4.2 Article

Strongyloides infection screening in transplant candidates: What is the best strategy?

期刊

TRANSPLANT INFECTIOUS DISEASE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tid.14153

关键词

diagnosis methods; Strongyloides infection; transplant candidates

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to observe S. stercoralis infection in transplant candidates using different techniques, and propose an algorithm for the detection of this infection. Parasitological techniques found that 10% of fecal samples were positive. Anti-Strongyloides antibodies IgG were detected in 19.3% and 20.7% of patients by immunofluorescence assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, respectively. S. stercoralis DNA was observed in 17.3% of samples by conventional polymerase chain reaction and 32.7% of samples by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).
Background: The potential that Strongyloides stercoralis infection has to cause major morbidity and high mortality when the disseminated form occurs in transplant patients is of particular concern.Methods: In this study, the objective was to observe S. stercoralis infection in patients who are candidates for transplantation by using parasitological, serological, and molecular techniques and to propose an algorithm for the detection of that infection in transplant candidates.Results: By parasitological techniques, 10% of fecal samples were positive. Anti-Strongyloides antibodies immunoglobulin G were detected in 19.3% and 20.7% of patients by immunofluorescence assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, respectively. S. stercoralis DNA was observed in 17.3% of samples by conventional polymerase chain reaction and 32.7% of samples by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).Conclusion: The set of results allows us to reinforce that a positive result by parasitological techniques and/or qPCR indicates that the specific treatment should be applied. However, the improvement of diagnostic techniques may suggest changes in the screening for strongyloidiasis in these patients. image

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

4.2
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