4.7 Article

Serological Diagnosis of Chronic Chagas Disease: Is It Time for a Change?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 54, 期 6, 页码 1566-1572

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00142-16

关键词

-

资金

  1. Departament d'Universitats, Recerca i Societat de la Informacio de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain [2014SGR026]
  2. RICET, a Tropical Disease Cooperative Research Network in Spain [RD12/0018/0010]
  3. Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain [REIPIRD12/0015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chagas disease has spread to areas that are nonendemic for the disease with human migration. Since no single reference standard test is available, serological diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease requires at least two tests. New-generation techniques have significantly improved the accuracy of Chagas disease diagnosis by the use of a large mixture of recombinant antigens with different detection systems, such as chemiluminescence. The aim of the present study was to assess the overall accuracy of a new-generation kit, the Architect Chagas (cutoff, >= 1 sample relative light units/cutoff value [S/CO]), as a single technique for the diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease. The Architect Chagas showed a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 99.5 to 100%) and a specificity of 97.6% (95% CI, 95.2 to 99.9%). Five out of six false-positive serum samples were a consequence of cross-reactivity with Leishmania spp., and all of them achieved results of <5 S/CO. We propose the Architect Chagas as a single technique for screening in blood banks and for routine diagnosis in clinical laboratories. Only gray-zone and positive sera with a result of <= 6 S/CO would need to be confirmed by a second serological assay, thus avoiding false-positive sera and the problem of cross-reactivity with Leishmania species. The application of this proposal would result in important savings in the cost of Chagas disease diagnosis and therefore in the management and control of the disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据