BACKGROUND: Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), despite cost and logistical challenges, has the potential to provide accurate and timely diagnosis for leptospirosis at the point-of-care in endemic areas. We studied optimal sample types for qPCR, timing of sampling, and clinical manifestations in relation to quantitative leptospiremia. METHODS: A new qPCR assay using pathogenic Leptospira-specific 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene Taqman primers and an optimized temperature stepdown protocol was used to analyze patient blood samples. Serum was compared with whole blood as sample source. Quantitative leptospiremia was compared with clinical manifestations of leptospirosis and outcome. RESULTS: The diagnostic sensitivity of qPCR of whole blood and serum was 18.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.97%-31.4%) and 51.0% (95% CI: 37.5%-64.4%) respectively. The qPCR on suspected cases confirmed infection in 58 of 381 cases (15.2%). Of these, 6 cases confirmed by nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing were serologically negative using a standard but not regionally optimized microscopic agglutination test panel. The bacterial load in serum/blood ranged from 10(2) to 10(6) Leptospira/mL. Median leptospiral load for uncomplicated, renal failure, myocarditis, and multi-organ failure patients were 8616, 11007, 36100, and 15882 Leptospira/mL respectively. The qPCR window of positivity ranged from day 2 to day 15; sensitivity of qPCR was not affected by the length of the interval between the onset of symptoms and sample collection (P = .328). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative PCR shows potential as a valid diagnostic test with a wider window of positivity than previously thought. Quantitative leptospiremia in serum/whole blood samples did not directly correlate with clinical manifestations of outcome in this patient population.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), despite cost and logistical challenges, has the potential to provide accurate and timely diagnosis for leptospirosis at the point-of-care in endemic areas. We studied optimal sample types for qPCR, timing of sampling, and clinical manifestations in relation to quantitative leptospiremia. METHODS: A new qPCR assay using pathogenic Leptospira-specific 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene Taqman primers and an optimized temperature stepdown protocol was used to analyze patient blood samples. Serum was compared with whole blood as sample source. Quantitative leptospiremia was compared with clinical manifestations of leptospirosis and outcome. RESULTS: The diagnostic sensitivity of qPCR of whole blood and serum was 18.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.97%-31.4%) and 51.0% (95% CI: 37.5%-64.4%) respectively. The qPCR on suspected cases confirmed infection in 58 of 381 cases (15.2%). Of these, 6 cases confirmed by nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing were serologically negative using a standard but not regionally optimized microscopic agglutination test panel. The bacterial load in serum/blood ranged from 10(2) to 10(6) Leptospira/mL. Median leptospiral load for uncomplicated, renal failure, myocarditis, and multi-organ failurepatients were 8616, 11007, 36100, and 15882 Leptospira/mL respectively. The qPCR window of positivity ranged from day 2 to day 15; sensitivity of qPCR was not affected by the length of the interval between the onset of symptoms and sample collection (P = .328). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative PCR shows potential as a valid diagnostic test with a wider window of positivity than previously thought. Quantitative leptospiremia in serum/whole blood samples did not directly correlate with clinical manifestations of outcome in this patient population.
Authors: Suneth B Agampodi; Sharon J Peacock; Vasanthi Thevanesam; Danaseela B Nugegoda; Lee Smythe; Janjira Thaipadungpanit; Scott B Craig; Mary Ann Burns; Michael Dohnt; Siriphan Boonsilp; Thamarasi Senaratne; Athula Kumara; Paba Palihawadana; Sahan Perera; Joseph M Vinetz Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Angela M Colagross-Schouten; Jonna A K Mazet; Frances M D Gulland; Melissa A Miller; Sharon Hietala Journal: J Wildl Dis Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 1.535
Authors: Lee D Smythe; Ina L Smith; Greg A Smith; Michael F Dohnt; Meegan L Symonds; Leonie J Barnett; David B McKay Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2002-07-08 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Andrea Bacconi; Gregory S Richmond; Michelle A Baroldi; Thomas G Laffler; Lawrence B Blyn; Heather E Carolan; Mark R Frinder; Donna M Toleno; David Metzgar; Jose R Gutierrez; Christian Massire; Megan Rounds; Natalie J Kennel; Richard E Rothman; Stephen Peterson; Karen C Carroll; Teresa Wakefield; David J Ecker; Rangarajan Sampath Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Suneth B Agampodi; Niroshan J Dahanayaka; Karsten Nöckler; Anne Mayer-Scholl; Joseph M Vinetz Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Suneth B Agampodi; Dhanaseela B Nugegoda; Vasanthi Thevanesam; Joseph M Vinetz Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Elsio A Wunder; Claudio P Figueira; Gisele R Santos; Kristel Lourdault; Michael A Matthias; Joseph M Vinetz; Eduardo Ramos; David A Haake; Mathieu Picardeau; Mitermayer G Dos Reis; Albert I Ko Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 3.441