Elizabeth Ferrer1, María Lares, Mercedes Viettri, Mehudy Medina. 1. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas Dr. Francisco J. Triana Alonso, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Carabobo Sede Aragua, Maracay, Venezuela. elizabeth.ferrer@gmail.com
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi. The disease involves an acute and chronic phases. The diagnosis has limitations, both in parasitological and immunological techniques. Molecular assays are an alternative, but these must be evaluated to determine its diagnostic usefulness. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of immunological techniques with molecular assays in the diagnosis of Chagas disease in its different phases. METHODS: The immunological techniques used were ELISA, HAI and IFI and the molecular techniques used were PCR for amplification of kinetoplast minicircles, and satellite DNA of T. cruzi. Thirty-nine blood samples from patients in the acute phase of Chagas disease, and 42 samples from patients in the chronic phase were evaluated. In addition, 20 samples from healthy individuals and 10 patients with other diseases were also studied. RESULTS: With immunological techniques were positive, 69.2% of samples from patients in the acute phase, while in the chronic phase were positive 95.2%. Using molecular techniques 79.5% of samples from patients in the acute phase were positive, while 23.8% of the samples from patients in the chronic phase were positive. None of the samples from healthy individuals was positive for any technique, while two samples from patients with other diseases were positive by the immunological assays. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic efficacy of molecular techniques is high in the acute phase of Chagas disease, while in the chronic phase the immunological techniques are more effective.
INTRODUCTION:Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi. The disease involves an acute and chronic phases. The diagnosis has limitations, both in parasitological and immunological techniques. Molecular assays are an alternative, but these must be evaluated to determine its diagnostic usefulness. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of immunological techniques with molecular assays in the diagnosis of Chagas disease in its different phases. METHODS: The immunological techniques used were ELISA, HAI and IFI and the molecular techniques used were PCR for amplification of kinetoplast minicircles, and satellite DNA of T. cruzi. Thirty-nine blood samples from patients in the acute phase of Chagas disease, and 42 samples from patients in the chronic phase were evaluated. In addition, 20 samples from healthy individuals and 10 patients with other diseases were also studied. RESULTS: With immunological techniques were positive, 69.2% of samples from patients in the acute phase, while in the chronic phase were positive 95.2%. Using molecular techniques 79.5% of samples from patients in the acute phase were positive, while 23.8% of the samples from patients in the chronic phase were positive. None of the samples from healthy individuals was positive for any technique, while two samples from patients with other diseases were positive by the immunological assays. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic efficacy of molecular techniques is high in the acute phase of Chagas disease, while in the chronic phase the immunological techniques are more effective.
Authors: Laura Francisco-González; Alba Rubio-San-Simón; María Isabel González-Tomé; Ángela Manzanares; Cristina Epalza; María Del Mar Santos; Teresa Gastañaga; Paloma Merino; José Tomás Ramos-Amador Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Luz Yadira Bravo-Gallego; Laura Francisco-González; Álvaro Vázquez-Pérez; Milagros García-López Hortelano; Rogelio López Vélez; Luis Ignacio González-Granado; Mar Santos; Cristina Epalza; Ana Belén Jiménez; María José Cilleruelo; Sara Guillén; Tania Fernández; Iciar Olabarrieta; María Flores-Chavez; José Tomás Ramos Amador; María Isabel González-Tomé Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2022-02-24
Authors: João Luís Reis-Cunha; Tiago Antônio de Oliveira Mendes; Rodrigo de Almeida Lourdes; Daihana Rodrigues dos Santos Ribeiro; Ricardo Andrez Machado-de-Avila; Maykon de Oliveira Tavares; Denise Silveira Lemos; Antônia Cláudia Jácome Câmara; Carlos Chavez Olórtegui; Marta de Lana; Lúcia Maria da Cunha Galvão; Ricardo Toshio Fujiwara; Daniella Castanheira Bartholomeu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pedro Emmanuel Alvarenga Americano do Brasil; Rodolfo Castro; Liane de Castro Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.743