Molecular diagnosis of Chagas disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chagas disease
Loop-mediated isothermal amplification
Molecular diagnosis
Polymerase chain reaction
Trypanosoma cruzi
Journal
Infectious diseases of poverty
ISSN: 2049-9957
Titre abrégé: Infect Dis Poverty
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101606645
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Oct 2023
16 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
20
03
2023
accepted:
20
08
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
17
10
2023
entrez:
16
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The complexity of the Chagas disease and its phases is impossible to have a unique test for both phases and a lot of different epidemiological scenarios. Currently, serology is the reference standard technique; occasionally, results are inconclusive, and a different diagnostic technique is needed. Some guidelines recommend molecular testing. A systematic review and meta-analysis of available molecular tools/techniques for the diagnosis of Chagas disease was performed to measure their heterogeneity and efficacy in detecting Trypanosoma cruzi infection in blood samples. A systematic review was conducted up to July 27, 2022, including studies published in international databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined to select eligible studies. Data were extracted and presented according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Study quality was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Forest plots and a summary of the receiving operating characteristics (SROC) curves displayed the outcomes. Heterogeneity was determined by I We identified 858 records and selected 32 papers. Studies pertained to endemic countries and nonendemic areas with adult and paediatric populations. The sample sizes ranged from 17 to 708 patients. There were no concerns regarding the risk of bias and applicability of all included studies. A positive and nonsignificant correlation coefficient (S = 0.020; P = 0.992) was obtained in the set of studies that evaluated diagnostic tests in the acute phase population (ACD). A positive and significant correlation coefficient (S = 0.597; P < 0.000) was obtained in the case of studies performed in the chronic phase population (CCD). This resulted in high heterogeneity between studies, with the master mix origin and guanidine addition representing significant sources. The results described in this meta-analysis (qualitative and quantitative analyses) do not allow the selection of the optimal protocol of molecular method for the study of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in any of its phases, among other reasons due to the complexity of this infection. Continuous analysis and optimization of the different molecular techniques is crucial to implement this efficient diagnosis in endemic areas.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The complexity of the Chagas disease and its phases is impossible to have a unique test for both phases and a lot of different epidemiological scenarios. Currently, serology is the reference standard technique; occasionally, results are inconclusive, and a different diagnostic technique is needed. Some guidelines recommend molecular testing. A systematic review and meta-analysis of available molecular tools/techniques for the diagnosis of Chagas disease was performed to measure their heterogeneity and efficacy in detecting Trypanosoma cruzi infection in blood samples.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted up to July 27, 2022, including studies published in international databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined to select eligible studies. Data were extracted and presented according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Study quality was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Forest plots and a summary of the receiving operating characteristics (SROC) curves displayed the outcomes. Heterogeneity was determined by I
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified 858 records and selected 32 papers. Studies pertained to endemic countries and nonendemic areas with adult and paediatric populations. The sample sizes ranged from 17 to 708 patients. There were no concerns regarding the risk of bias and applicability of all included studies. A positive and nonsignificant correlation coefficient (S = 0.020; P = 0.992) was obtained in the set of studies that evaluated diagnostic tests in the acute phase population (ACD). A positive and significant correlation coefficient (S = 0.597; P < 0.000) was obtained in the case of studies performed in the chronic phase population (CCD). This resulted in high heterogeneity between studies, with the master mix origin and guanidine addition representing significant sources.
INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
UNASSIGNED
The results described in this meta-analysis (qualitative and quantitative analyses) do not allow the selection of the optimal protocol of molecular method for the study of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in any of its phases, among other reasons due to the complexity of this infection. Continuous analysis and optimization of the different molecular techniques is crucial to implement this efficient diagnosis in endemic areas.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37845734
doi: 10.1186/s40249-023-01143-7
pii: 10.1186/s40249-023-01143-7
pmc: PMC10577976
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
95Subventions
Organisme : Instituto de Salud Carlos III
ID : PI22/01721
Informations de copyright
© 2023. National Institute of Parasitic Diseases.
Références
Lancet. 2018 Jan 6;391(10115):82-94
pubmed: 28673423
EBioMedicine. 2021 Jul;69:103450
pubmed: 34186488
J Mol Diagn. 2015 Sep;17(5):605-15
pubmed: 26320872
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2013 May;31(5):277-82
pubmed: 23102613
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
J Clin Microbiol. 1996 Feb;34(2):485-6
pubmed: 8789049
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1998 Mar;30(3):183-6
pubmed: 9572024
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003 Sep;52(3):441-9
pubmed: 12917253
J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Dec;47(12):3945-51
pubmed: 19846646
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003 May;68(5):574-82
pubmed: 12812349
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009 Jun 02;3(6):e450
pubmed: 19503815
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Jul 20;11(7):e0005779
pubmed: 28727723
Parasitol Res. 2002 Oct;88(10):894-900
pubmed: 12209329
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jun 15;28(12):E63
pubmed: 10871386
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Sep 20;10(9):e0004997
pubmed: 27648938
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin (Engl Ed). 2022 Feb;40(2):82-85
pubmed: 34887225
Acta Trop. 2007 Sep;103(3):195-200
pubmed: 17662227
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 30;373(5):456-66
pubmed: 26222561
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2016 Feb;34(2):132-8
pubmed: 26827133
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017 Jul;88(3):225-232
pubmed: 28456430
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Biomedica. 2007 Jan;27 Suppl 1:83-91
pubmed: 18154248
Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1993 Jan-Mar;88(1):171-2
pubmed: 8246754
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014 Jan 02;8(1):e2633
pubmed: 24392177
Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2002 Jan;97(1):3-24
pubmed: 11992141
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Apr;78(4):624-7
pubmed: 18385359
Colomb Med (Cali). 2014 Jun 30;45(2):61-6
pubmed: 25100890
Acta Trop. 2018 Aug;184:59-66
pubmed: 29476727
Acta Trop. 2019 Nov;199:105127
pubmed: 31394076
Mol Diagn Ther. 2021 Nov;25(6):791-801
pubmed: 34426953
Lancet. 2010 Apr 17;375(9723):1388-402
pubmed: 20399979
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999 Feb;60(2):205-10
pubmed: 10072137
Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Oct 26;10(5):e0262822
pubmed: 36190410
Exp Parasitol. 1995 Dec;81(4):462-71
pubmed: 8542987
Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2015 Feb 6;90(6):33-43
pubmed: 25671846
Acta Trop. 2014 Sep;137:195-200
pubmed: 24892867
J Mol Diagn. 2017 Sep;19(5):673-681
pubmed: 28727985
J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 May;57(5):461-9
pubmed: 15196616
Parasit Vectors. 2015 Mar 12;8:154
pubmed: 25890282
J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Apr 20;59(5):
pubmed: 33692137
Parasitology. 2004 Oct;129(Pt 4):439-44
pubmed: 15521632
BMC Infect Dis. 2010 Nov 25;10:337
pubmed: 21108793
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160
pubmed: 33781993
Lancet. 2019 Apr 13;393(10180):1486-1487
pubmed: 30983574
J Parasitol. 2005 Dec;91(6):1468-73
pubmed: 16539033
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Jan 11;13(1):e0007024
pubmed: 30633743
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 15;65(2):268-275
pubmed: 28369287
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Aug 14;14(8):e0008402
pubmed: 32797041
Rev Saude Publica. 2003 Feb;37(1):107-15
pubmed: 12488927
J Mol Diagn. 2021 Apr;23(4):389-398
pubmed: 33387697
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 Jan 11;5(1):e931
pubmed: 21264349
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2020 Jun 08;44:e28
pubmed: 32523605