| Literature DB >> 25466624 |
Diego Mendicino1, Mariana Stafuza1, Carlina Colussi1, Mónica del Barco1, Mirtha Streiger1, Edgardo Moretti2.
Abstract
Many patients with Chagas disease live in remote communities that lack both equipment and trained personnel to perform a diagnosis by conventional serology (CS). Thus, reliable tests suitable for use under difficult conditions are required. In this study, we evaluated the ability of personnel with and without laboratory skills to perform immunochromatographic (IC) tests to detect Chagas disease at a primary health care centre (PHCC). We examined whole blood samples from 241 patients and serum samples from 238 patients. Then, we calculated the percentage of overall agreement (POA) between the two groups of operators for the sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp) and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of IC tests compared to CS tests. We also evaluated the level of agreement between ELISAs and indirect haemagglutination (IHA) tests. The readings of the IC test results showed 100% agreement (POA = 1). The IC test on whole blood showed the following values: S = 87.3%; Sp = 98.8%; PPV = 96.9% and NPV = 95.9%. Additionally, the IC test on serum displayed the following results: S = 95.7%; Sp = 100%; PPV = 100% and NPV = 98.2%. Using whole blood, the agreement with ELISA was 96.3% and the agreement with IHA was 94.1%. Using serum, the agreement with ELISA was 97.8% and the agreement with IHA was 96.6%. The IC test performance with serum samples was excellent and demonstrated its usefulness in a PHCC with minimal equipment. If the IC test S value and NPV with whole blood are improved, then this test could also be used in areas lacking laboratories or specialised personnel.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25466624 PMCID: PMC4325615 DOI: 10.1590/0074-0276140153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz ISSN: 0074-0276 Impact factor: 2.743
Results of immunochromatography (IC) with whole blood vs conventional serology (CS)
| CS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Total | ||
| IC on whole blood | Positive | 62 | 2 | 64 |
| Negative | 9 | 168 | 177 | |
|
| ||||
| Total | 71 | 170 | 241 | |
negative predictive value: 95.9%; positive predictive value: 96.9%; sensitivity: 87.3%; specificity: 98.8%.
Results of immunochromatography (IC) on serum vs conventional serology (CS)
| CS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Total | ||
| IC on serum | Positive | 67 | 0 | 67 |
| Negative | 3 | 168 | 171 | |
|
| ||||
| Total | 70 | 168 | 238 | |
negative predictive value: 98.2%; positive predictive value: 100%; sensitivity: 95.7%; specificity: 100%.
Results of immunochromatography (IC) on whole blood vs ELISA and indirect haemagglutination (IHA)
| ELISA | IHA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | Total | |||
| IC on whole blood | Positive | 62 | 2 | 62 | 2 | 64 | |
| Negative | 77 | 170 | 12 | 165 | 177 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Total | 69 | 172 | 73 | 165 | 241 | ||
agreement with ELISA: 96.3% [(62+170)/241]; agreement with IHA: 94.1% [(62+165)/241].
Results of immunochromatography (IC) on serum vs ELISA and indirect haemagglutination (IHA)
| ELIS | IHA | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | ||||
| IC on serum | Positive | 65 | 2 | 66 | 1 | 67 | |
| Negative | 3 | 168 | 7 | 164 | 171 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Total | 68 | 170 | 73 | 165 | 238 | ||
agreement with ELISA: 97.8% [(65+168)/238]; agreement with IHA: 96.6% [(66+164)/238].