一种商业化的全丝虫 ELISA 检测的表现。RDT 和 ELISA 的敏感性分别为 93.8%(61/65)和 90.8%(59/65)。对于 RDT,大多数交叉反应发生在曼氏血吸虫病患者中:37 例中的 7 例(18.9%),其次是 10 例中与高反应性疟原虫性脾肿大相关的 1 例(10%)和 20 例中与血吸虫病相关的 1 例(5%)。在这项检测中,没有发现 27 例肠道线虫感染的患者呈阳性。ELISA 旨在作为一种全丝虫检测,与曼氏血吸虫病病例(95%)广泛反应,如预期的那样,与 18 例中的 11 例(61.1%)强力霉素病和 5 例中的 3 例(60%)钩虫感染也广泛反应。RDT 和 ELISA 对罗阿丝虫病的诊断均具有高度敏感性。主要区别在于与其他寄生虫的交叉反应程度。考虑到 RDT 专门用于罗阿丝虫感染,且具有较高的敏感性,该检测可能是一种有用的隐匿性罗阿丝虫病诊断工具。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验