OBJECTIVE: To find the most reliable screening method for Trypanosoma cruzi infection in blood banks. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Epidemiological data, lymphoproliferation assay, parasitological, conventional serological tests: immunofluorescence, haemagglutination, ELISA with epimastigote and trypomastigote antigens and reference serological tests: trypomastigote excreted-secreted antigens (TESA) blot and chemiluminescent ELISA assay with mucine from trypomastigote forms were applied to individuals with inconclusive serology, non-chagasic individuals and chronic chagasic patients. RESULTS: TESA blot had the best performance when used as a single test in all the groups. In the inconclusive group 20.5% of individuals were positive for TESA blot, 23.3% for either lymphoproliferation or TESA blot, and 17.8% for lymphoproliferation only. Positive lymphoproliferation without detectable antibodies was observed in 5.47% of all inconclusive serology cases. Analysis of six parameters (three serological assays, at least one parasitological test, one lymphoproliferation assay and epidemiological data) in the inconclusive group showed that diagnosis of Chagas' disease was probable in 15 patients who were positive by two or more serological tests or for whom three of those six parameters were positive. CONCLUSION: TESA blot is a good confirmatory test for Chagas' disease in the inconclusive group. Although lymphoproliferation suggests the diagnosis of Chagas' disease in the absence of antibodies when associated with a high epidemiological risk of acquiring Chagas' disease, the data from this study and the characteristics of the lymphoproliferation assay (which is both laborious and time-consuming) do not support its use as a confirmatory test in blood-bank screening. However, our findings underscore the need to develop alternative methods that are not based on antibody detection to improve the diagnosis when serological tests are inconclusive.
OBJECTIVE: To find the most reliable screening method for Trypanosoma cruzi infection in blood banks. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Epidemiological data, lymphoproliferation assay, parasitological, conventional serological tests: immunofluorescence, haemagglutination, ELISA with epimastigote and trypomastigote antigens and reference serological tests: trypomastigote excreted-secreted antigens (TESA) blot and chemiluminescent ELISA assay with mucine from trypomastigote forms were applied to individuals with inconclusive serology, non-chagasic individuals and chronic chagasic patients. RESULTS: TESA blot had the best performance when used as a single test in all the groups. In the inconclusive group 20.5% of individuals were positive for TESA blot, 23.3% for either lymphoproliferation or TESA blot, and 17.8% for lymphoproliferation only. Positive lymphoproliferation without detectable antibodies was observed in 5.47% of all inconclusive serology cases. Analysis of six parameters (three serological assays, at least one parasitological test, one lymphoproliferation assay and epidemiological data) in the inconclusive group showed that diagnosis of Chagas' disease was probable in 15 patients who were positive by two or more serological tests or for whom three of those six parameters were positive. CONCLUSION: TESA blot is a good confirmatory test for Chagas' disease in the inconclusive group. Although lymphoproliferation suggests the diagnosis of Chagas' disease in the absence of antibodies when associated with a high epidemiological risk of acquiring Chagas' disease, the data from this study and the characteristics of the lymphoproliferation assay (which is both laborious and time-consuming) do not support its use as a confirmatory test in blood-bank screening. However, our findings underscore the need to develop alternative methods that are not based on antibody detection to improve the diagnosis when serological tests are inconclusive.
Authors: G F Machado-de-Assis; A R Silva; V A L Do Bem; M T Bahia; O A Martins-Filho; J C P Dias; P Albajar-Viñas; R M Torres; M Lana Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2012-06-27
Authors: J S Lapa; R M Saraiva; A M Hasslocher-Moreno; I Georg; A S Souza; S S Xavier; P E A A do Brasil Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Gabriela C Olivera; Maria C Albareda; Maria G Alvarez; Ana M De Rissio; Laura E Fichera; Gretchen Cooley; Pedro Yachelini; Hugo A Hrellac; Hilda Riboldi; Susana A Laucella; Rick L Tarleton; Miriam Postan Journal: Microbes Infect Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 2.700
Authors: Fred Luciano Neves Santos; Wayner Vieira de Souza; Michelle da Silva Barros; Mineo Nakazawa; Marco Aurélio Krieger; Yara de Miranda Gomes Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Gilberto de Araujo Pereira; Francisco Louzada-Neto; Valdirene de Fátima Barbosa; Márcia Maria Ferreira-Silva; Helio de Moraes-Souza Journal: Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter Date: 2012
Authors: Tiago Antônio de Oliveira Mendes; João Luís Reis Cunha; Rodrigo de Almeida Lourdes; Gabriela Flávia Rodrigues Luiz; Lucas Dhom Lemos; Ana Rita Rocha dos Santos; Antônia Cláudia Jácome da Câmara; Lúcia Maria da Cunha Galvão; Caryn Bern; Robert H Gilman; Ricardo Toshio Fujiwara; Ricardo Tostes Gazzinelli; Daniella Castanheira Bartholomeu Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2013-10-31
Authors: Gilberto de Araujo Pereira; Francisco Louzada; Valdirene de Fátima Barbosa; Márcia Maria Ferreira-Silva; Helio Moraes-Souza Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Daniel Guzmán-Gómez; Aracely López-Monteon; María de la Soledad Lagunes-Castro; Carolina Álvarez-Martínez; Manuel Jesús Hernández-Lutzon; Eric Dumonteil; Angel Ramos-Ligonio Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 3.876