| Literature DB >> 24684857 |
Deborah Bittencourt Mothé Fraga, Edimilson Domingos da Silva, Luciano Vasconcellos Pacheco, Lairton Souza Borja, Isaac Queiroz de Oliveira, Wendel Coura-Vital, Glória Regina Monteiro, Geraldo Gileno de Sá Oliveira, Selma Maria Bezerra Jerônimo, Alexandre Barbosa Reis, Patrícia Sampaio Tavares Veras1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a serious public health challenge in Brazil and dogs are considered to be the main urban reservoir of the causative agent. The culling of animals to control VL in some countries makes the accurate diagnosis of canine VL (CVL) essential. Recombinant antigens rLci1A and rLci2B were selected from a cDNA library of Leishmania infantum amastigotes due to their strong potential as candidates in diagnostic testing for CVL. The present multicentric study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of a prototype test using these antigens (DPP rLci1A/rLci2B) against 154 sera obtained from symptomatic dogs within three endemic areas of VL in Brazil. The specificity was evaluated using 40 serum samples from negative dogs and dogs infected with other pathogens. Sensitivity and specificity rates of DPP rLci1A/rLci2B prototype were compared to rates from other diagnostic tests currently in use by the Brazilian Ministry of Health, including DPPLVC, EIELVC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24684857 PMCID: PMC3972511 DOI: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-136
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Comparison of diagnostic test sensitivity
| BA | 98% | 92.5% | 66% | 81.1% | 83% | 96.2% |
| (86–100) | (82–97) | (53–77) | (69–89) | (71–91) | (87–99) | |
| [49/50] | [49/53] | [35/53] | [43/53] | [44/53] | [51/53] | |
| MG | 93.5% | 84% | 70% | 76% | 84% | 88% |
| (92–100) | (72–92) | (56–81) | (63–86) | (72–92) | (76–94) | |
| [43/46] | [42/50] | [35/50] | [38/50] | [42/50] | [44/50] | |
| RN | 100% | 88.2% | 90.2% | 90.2% | 94.1% | 96% |
| (93–100) | (77–95) | (79–96) | (79–96) | (84–98) | (87–99) | |
| [51/51] | [45/51] | [46/51] | [46/51] | [48/51] | [49/51] | |
| Total* | 97.3% | 88.3% | 75.3% | 82.5% | 87% | 93.5% |
| | (93–99) | (82–93) | (68–82) | (76–88) | (81–91) | (89–96) |
| [143/147**] | [136/154] | [116/154] | [127/154] | [134/154] | [144/154] | |
Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, n = number of sera that tested positive, N = number of sera evaluated.
*154 canine serum samples tested positive for VL in culture and were obtained from three participating INCT-DT laboratories.
**7 out of 154 canine serum samples were not considered under ELISA due to inconclusive test results.
Figure 1Positivity rates of DPP rLci1A / rLci2B regarding detection of serum samples from -infected dogs. The antigens rLci1A / rLci2B were individually impregnated at concentrations of 0.35/0.20 mg/mL and 0.70/0.70 mg/mL, respectively. Positivity rates for either proteins were analyzed both individually and collectively. A total of 154 canine serum samples were obtained from the three INCT-DT laboratories included in this study.
Comparison of diagnostic test specificity
| 25% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| (5–70) | (57–100) | (57–100) | (57–100) | (57–100) | |
| [3/4] | [0/5] | [0/5] | [0/5] | [0/5] | |
| 50% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| (15–85) | (57–100) | (57–100) | (57–100) | (57–100) | |
| [2/4] | [0/5] | [0/5] | [0/5] | [0/5] | |
| 67% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| (30–90) | (61–100) | (61–100) | (61–100) | (61–100) | |
| [2/6] | [0/6] | [0/6] | [0/6] | [0/6] | |
| 50% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| (15–85) | (51–100) | (51–100) | (51–100) | (51–100) | |
| | [2/4] | [0/4] | [0/4] | [0/4] | [0/4] |
| Negative dogs | 88% | 95% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| (66–97) | (76–99) | (84–100) | (84-100 | (84–100) | |
| [2/17] | [1/20] | [0/20] | [0/20] | [0/20] | |
| Total | 26% | 97.5% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| | (14–42) | (87–100) | (91–100) | (91–100) | (91–100) |
| [26/35] | [1/40] | [0/40] | [0/40] | [0/40] | |
Abbreviations: C = confidence interval, n = number of sera that tested positive, N = number of sera evaluated.