| Literature DB >> 29879524 |
Yanina Sguassero1, Karen N Roberts2, Guillermina B Harvey2, Daniel Comandé3, Agustín Ciapponi3, Cristina B Cuesta2, Camila Aguiar4, Ana M de Castro5, Emmaría Danesi6, Ana L de Andrade7, Marta de Lana8, Josep M Escribà9, Diana L Fabbro10, Cloé D Fernandes11, María Flores-Chávez12, Alejandro M Hasslocher-Moreno13, Yves Jackson14, Carlos D Lacunza15, Girley F Machado-de-Assis16, Marisel Maldonado17, Wendell S F Meira18, Israel Molina19, María M Monje-Rumi20, Catalina Muñoz-San Martín21, Laura Murcia22, Cleudson Nery de Castro23, Olga Sánchez Negrette24, Manuel Segovia22, Celeste A N Silveira25, Aldo Solari26, Mário Steindel27, Mirtha L Streiger10, Ninfa Vera de Bilbao17, Inés Zulantay28, Sergio Sosa-Estani29.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the course of serological tests in subjects with chronic Trypanosoma cruzi infection treated with anti-trypanosomal drugs.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic disease; Follow-up studies; Individual participant data; Meta-; Serologic tests; Trypanosoma cruzi; analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29879524 PMCID: PMC6069672 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2018.05.019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Infect Dis ISSN: 1201-9712 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1PRISMA IPD flow diagram.
¶One multi-country study including four cohorts of children. *Number obtained from published reports. ♣A subject could have more than one reason for exclusion. IPD, individual participant data; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Studies for which individual participant data on serological outcomes was provided, categorized by country, duration of follow-up, area of endemicity, treatment, and type of test (27 studies, 1296 treated subjects with chronic Trypanosoma cruzi infection).
| Source | Study ID | Maximum duration follow-up (months) | Area of endemicity | Risk of reinfection | Age at treatment (years) | Anti-trypanosomal drug | Number of treated subjects with IPD for time-to-event analysis | Total number of subjects with serology | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parasitological tests | Conventional serological test | Non-conventional serological test | |||||||||||
| XD | PCR | ELISA | IIF | IHA | |||||||||
| 69 | Yes | No | 16–34 | Benznidazole | – | 52 | 38 | – | 39 | – | 39 | ||
| 401 | No | No | 6–45 | Benznidazole and Nifurtimox | – | – | 47 | 52 | 52 | – | 52 | ||
| 60 | Yes | No | 3–16 | Benznidazole | – | 45 | 45 | – | 45 | – | 45 | ||
| 288 | No | No | 1–14 | Benznidazole and Nifurtimox | 21 | – | 26 | 48 | 48 | – | 48 | ||
| 144 | Yes | No | 6–14 | Benznidazole | – | – | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | – | ||
| 48 | 49 | 46 | 53 | 53 | 52 | 53 | 53 | ||||||
| 66 | Yes | No | 19–41 | Benznidazole | – | – | 18 | – | 18 | 18 | 18 | ||
| 156 | Yes | No | 6–37 | Benznidazole | – | 27 | 26 | – | – | 22 | 26 | ||
| 348 | Yes | No | 8–56 | Benznidazole | – | 29 | 29 | 29 | – | – | 29 | ||
| 432 | Yes | No | 2–60 | Benznidazole | – | 94 | 94 | 94 | 94 | 94 | 94 | ||
| Hassslocher-Moreno (2010) | 204 | No | No | 16–56 | Benznidazole | 62 | – | – | 62 | – | – | 62 | |
| 36 | Yes | No | 17–48 | Benznidazole | – | 80 | 80 | 80 | – | – | 80 | ||
| 44 | Yes | NK | 23–76 | Benznidazole | – | 37 | 37 | 37 | 37 | – | 37 | ||
| 50 | Yes | No | 10–61 | Benznidazole | – | 31 | 31 | – | 31 | – | 31 | ||
| 204 | Yes | NK | 7–12 | Benznidazole and Nifurtimox | 38 | 28 | 37 | 37 | 37 | – | 37 | ||
| 36 | Yes | No | 8–11 | Benznidazole | – | – | 58 | 58 | 58 | 58 | 58 | ||
| 12 | Yes | No | 5–10 | Benznidazole | 22 | 33 | 33 | 22 | – | 33 | 33 | ||
| 57 | Yes | No | 22–48 | Nifurtimox | 21 | 21 | – | 21 | – | – | 21 | ||
| 36 | Yes | No | 1–10 | Nifurtimox | 37 | 37 | 37 | – | 37 | – | 37 | ||
| Honduras | 51 | Yes | No | 1–18 | Benznidazole | – | – | 227 | – | – | – | 227 | |
| 120 | Yes | No | 9–11 | Benznidazole | – | – | 5 | 5 | – | – | 5 | ||
| 24 | Yes | No | 7–14 | Benznidazole | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | – | – | 20 | ||
| 12 | No | No | 27–60 | Benznidazole | – | 25 | 26 | – | – | – | 26 | ||
| 30 | No | No | 2–74 | Benznidazole | – | 138 | 181 | 181 | – | – | 181 | ||
| 36 | No | No | 25–59 | Nifurtimox | – | 37 | 37 | – | – | – | 37 | ||
ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IIF, indirect immunofluorescence assay; IHA, indirect hemagglutination assay; IPD, individual participant data; NK, not known; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; XD, xenodiagnosis.
The study identification includes surname of primary author and year of publication.
The estimate of the total number of subjects was based on the test with the best number of individual participant data.
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier plots of the progression of conventional serology in treated subjects with chronic Trypanosoma cruzi infection stratified by age at treatment and country setting, with 95% confidence intervals. Plots show the proportion of treated subjects progressing towards seroreversion according to (1) ELISA, (2) IIF, and (3) IHA tests during the follow-up, stratified by age at treatment (1–19 years vs. >19 years) and country setting (group A: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Paraguay vs. group B: Brazil).
ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IIF, indirect immunofluorescence assay; IHA, indirect hemagglutination assay.
Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) corresponding to the adjusted Cox interaction model for conventional serology in treated children or adolescents (1–19 years) versus adults (>19 years) with chronic Trypanosoma cruzi infection.
| Serological test | HR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Paraguay | ||
| ELISA | 6.60 (2.03–2.42) | 1.71 (0.77–3.81) | 0.062 |
| IIF | 9.37 (3.44–25.50) | 1.54 (0.64–3.71) | 0.007 |
| IHA | 5.55 (1.46–21.11) | 1.09 (0.44–2.70) | 0.047 |
CI, confidence interval; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IIF, indirect immunofluorescence assay; IHA, indirect hemagglutination assay; HR, hazard ratio.
The p-value corresponds to the effect of the interaction obtained from the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model.