Ascanio Luis C, Carroll Savannah, Paniz-Mondolfi Alberto, Ramírez Juan David
Molecular Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell-based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.
Centro de Investigaciones en Microbiología y Biotecnología-UR (CIMBIUR), Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia.
Front Microbiol. 2024 Apr 30;15:1393992. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1393992. eCollection 2024.
Chagas disease (CD), caused by , is a global health concern with expanding geographical reach. Despite improved and accessible test methods, diagnosing CD in its various phases remains complex. The existence of clinical scenarios, including immunosuppressed patients, transplant-related CD reactivation, transfusion-associated cases, and orally transmitted acute infections, adds to the diagnostic challenge. No singular gold standard test exists for all phases, and recommendations from PAHO and the CDC advocate for the use of two serological methods for chronic CD diagnosis, while molecular methods or direct parasite detection are suggested for the acute phase. Given the complexity in the diagnostic landscape of CD, the goal of this scoping review is to characterize available diagnostic tests for CD in the clinical laboratory.
A literature search in PubMed was conducted on studies related to diagnosis (IVD) in humans published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese language as of 28 August 2023, and extended backward with no predefined time frame. Studies underwent title and abstract screening, followed by full-text review. Studies included were classified based on the diagnostic method used. Test methods were grouped as serological, molecular, and other methods. Performance, availability, and regulatory status were also characterized.
Out of 85 studies included in the final review, 115 different tests were identified. These tests comprised 89 serological test types, 21 molecular test types, and 5 other test methods. Predominant serological tests included ELISA (38 studies, 44.70%), Rapid tests (19 studies, 22.35%), and chemiluminescence (10 studies, 11.76%). Among molecular tests, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) assays were notable. Twenty-eight tests were approved globally for IVD or donor testing, all being serological methods. Molecular assays lacked approval for IVD in the United States, with only European and Colombian regulatory acceptance.
Serological tests, specifically ELISAs, remain the most used and commercially available diagnostic methods. This makes sense considering that most Chagas disease diagnoses occur in the chronic phase and that the WHO gold standard relies on 2 serological tests to establish the diagnosis of chronic Chagas. ELISAs are feasible and relatively low-cost, with good performance with sensitivities ranging between 77.4% and 100%, and with specificities ranging between 84.2% and 100%. Molecular methods allow the detection of specific variants but rely on the parasite's presence, which limits their utility to parasitemia levels. Depending on the PCR method and the phase of the disease, the sensitivity ranged from 58.88 to 100% while the mean specificity ranged from 68.8% to 100%. Despite their performance, molecular testing remains mostly unavailable for IVD use. Only 3 molecular tests are approved for IVD, which are available only in Europe. Six commercial serological assays approved by the FDA are available for blood and organ donor screening. Currently, there are no guidelines for testing CD oral outbreaks. Although more evidence is needed on how testing methods should be used in special clinical scenarios, a comprehensive approach of clinical assessment and diagnostics tests, including not IVD methods, is required for an accurate CD diagnosis.
恰加斯病(CD)由[病原体名称未给出]引起,是一个全球关注且地理范围不断扩大的健康问题。尽管检测方法有所改进且更易获取,但诊断处于不同阶段的CD仍很复杂。存在多种临床情况,包括免疫抑制患者、移植相关的CD再激活、输血相关病例以及经口传播的急性感染,这增加了诊断的挑战性。对于所有阶段不存在单一的金标准检测方法,泛美卫生组织(PAHO)和美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)的建议主张在慢性CD诊断中使用两种血清学方法,而急性期建议采用分子方法或直接检测寄生虫。鉴于CD诊断领域的复杂性,本范围综述的目的是描述临床实验室中可用的CD诊断检测方法。
截至2023年8月28日,在PubMed上对以英文、西班牙文或葡萄牙文发表的与人类[疾病名称未给出]诊断(体外诊断)相关的研究进行文献检索,且无预定义时间范围向后扩展。研究先进行标题和摘要筛选,然后进行全文审查。纳入的研究根据所使用的诊断方法进行分类。检测方法分为血清学、分子和其他方法。还对性能、可及性和监管状态进行了描述。
在最终综述纳入的85项研究中,识别出115种不同的检测方法。这些检测方法包括89种血清学检测类型、21种分子检测类型和5种其他检测方法。主要的血清学检测包括酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)(38项研究,44.70%)、快速检测(19项研究,22.35%)和化学发光法(10项研究,11.76%)。在分子检测中,聚合酶链反应(PCR)测定值得注意。28种检测方法在全球范围内被批准用于体外诊断或供体检测,均为血清学方法。分子检测在美国未获体外诊断批准,仅获欧洲和哥伦比亚监管机构认可。
血清学检测,特别是ELISA,仍然是最常用且可商购的诊断方法。考虑到大多数恰加斯病诊断发生在慢性期,且世界卫生组织的金标准依赖两种血清学检测来确诊慢性恰加斯病,这是合理的。ELISA可行且成本相对较低,性能良好,灵敏度在77.4%至100%之间,特异性在84.2%至100%之间。分子方法可检测特定变体,但依赖寄生虫的存在,这限制了它们在寄生虫血症水平方面的效用。根据PCR方法和疾病阶段,灵敏度范围为58.88%至100%,平均特异性范围为68.8%至100%。尽管性能良好,但分子检测在体外诊断用途上大多不可用。仅3种分子检测被批准用于体外诊断,且仅在欧洲可用。美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准的6种商业血清学检测可用于血液和器官供体筛查。目前,对于CD经口爆发没有检测指南。尽管在特殊临床情况下应如何使用检测方法还需要更多证据,但准确诊断CD需要综合的临床评估和诊断检测方法,包括非体外诊断方法。