Diagnostic Accuracy of Two Molecular Tools for Diagnosis of Congenital Chagas Disease.
Journal
Molecular diagnosis & therapy
ISSN: 1179-2000
Titre abrégé: Mol Diagn Ther
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101264260
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2021
11 2021
Historique:
accepted:
27
07
2021
pubmed:
25
8
2021
medline:
23
4
2022
entrez:
24
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The real prevalence of congenital Chagas disease is undefined because of difficulties in the detection of Trypanosoma cruzi by microscopic examination. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of two molecular diagnostic tools, qPCR and LAMP, in the diagnosis of congenital Chagas disease in a clinical setting. To this end, we conducted a prospective cohort study in a tertiary care center, of infants under 9 months of age, born in Buenos Aires to women with Chagas disease. Blood samples were collected for microscopic examination and molecular diagnosis at baseline. If negative, infants were followed up until 9 months of age to determine a final diagnosis by serology. In-house qPCR and LAMP previously validated were challenged as index tests. A total of 154 participants were potentially eligible, 120 of whom were enrolled. Finally, 102 (66.2%) of them fulfilled the follow-up. The diagnosis of congenital Chagas disease was confirmed in 13 infants and excluded in 89. Both the sensitivity and specificity of the qPCR were 100.0% (95% confidence interval 75.3-100.0 and 95% confidence interval 95.9-100.0, respectively), whereas the sensitivity and specificity of LAMP were 69.2% (95% confidence interval 38.6-90.9) and 100% (95% confidence interval 95.9-100.0), respectively. The qPCR agreed with the current diagnostic algorithm, and was a reliable and sensitive tool to detect congenital Chagas disease earlier, providing an appropriate and timely identification of infected infants requiring treatment. LAMP was able to detect congenital Chagas disease in infected infants by naked-eye visualization in accordance with a microscopic examination. The advantages of molecular diagnostic tools should be taken into account by the health system to improve congenital Chagas disease diagnosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The real prevalence of congenital Chagas disease is undefined because of difficulties in the detection of Trypanosoma cruzi by microscopic examination. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of two molecular diagnostic tools, qPCR and LAMP, in the diagnosis of congenital Chagas disease in a clinical setting.
METHODS
To this end, we conducted a prospective cohort study in a tertiary care center, of infants under 9 months of age, born in Buenos Aires to women with Chagas disease. Blood samples were collected for microscopic examination and molecular diagnosis at baseline. If negative, infants were followed up until 9 months of age to determine a final diagnosis by serology. In-house qPCR and LAMP previously validated were challenged as index tests.
RESULTS
A total of 154 participants were potentially eligible, 120 of whom were enrolled. Finally, 102 (66.2%) of them fulfilled the follow-up. The diagnosis of congenital Chagas disease was confirmed in 13 infants and excluded in 89. Both the sensitivity and specificity of the qPCR were 100.0% (95% confidence interval 75.3-100.0 and 95% confidence interval 95.9-100.0, respectively), whereas the sensitivity and specificity of LAMP were 69.2% (95% confidence interval 38.6-90.9) and 100% (95% confidence interval 95.9-100.0), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The qPCR agreed with the current diagnostic algorithm, and was a reliable and sensitive tool to detect congenital Chagas disease earlier, providing an appropriate and timely identification of infected infants requiring treatment. LAMP was able to detect congenital Chagas disease in infected infants by naked-eye visualization in accordance with a microscopic examination. The advantages of molecular diagnostic tools should be taken into account by the health system to improve congenital Chagas disease diagnosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34426953
doi: 10.1007/s40291-021-00553-3
pii: 10.1007/s40291-021-00553-3
pmc: PMC8382099
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
791-801Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2015 Jun;110(4):507-9
pubmed: 25993401
Exp Parasitol. 2018 Mar;186:50-58
pubmed: 29448038
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022 Feb;88(2):383-402
pubmed: 33314266
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 May;82(5):838-45
pubmed: 20439964
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(1):e2000
pubmed: 23350002
Acta Trop. 2014 Sep;137:195-200
pubmed: 24892867
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 3;12(10):e0185504
pubmed: 28972996
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998 Sep;59(3):487-91
pubmed: 9749649
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Dec 1;49(11):1667-74
pubmed: 19877966
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Oct 11;3(5):e001069
pubmed: 30364393
EBioMedicine. 2021 Jul;69:103450
pubmed: 34186488
Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2020;53:e20190560
pubmed: 32348431
J Mol Diagn. 2015 Sep;17(5):605-15
pubmed: 26320872
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013 Oct 17;7(10):e2476
pubmed: 24147166
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Oct 24;13(10):e0007694
pubmed: 31647811
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017 Sep;89(1):26-28
pubmed: 28684052
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 Oct;5(10):e1250
pubmed: 22039554
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 May 19;9(5):e0003765
pubmed: 25993316
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003 Sep;52(3):441-9
pubmed: 12917253
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Aug 29;13(8):e0007668
pubmed: 31465522
Acta Trop. 2015 Nov;151:103-15
pubmed: 26293886
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799
pubmed: 28137831
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 15;65(2):268-275
pubmed: 28369287
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Aug 14;14(8):e0008402
pubmed: 32797041
Clin Infect Dis. 1995 Sep;21(3):551-5
pubmed: 8527542
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Jul 20;11(7):e0005779
pubmed: 28727723
J Clin Microbiol. 1983 Aug;18(2):327-30
pubmed: 6413530
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014 May 22;8(5):e2907
pubmed: 24853169