1921
Volume 94, Issue 5
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645

Abstract

Abstract

There is a significant heterogeneity in reported performance of serological assays for Chagas disease diagnosis. The conventional serology testing in laboratory diagnosis and in blood banks is unsatisfactory because of a high number of inconclusive and misclassified results. We aimed to assess the quality of four commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests for their ability to detect antibodies in 685 sera samples. Cross-reactivity was assessed by using 748 sera from patients with unrelated diseases. Initially, we found that the reactivity index against antigen was statistically higher in sera from Chagas disease patients compared with those from non-chagasic patients, supporting the notion that all evaluated tests have a good discriminatory ability toward the diagnosis of infection in patients in the chronic phase of the disease. Although all tests were similarly sensitive for diagnosing infection, there were significant variations in terms of specificity and cross-reactivity among them. Indeed, we obtained divergent results when testing sera from patient with unrelated diseases, particularly leishmaniasis, with the levels of cross-reactivity being higher in tests using whole extracts compared with those using recombinant proteins. Our data suggest that all four tests may be used for the laboratory diagnosis and routine blood screening diagnose for Chagas disease. We also emphasize that, despite their general good performance, caution is needed when analyzing the results when these tests are performed in areas where other diseases, particularly leishmaniasis, are endemic.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.15-0820
2016-05-04
2018-12-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/14761645/94/5/1034.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.15-0820&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Amato Neto V, Lopes M, Umezawa ES, Aveiro Ruocco M, Dias JC, , 2000. Outras formas de transmissão do Trypanosoma cruzi . Rev Patol Trop 29: 115129. [Google Scholar]
  2. Steindel M, Kramer Pacheco L, Scholl D, Soares M, de Moraes MH, Eger I, Kosmann C, Sincero TCM, Stoco PH, Murta SM, de Carvalho-Pinto CJ, Grisard EC, , 2008. Characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi isolated from humans, vectors, and animal reservoirs following an outbreak of acute human Chagas disease in Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 60: 2532.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. World Health Organization, 2002. Annex Table 2—Deaths by cause, sex and mortality stratum in WHO regions, estimates for 2002. The World Health Report. Available at: http://www.who.int/whr/2004/annex/topic/en/annex_2_en.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hotez PJ, Dumonteil E, Woc-Colburn L, Serpa JA, Bezek S, Edwards MS, Hallmark CJ, Musselwhite LW, Flink BJ, Bottazzi ME, , 2012. Chagas disease: the new HIV/AIDS of the Americas. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 6: e1498.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Coura JR, Viñas PA, , 2010. Chagas disease: a Latin American health problem becoming a world health problem. Acta Trop 115: 1421.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Manne-Goehler J, Reich MR, Wirtz VJ, , 2015. Access to care for Chagas disease in the United States: a health systems analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 93: 108113.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Rassi A, Rassi A, Marcondes de Rezende J, , 2012. American trypanosomiasis (Chagas disease). Infect Dis Clin North Am 26: 275291.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Duarte LF, Flórez O, Rincón G, González CI, , 2014. Comparison of seven diagnostic tests to detect Trypanosoma cruzi infection in patients in chronic phase of Chagas disease. Colomb Med 45: 6166. [Google Scholar]
  9. Wendel Neto S, , 1995. Current concepts on the transmission of bacteria and parasites by blood components. Sao Paulo Med J 113: 10361052.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cancino-Faure B, Fisa R, Riera C, Bula I, Girona-Llobera E, Jimenez-Marco T, , 2015. Evidence of meaningful levels of Trypanosoma cruzi in platelet concentrates from seropositive blood donors. Transfusion 55: 12491255.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brazilian Health Ministry, 2005. Brazilian consensus on Chagas disease [in Portuguese]. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 38: 729.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gadelha AA, Vercosa AF, Lorena VM, Nakazawa M, Carvalho AB, Souza WV, Ferreira AG, Silva ED, Krieger MA, Goldenberg S, Gomes YM, , 2003. Chagas' disease diagnosis: comparative analysis of recombinant ELISA with conventional ELISA and the haemagglutination test. Vox Sang 85: 165170.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gomes YM, Pereira VR, Nakazawa M, Rosa DS, Barros MD, Ferreira AG, Silva ED, Ogatta SF, Krieger MA, Goldenberg S, , 2001. Serodiagnosis of chronic Chagas infection by using EIE-Recombinant-Chagas-Biomanguinhos kit. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 96: 497501.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Peralta JM, da GM Teixeira M, Shreffler WG, Pereira JB, Burns JM, Sleath PR, Reed SG, , 1994. Serodiagnosis of Chagas' disease by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using two synthetic peptides as antigens. J Clin Microbiol 32: 971974. [Google Scholar]
  15. Umezawa ES, Bastos SF, Coura JR, Levin MJ, Gonzalez A, Rangel-Aldao R, Zingales B, Luquetti AO, da Silveira JF, , 2003. An improved serodiagnostic test for Chagas' disease employing a mixture of Trypanosoma cruzi recombinant antigens. Transfusion 43: 9197.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. Da Silveira JF, Umezawa ES, Luquetti AO, , 2001. Chagas disease: recombinant Trypanosoma cruzi antigens for serological diagnosis. Trends Parasitol 17: 286291.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. Camussone C, Gonzalez V, Belluzo MS, Pujato N, Ribone ME, Lagier CM, Marcipar IS, , 2009. Comparison of recombinant Trypanosoma cruzi peptide mixtures versus multiepitope chimeric proteins as sensitizing antigens for immunodiagnosis. Clin Vaccine Immunol 16: 899905.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hernández P, Heimann M, Riera C, Solano M, Santalla J, Luquetti AO, Beck E, , 2010. Highly effective serodiagnosis for Chagas' disease. Clin Vaccine Immunol 17: 15981604.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Brazilian Health Ministry, 2006. Resultado da Avaliação dos “kits” para diagnóstico de doença de Chagas. Nota Técnica N° 03/06, CGLAB/CGDT/DEVEP/SVS/MS, Brasília, Brazil. Available at: http://www.chagas.cl/3_evaluaciones/est_comp_msb.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  20. Youden WJ, , 1950. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3: 3235.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ouchchane L, Rabilloud M, Boire J-Y, Beuscart R, Bénichou J, Roy P, Quantin C, , 2009. Sensibilité, spécificité et valeurs prédictives. , eds. Évaluation des méthodes d'analyse appliquées aux sciences de la vie et de la santé—Biostatistique. Paris, France: Omniscience, 4978. [Google Scholar]
  22. Landis JR, Koch GG, , 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159174.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pirard M, Iihoshi N, Boelaert M, Basanta P, López F, Van der Stuyft P, , 2005. The validity of serologic tests for Trypanosoma cruzi and the effectiveness of transfusional screening strategies in a hyperendemic region. Transfusion 45: 554561.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. Furucho CR, Umezawa ES, Almeida I, Freitas VL, Bezerra R, Nunes EV, Sanches MC, Guastini CM, Teixeira AR, Shikanai-Yasuda MA, , 2008. Inconclusive results in conventional serological screening for Chagas' disease in blood banks: evaluation of cellular and humoral response. Trop Med Int Health 13: 15271533.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Otani MM, Vinelli E, Kirchhoff LV, del Pozo A, Sands A, Vercauteren G, Sabino EC, , 2009. WHO comparative evaluation of serologic assays for Chagas disease. Transfusion 49: 10761082.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. Remesar MC, Gamba C, Colaianni IF, Puppo M, Sartor PA, Murphy EL, Neilands TB, Ridolfi MA, Leguizamón MS, Kuperman S, Del Pozo AE, , 2009. Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of several Trypanosoma cruzi antibody assays in blood donors in Argentina. Transfusion 49: 23522358.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. Vega Benedetti AF, Cimino RO, Cajal PS, Juarez MD, Villalpando CA, Gil JF, Marcipar IS, Krolewiecki AJ, Nasser JR, , 2013. Performance of different Trypanosoma cruzi antigens in the diagnosis of Chagas disease in patients with American cutaneous leishmaniasis from a co-endemic region in Argentina. Trop Med Int Health 18: 11031109.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Almeida IC, Covas DT, Soussumi LM, Travassos LR, , 1997. A highly sensitive and specific chemiluminescent enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for diagnosis of active Trypanosoma cruzi infection. Transfusion 37: 850857.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. Longhi SA, Brandariz SB, Lafon SO, Niborski LL, Luquetti AO, Schijman AG, Levin MJ, Gómez KA, , 2012. Evaluation of in-house ELISA using Trypanosoma cruzi lysate and recombinant antigens for diagnosis of Chagas disease and discrimination of its clinical forms. Am J Trop Med Hyg 87: 267271.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Flores-Chávez M, Cruz I, Rodríguez M, Nieto J, Franco E, Gárate T, Cañavate C, , 2010. Comparación de técnicas serológicas convencionales y no convencionales para el diagnóstico de la enfermedad de Chagas importada en España. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 28: 284293.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Garcia VS, Gonzalez VD, Marcipar IS, Gugliotta LM, , 2014. Immunoagglutination test to diagnose Chagas disease: comparison of different latex-antigen complexes. Trop Med Int Health 19: 13461354.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. Saba ES, Gueyffier L, Dichtel-Danjoy ML, Pozzetto B, Bourlet T, Gueyffier F, Mekki Y, Pottel H, Sabino EC, Vanhems P, Zrein MA, , 2013. Anti-Trypanosoma cruzi cross-reactive antibodies detected at high rate in non-exposed individuals living in non-endemic regions: seroprevalence and association to other viral serologies. PLoS One 8: e74493.[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.15-0820
Loading
/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.15-0820
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Received : 14 Nov 2015
  • Accepted : 29 Jan 2016

Most Cited This Month

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error