Hospital Shell, Fundación Misión Cristiana de Salud, Shell, Pastaza, Ecuador.
Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Laboratory for Experimental Parasitology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Academic Medical Center at the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023 Nov 29;17(11):e0011745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011745. eCollection 2023 Nov.
Clinical and laboratory diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is hampered by under-ascertainment of direct microscopy.
This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of qPCR on DNA extracted from filter paper to the accuracy of direct smear slide microscopy in participants presenting with a cutaneous lesion suspected of leishmaniasis to 16 rural healthcare centers in the Ecuadorian Amazon and Pacific regions, from January 2019 to June 2021. We used Bayesian latent class analysis to estimate test sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (LR), and predictive values (PV) with their 95% credible intervals (95%CrI). The impact of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics on predictive values was assessed as a secondary objective.
Of 320 initially included participants, paired valid test results were available and included in the diagnostic accuracy analysis for 129 from the Amazon and 185 from the Pacific region. We estimated sensitivity of 68% (95%CrI 49% to 82%) and 73% (95%CrI 73% to 83%) for qPCR, and 51% (95%CrI 36% to 66%) and 76% (95%CrI 65% to 86%) for microscopy in the Amazon and Pacific region, respectively. In the Amazon, with an estimated disease prevalence among participants of 73%, negative PV for qPCR was 54% (95%CrI 5% to 77%) and 44% (95%CrI 4% to 65%) for microscopy. In the Pacific, (prevalence 88%) the negative PV was 34% (95%CrI 3% to 58%) and 37% (95%CrI 3% to 63%). The addition of qPCR parallel to microscopy in the Amazon increases the observed prevalence from 38% to 64% (+26 (95%CrI 19 to 34) percentage points).
The accuracy of either qPCR on DNA extracted from filter paper or microscopy for CL diagnosis as a stand-alone test seems to be unsatisfactory and region-dependent. We recommend further studies to confirm the clinically relevant increment found in the diagnostic yield due to the addition of qPCR.
临床和实验室诊断皮肤利什曼病(CL)受到直接显微镜检查未确定的阻碍。
本研究比较了从滤纸中提取 DNA 的 qPCR 与直接涂片显微镜检查在厄瓜多尔亚马逊和太平洋地区 16 个农村医疗中心出现疑似皮肤利什曼病皮损的参与者中的诊断准确性,时间为 2019 年 1 月至 2021 年 6 月。我们使用贝叶斯潜在类别分析来估计测试的敏感性、特异性、似然比(LR)和预测值(PV)及其 95%可信区间(95%CrI)。作为次要目标,评估了社会人口统计学和临床特征对预测值的影响。
在最初纳入的 320 名参与者中,有 129 名来自亚马逊地区,185 名来自太平洋地区,有配对的有效检测结果可供分析。我们估计 qPCR 的敏感性为 68%(95%CrI 49%至 82%)和 73%(95%CrI 73%至 83%),显微镜检查的敏感性为 51%(95%CrI 36%至 66%)和 76%(95%CrI 65%至 86%),分别来自亚马逊和太平洋地区。在亚马逊地区,根据参与者中估计的疾病流行率为 73%,qPCR 的阴性预测值为 54%(95%CrI 5%至 77%)和 44%(95%CrI 4%至 65%))显微镜检查。在太平洋地区(流行率 88%),阴性预测值为 34%(95%CrI 3%至 58%)和 37%(95%CrI 3%至 63%)。在亚马逊地区,将 qPCR 与显微镜检查平行添加后,观察到的流行率从 38%增加到 64%(+26(95%CrI 19 至 34)个百分点)。
作为一项独立检测,滤纸中提取 DNA 的 qPCR 或显微镜检查对 CL 诊断的准确性似乎都不能令人满意,而且还具有地域依赖性。我们建议进行进一步的研究,以确认由于添加 qPCR 而导致诊断效果的临床相关增加。