| Literature DB >> 26395447 |
Aarthy C Vallur1, Yeung L Tutterrow2, Raodoh Mohamath3, Sowmya Pattabhi4, Asrat Hailu5, Asim O Abdoun6, Abdalla E Ahmed7, Maowia Mukhtar8, Md Abdus Salam9, Meirielly Lima Almeida10, Roque P Almeida11, Dinesh Mondal12, Audrey Albertini13, Hashim Ghalib14, Malcolm S Duthie15, Steven G Reed16.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) can be fatal without timely diagnosis and treatment. Treatment efficacies vary due to drug resistance, drug toxicity and co-morbidities. It is important to monitor treatment responsiveness to confirm cure and curtail relapse. Currently, microscopy of spleen, bone marrow or lymph node biopsies is the only definitive method to evaluate cure. A less invasive test for treatment success is a high priority for VL management.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26395447 PMCID: PMC4580298 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-015-1125-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1Optimization of antigen capture ELISA using affinity purified and labeled antibody pair. a. Standard curve was generated using pooled urine from NEC spiked with 0, 4, 8, 16 and 32 ng/mL of Ld WCL for determining limits of detection of the antibody pair. b. Performance of capture ELISA on urine samples from VL patients (n = 29), OD (n = 7) and NEC (n = 8). * and ** represent significant p-values < 0.05, as calculated by One-way ANOVA
Fig. 2Performance of Leishmania Antigen Detect™ ELISA. a. Performance of Leishmania Antigen Detect™ ELISA on urine samples from VL patients in Ethiopia (n = 46), Sudan (n = 64), Bangladesh (n = 13) and Brazil (n = 43) compared to NEC (n = 49), EC from Bangladesh (n = 10) and OD (n = 30). OD consists of samples from patients with HAT (n = 10), P. falciparum malaria (n = 10) and tuberculosis (n = 10). Lines represent median. Dotted line indicates cut-off value for positivity as calculated from the mean of NEC added three standard deviations. **** represents significant p-values < 0.01, as calculated by One-way ANOVA. b. The standardized Leishmania Antigen Detect™ ELISA offers higher sensitivity for VL patient samples and lower background reactivity when compared to the same reagents used in a laboratory- based assay
Sensitivity of the Leishmania Antigen Detect™ ELISA and the Leishmania Antigen ELISA on VL patient urine compared to KAtex
| Leishmania Antigen™ Detect ELISA Sensitivity % (95% CI) | Leishmania Antigen ELISA Sensitivity % (95% CI) | KAtex % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethiopia ( | 93.5 (82.1-98.6) | 87.0 (73.7-95.1) | 61 (45.4-74.9) |
| Sudan ( | 96.9 (89.2-99.6) | 78.1 (66.0-87.5) | 63 (49.5-74.3) |
| Bangladesh ( | 100 (75.3-100) | 76.9 (46.2-95.0) | 69 (38.6-90.7) |
| Brazil ( | 88.4 (77.8-96) | 81.4 (66.6-91.6) | 56 (39.9-70.9) |
Specificity of the Leishmania Antigen Detect™ ELISA and Leishmania Antigen ELISA
| Samples | Leishmania Antigen Detect™ ELISA Specificity % (95% Cl) | Leishmania Antigen ELISA Specificity % (95% Cl) |
|---|---|---|
| NEC ( | 100 (90.3–100) | 100 (90.3–100) |
| EC ( | 100 (69.1–100) | 90 (55.5–99.7) |
| HAT ( | 100 (69.2–100) | 100 (69.2–100) |
| Pf Malaria ( | 100 (69.2–100) | 70.0 (34.8–93.3) |
| TB ( | 100 (69.2–100) | 80.0 (44.4–97.5) |
Fig. 3Performance of Leishmania Antigen ELISA. a. Standard curve representing means of the signals obtained in the Leishmania Antigen ELISA using the calibrated standards provided with the kit. b. Performance of Leishmania Antigen ELISA on urine samples from VL patients in Ethiopia (n = 46), Sudan (n = 64), Bangladesh (n = 13) and Brazil (n = 43) compared to NEC (n = 49), EC from Bangladesh (n = 10) and OD (n = 30). OD consists of samples from patients with HAT (n = 10), P. falciparum malaria (n = 10) and tuberculosis (n = 10) in UAU/mL. Lines represent median
Agreement between Leishmania Antigen Detect™ ELISA and the Leishmania Antigen ELISA on VL patient urine samples from Ethiopia, Sudan, Brazil and Bangladesh are tabulated
| Test Agreement | Leishmania Antigen Detect™ ELISA | Correlationf/c) 95% Cl | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | |||
| Ethiopia ( | ||||
| Leishmania Antigen ELISA | Positive | 35 | 0 | 0.802 (0.59- 1.00) |
| Negative | 3 | 8 | ||
| Sudan ( | ||||
| Leishmania Antigen ELISA | Positive | 50 | 0 | 0.207 (-0.04-0.45) |
| Negative | 12 | 2 | ||
| Brazil ( | ||||
| Leishmania Antigen ELISA | Positive | 34 | 1 | 0.551 (-0.21-0.89) |
| Negative | 4 | 4 | ||
| Bangladesh ( | ||||
| Leishmania Antigen ELISA | Positive | 10 | 0 | Nd |
| Negative | 3 | 0 | ||
Fig. 4Performance of Leishmania Antigen Detect™ ELISA and Leishmania Antigen ELISA on treatment follow- up urine samples from Ethiopia. a. Mean ELISA signals of 42 VL patients undergoing SSG, MEG or L-AmB treatment in Ethiopia at initiation (Day 0) and post initiation (Days 30 and 180) of treatment as measured by the Leishmania Antigen Detect™ ELISA. Dotted line indicates cut-off value for positivity as calculated from the mean of negative controls added 3 standard deviations. b. UAU/mL for 42 VL patients undergoing SSG, MEG or L-AmB treatment in Ethiopia at initiation (Day 0) and post initiation (Days 30 and 180) of treatment as measured by the Leishmania Antigen ELISA c. Positivity percentage of the Leishmania Antigen Detect™ ELISA (Black bars) and Leishmania Antigen ELISA (dark gray bars) compared to KAtex (light gray bars) on VL patient urine samples from Ethiopia at initiation (Day 0) and post initiation (Days 30 and 180) of treatment