| Literature DB >> 26504777 |
Maria Cristina Carvalho Espírito-Santo1, Mónica Viviana Alvarado-Mora2, Pedro Luiz Silva Pinto3, Maria Carmen Arroyo Sanchez4, Emmanuel Dias-Neto5, Vera Lúcia Pagliusi Castilho6, Elenice Messias do Nascimento Gonçalves6, Pedro Paulo Chieffi7, Expedito José de Albuquerque Luna8, João Renato Rebello Pinho2, Flair José Carrilho9, Ronaldo Cesar Borges Gryschek9.
Abstract
Schistosomiasis constitutes a major public health problem, with an estimated 200 million people infected worldwide. Many areas of Brazil show low endemicity of schistosomiasis, and the current standard parasitological techniques are not sufficiently sensitive to detect the low-level helminth infections common in areas of low endemicity (ALEs). This study compared the Kato-Katz (KK); Hoffman, Pons, and Janer (HH); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay- (ELISA-) IgG and ELISA-IgM; indirect immunofluorescence technique (IFT-IgM); and qPCR techniques for schistosomiasis detection in serum and fecal samples, using the circumoval precipitin test (COPT) as reference. An epidemiological survey was conducted in a randomized sample of residents from five neighborhoods of Barra Mansa, RJ, with 610 fecal and 612 serum samples. ELISA-IgM (21.4%) showed the highest positivity and HH and KK techniques were the least sensitive (0.8%). All techniques except qPCR-serum showed high accuracy (82-95.5%), differed significantly from COPT in positivity (P < 0.05), and showed poor agreement with COPT. Medium agreement was seen with ELISA-IgG (Kappa = 0.377) and IFA (Kappa = 0.347). Parasitological techniques showed much lower positivity rates than those by other techniques. We suggest the possibility of using a combination of laboratory tools for the diagnosis of schistosomiasis in ALEs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26504777 PMCID: PMC4609343 DOI: 10.1155/2015/135689
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Distribution of positivity ranges for schistosomiasis based on the record of cases on investigated cities, Brazil, 2012. Source: SISPCE-SVS/MS.
Figure 2Reactivity index of 612 sera obtained by ELISA-IgG and IgM-ELISA technique of the individuals in the city of Barra Mansa, RJ, Brazil, 2011.
Figure 3Reactivity of the inner lining of the digestive tube: positive human serum IgM antibodies.
Figure 4Intensity patterns of RPO: (a) RPO pattern 1; (b) RPO pattern 2; (c) RPO pattern 3.
Sociodemographic characteristics of the study population, individuals from the city of Barra Mansa, RJ, 2011.
| Characteristic | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Female | 385 | 59.2 |
| Male | 265 | 40.8 |
| Age group (years) | ||
| 1 to 9 | 27 | 4.2 |
| 10 to 19 | 144 | 22.2 |
| 20 to 49 | 250 | 38.5 |
| 50 or over | 229 | 35.2 |
| Average age (SD) | 39.7 (21.1) | |
| Literacy | ||
| Yes | 624 | 96.0 |
| No | 22 | 3.4 |
| Not reported | 4 | 0.6 |
| Neighborhood | ||
| Cantagalo | 47 | 7.2 |
| Nova Esperança | 187 | 28.8 |
| Santa Clara | 35 | 5.4 |
| São Luiz | 102 | 15.7 |
| Siderlândia | 279 | 42.9 |
| Water supply | ||
| General network | 551 | 84.8 |
| Well or spring | 79 | 12.2 |
| Others | 1 | 0.2 |
| Not reported | 19 | 2.9 |
| Use of river water | ||
| No | 473 | 72.8 |
| Washing clothes | 15 | 2.3 |
| Washing utensils | 2 | 0.3 |
| Baths | 5 | 0.8 |
| Swimming | 5 | 0.8 |
| Sand extraction | 7 | 1.1 |
| Not reported | 143 | 22.0 |
| Destination of feces and urine | ||
| Sewer system | 486 | 74.8 |
| Septic tank | 7 | 1.1 |
| In the open | 117 | 18.0 |
| Not reported | 40 | 6.2 |
| Previous schistosomiasis | ||
| Yes | 25 | 3.8 |
| No | 519 | 79.8 |
| Not reported | 106 | 16.3 |
Positivity for infection by S. mansoni, according to diagnostic technique, in samples collected from individuals in the city of Barra Mansa, RJ, 2011.
| Technique | Positive/total | % |
|---|---|---|
| KK-HH | 5/610 | 0.8 |
| ELISA-IgG | 71/612 | 11.6 |
| ELISA-IgM | 131/612 | 21.4 |
| COPT | 33/612 | 5.4 |
| ITF-IgM | 97/612 | 15.8 |
| qPCR-feces | 60/610 | 9.8 |
| qPCR-serum | 9/612 | 1.5 |
Prevalence of schistosomiasis mansoni and other enteroparasites, as determined using the KK and HH techniques in individuals from the city of Barra Mansa, RJ, 2011.
| Parasitosis HH/KK | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
|
| 5 | 0.8 |
|
| 106 | 17.4 |
|
| 28 | 4.6 |
|
| 1 | 0.2 |
|
| 5 | 0.8 |
|
| 66 | 10.8 |
|
| 11 | 1.8 |
|
| 1 | 0.2 |
|
| 6 | 1.0 |
|
| 9 | 1.5 |
|
| 4 | 0.7 |
|
| 3 | 0.5 |
|
| 2 | 0.3 |
Results from the positive and undetermined qPCRs, with the threshold cycle (Ct) values, in fecal samples from the population of the city of Barra Mansa, RJ, 2011.
| Technique | Cases/total | % | Ct values (LOG) qPCR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum | |||
| qPCR positive | 60/610 | 9.8 | 33.6 | 4.9 | 34.8 | 14.7 | 38.8 |
| qPCR undetermined | 54/610 | 8.9 | 32.3 | 8.5 | 37.1 | 11.5 | 40.0 |
Figure 6Description of the threshold cycle (Ct) for the results from the positive and qPCR in serum and feces samples from the individuals sampled from the city of Barra Mansa/RJ, 2011.
Description of the threshold cycle (Ct) for the results from the positive and undetermined qPCR in serum samples from the individuals sampled from the city of Barra Mansa, RJ, 2011.
| Sample | Technique | Cases/total | % | Ct values (LOG) qPCR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum | ||||
| Serum | qPCR positive | 9/612 | 1.5 | 36.9 | 1.3 | 36.3 | 38.8 | 35.2 |
| qPCR undetermined | 31/612 | 5.1 | 35.5 | 4.4 | 37 | 39.7 | 20.3 | |
Concordance between the positive results obtained using the COPT technique and those obtained using the other techniques, in fecal and serum samples collected from the sample population in the city of Barra Mansa, RJ, 2011.
| Techniques | COPT | Total | IC (95%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Positive |
| Kappa | |||||
|
|
|
| Lower | Higher | ||||
| KK-HH | ||||||||
| Negative | 542 (94.8) | 25 (4.4) | 567 (99.1) |
| 0.224 | 0.038 | 0.409 | |
| Positive | 1 (0.2) | 4 (0.7) | 5 (0.9) | |||||
| Total | 543 (94.9) | 29 (5.1) | 572 (100.0) | |||||
| ELISA-IgG | ||||||||
| Negative | 530 (86.6) | 11 (1.8) | 541 (88.4) |
| 0.377 | 0.255 | 0.500 | |
| Positive | 49 (8.0) | 22 (3.6) | 71 (11.6) | |||||
| Total | 579 (94.6) | 33 (5.4) | 612 (100.0) | |||||
| ELISA-IgM | ||||||||
| Negative | 475 (77.6) | 6 (1) | 481 (78.6) |
| 0.266 | 0.178 | 0.354 | |
| Positive | 104 (17.0) | 27 (4.4) | 131 (21.4) | |||||
| Total | 579 (94.6) | 33 (5.4) | 612 (100.0) | |||||
| IFT-IgM | ||||||||
| Negative | 508 (83.0) | 7 (1.1) | 515 (84.2) |
| 0.347 | 0.241 | 0.454 | |
| Positive | 71 (11.6) | 26 (4.2) | 97 (15.8) | |||||
| Total | 579 (94.6) | 33 (5.4) | 612 (100.0) | |||||
| qPCR-feces | ||||||||
| Negative | 503 (87.9) | 14 (2.4) | 517 (90.4) |
| 0.311 | 0.176 | 0.446 | |
| Positive | 40 (7.0) | 15 (2.6) | 55 (9.6) | |||||
| Total | 543 (94.9) | 29 (5.1) | 572 (100.0) | |||||
| qPCR-serum | ||||||||
| Negative | 574 (93.8) | 29 (4.7) | 603 (98.5) |
| 0.171 | 0.013 | 0.330 | |
| Positive | 5 (0.8) | 4 (0.7) | 9 (1.5) | |||||
| Total | 579 (94.6) | 33 (5.4) | 612 (100.0) | |||||
Description of the sensitivity, specificity, the positive likelihood ratio, the negative likelihood ratio, the positive predictive value, and the negative predictive value of all diagnostic techniques compared to the COPT technique in individuals from the city of Barra Mansa, RJ, 2011.
| Techniques | Parameters | Estimate | IC (95%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Higher | |||
| KK-HH | Sensitivity (%) | 13.8 | 3.9 | 31.7 |
| Specificity (%) | 99.8 | 99.0 | 100.0 | |
| Likelihood ratio (+) | 74.9 | 8.6 | 649.0 | |
| Likelihood ratio (−) | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.0 | |
| Positive predictive value (PPV) (%) | 80.0 | 28.4 | 99.5 | |
| Negative predictive value (NPV) (%) | 95.6 | 93.6 | 97.1 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 95.5 | 95.1 | 95.8 | |
|
| ||||
| ELISA-IgG | Sensitivity (%) | 66.7 | 48.2 | 82.0 |
| Specificity (%) | 91.5 | 89.0 | 93.7 | |
| Likelihood ratio (+) | 7.9 | 5.5 | 11.3 | |
| Likelihood ratio (−) | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.6 | |
| Positive predictive value (PPV) (%) | 31.0 | 20.5 | 43.1 | |
| Negative predictive value (NPV) (%) | 98.0 | 96.4 | 99.0 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 90.2 | 89.5 | 90.9 | |
|
| ||||
| ELISA-IgM | Sensitivity (%) | 81.8 | 64.5 | 93.0 |
| Specificity (%) | 82.0 | 78.7 | 85.1 | |
| Likelihood ratio (+) | 4.6 | 3.6 | 5.8 | |
| Likelihood ratio (−) | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | |
| Positive predictive value (PPV) (%) | 20.6 | 14.0 | 28.6 | |
| Negative predictive value (NPV) (%) | 98.8 | 97.3 | 99.5 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 82.0 | 80.9 | 83.2 | |
|
| ||||
| IFT-IgM | Sensitivity (%) | 78.8 | 61.1 | 91.0 |
| Specificity (%) | 87.7 | 84.8 | 90.3 | |
| Likelihood ratio (+) | 6.4 | 4.9 | 8.5 | |
| Likelihood ratio (−) | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.5 | |
| Positive predictive value (PPV) (%) | 26.8 | 18.3 | 36.8 | |
| Negative predictive value (NPV) (%) | 98.6 | 97.2 | 99.5 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 87.3 | 86.4 | 88.1 | |
|
| ||||
| qPCR-feces | Sensitivity (%) | 51.7 | 32.5 | 70.6 |
| Specificity (%) | 92.6 | 90.1 | 94.7 | |
| Likelihood ratio (+) | 7.0 | 4.4 | 11.1 | |
| Likelihood ratio (−) | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.8 | |
| Positive predictive value (PPV) (%) | 27.3 | 16.1 | 41.0 | |
| Negative predictive value (NPV) (%) | 97.3 | 95.5 | 98.5 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 90.6 | 89.9 | 91.3 | |
|
| ||||
| qPCR-serum | Sensitivity (%) | 12.1 | 3.4 | 28.2 |
| Specificity (%) | 99.1 | 98 | 99.7 | |
| Likelihood ratio (+) | 14.0 | 4.0 | 49.8 | |
| Likelihood ratio (−) | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 | |
| Positive predictive value (PPV) (%) | 44.4 | 13.7 | 78.8 | |
| Negative predictive value (NPV) (%) | 95.2 | 93.2 | 96.8 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 94.4 | 94 | 94.9 | |
Proposal for laboratory criteria for defining cases of schistosomiasis in ALEs.
| Criterion I | Criterion II | Criterion III |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals eliminating | Positive COPT | Individuals with no |
|
| ||
| With/without positive COPT | Individuals with no | Negative COPT |
|
| ||
| With/without positive ELISA-IgM and/or ELISA-IgG techniques | Without specific treatment in the last 12 months | |
|
| ||
| With/without positive ELISA-IgM and/or ELISA-IgG techniques | Positive qPCR-serum and/or positive qPCR-feces | |
Figure 5Proposal for epidemiological vigilance in ALEs.