Background: Cryptosporidium is a major cause of childhood diarrhea. Current modes of cryptosporidiosis diagnosis involve procedures that are costly and require both a well-equipped laboratory and technical expertise. Therefore, a cost-effective, user-friendly, and rapid method for point-of-care detection of Cryptosporidium is desirable. Methods: A total of 832 diarrheal stool specimens collected from 200 children aged <2 years were tested by Giardia/Cryptosporidium QUIK CHEK, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to compare the performance of the individual techniques. We also tested for the presence of other diarrheal pathogens in qPCR-positive samples with a TaqMan Array Card (TAC) to assess whether Cryptosporidium was the sole causative agent for the diarrheal episodes. Results: Of 832 samples, 4.4% were found positive for Cryptosporidium by QUIK CHEK, 3.6% by ELISA, and 8.8% by qPCR. Using TAC-attributed Cryptosporidium diarrhea as the gold standard, the sensitivities of QUIK CHEK, ELISA, and qPCR were 92.3%, 71.8%, and 100%, respectively; the specificities were 97.1%, 94.3%, and 0%, respectively. Analysis of the qPCR-positive and QUIK CHEK-negative samples by TAC identified other enteropathogens as more likely than Cryptosporidium to be the causative agents of diarrhea. Conclusions: QUIK CHEK was more sensitive and specific than ELISA. While qPCR detected Cryptosporidium in more samples than QUIK CHEK, most of these were instances of qPCR detecting small quantities of Cryptosporidium DNA in a diarrheal episode caused by another enteropathogen. We concluded that QUIK CHEK was comparable in sensitivity and superior in specificity to qPCR for the diagnosis of Cryptosporidium diarrhea.
Background: Cryptosporidium is a major cause of childhood diarrhea. Current modes of cryptosporidiosis diagnosis involve procedures that are costly and require both a well-equipped laboratory and technical expertise. Therefore, a cost-effective, user-friendly, and rapid method for point-of-care detection of Cryptosporidium is desirable. Methods: A total of 832 diarrheal stool specimens collected from 200 children aged <2 years were tested by Giardia/Cryptosporidium QUIK CHEK, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to compare the performance of the individual techniques. We also tested for the presence of other diarrheal pathogens in qPCR-positive samples with a TaqMan Array Card (TAC) to assess whether Cryptosporidium was the sole causative agent for the diarrheal episodes. Results: Of 832 samples, 4.4% were found positive for Cryptosporidium by QUIK CHEK, 3.6% by ELISA, and 8.8% by qPCR. Using TAC-attributed Cryptosporidium diarrhea as the gold standard, the sensitivities of QUIK CHEK, ELISA, and qPCR were 92.3%, 71.8%, and 100%, respectively; the specificities were 97.1%, 94.3%, and 0%, respectively. Analysis of the qPCR-positive and QUIK CHEK-negative samples by TAC identified other enteropathogens as more likely than Cryptosporidium to be the causative agents of diarrhea. Conclusions: QUIK CHEK was more sensitive and specific than ELISA. While qPCR detected Cryptosporidium in more samples than QUIK CHEK, most of these were instances of qPCR detecting small quantities of Cryptosporidium DNA in a diarrheal episode caused by another enteropathogen. We concluded that QUIK CHEK was comparable in sensitivity and superior in specificity to qPCR for the diagnosis of Cryptosporidium diarrhea.
Authors: Dorien Van den Bossche; Lieselotte Cnops; Jacob Verschueren; Marjan Van Esbroeck Journal: J Microbiol Methods Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 2.363
Authors: Stephanie P Johnston; Melissa M Ballard; Michael J Beach; Louise Causer; Patricia P Wilkins Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Maha Bouzid; Kevin M Tyler; Richard Christen; Rachel M Chalmers; Kristin Elwin; Paul R Hunter Journal: BMC Microbiol Date: 2010-08-09 Impact factor: 3.605
Authors: Jie Liu; James A Platts-Mills; Jane Juma; Furqan Kabir; Joseph Nkeze; Catherine Okoi; Darwin J Operario; Jashim Uddin; Shahnawaz Ahmed; Pedro L Alonso; Martin Antonio; Stephen M Becker; William C Blackwelder; Robert F Breiman; Abu S G Faruque; Barry Fields; Jean Gratz; Rashidul Haque; Anowar Hossain; M Jahangir Hossain; Sheikh Jarju; Farah Qamar; Najeeha Talat Iqbal; Brenda Kwambana; Inacio Mandomando; Timothy L McMurry; Caroline Ochieng; John B Ochieng; Melvin Ochieng; Clayton Onyango; Sandra Panchalingam; Adil Kalam; Fatima Aziz; Shahida Qureshi; Thandavarayan Ramamurthy; James H Roberts; Debasish Saha; Samba O Sow; Suzanne E Stroup; Dipika Sur; Boubou Tamboura; Mami Taniuchi; Sharon M Tennant; Deanna Toema; Yukun Wu; Anita Zaidi; James P Nataro; Karen L Kotloff; Myron M Levine; Eric R Houpt Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-09-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joseph Bitilinyu-Bangoh; Wieger Voskuijl; Johnstone Thitiri; Sandra Menting; Nienke Verhaar; Laura Mwalekwa; Daisy B de Jong; Merlin van Loenen; Petra F Mens; James A Berkley; Robert H J Bandsma; Henk D F H Schallig Journal: Infect Dis Poverty Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 4.520
Authors: Paul G Ashigbie; Susan Shepherd; Kevin L Steiner; Beatrice Amadi; Natasha Aziz; Ujjini H Manjunatha; Jonathan M Spector; Thierry T Diagana; Paul Kelly Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2021-03-11
Authors: Emily L Deichsel; Heidi K Hillesland; Carol A Gilchrist; Jaqueline M Naulikha; Christine J McGrath; Wesley C Van Voorhis; Doreen Rwigi; Benson O Singa; Judd L Walson; Patricia B Pavlinac Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-10-31 Impact factor: 3.835