1921
Volume 99, Issue 5
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645

Abstract

Abstract.

The existence of an imperfect reference standard presents complications when evaluating the unbiased performance of novel diagnostic techniques. This is especially true in the absence of a gold standard, as is the case in chronic Chagas disease (CD) diagnosis. To circumvent this constraint, we elected to use latent class analysis (LCA). Previously, our group demonstrated the high performance of four –chimeric proteins (Molecular Biology Institute of Paraná [IBMP]-8.1, -8.2, -8.3, and -8.4) for CD diagnosis using several distinct immunoassays. Although commercial tests had previously been established as a reference standard, the diagnostic performance of these chimeric antigens could present bias because these tests fail to produce 100% accurate results. Thus, we used LCA to assess the performance of these IBMP chimeric antigens in chronic CD diagnosis. Using the LCA model as a gold standard, sensitivity and specificity values ranged from 93.5% to 99.4% and 99.6% to 100%, respectively. The accuracy values were 96.2% for IBMP-8.2, approximately 98% for IBMP-8.1 and IBMP-8.3, and nearly 100% for IBMP-8.4. For IBMP-8.1 and IBMP-8.2, higher positive predictive values were associated with increases in hypothetical prevalence. Similarly, higher hypothetical prevalence resulted in lower negative predictive values for IBMP-8.1, IBMP-8.2, and IBMP-8.3. In addition, samples with serodiscordant results from commercial serological tests were analyzed using LCA. Molecular Biology Institute of Paraná -8.1 demonstrated potential for use in confirmatory testing with regard to samples with inconsistent results. Moreover, our findings further confirmed the remarkable performance of the IBMP-8.4 antigen to diagnose chronic CD in both endemic and non-endemic areas.

[open-access] This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.17-0727
2018-09-17
2019-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/14761645/99/5/tpmd170727.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.17-0727&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. 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. [Google Scholar]
  2. World Health Organization, 2015. Chagas disease in Latin America: an epidemiological update based on 2010 estimates. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 90: 3343. [Google Scholar]
  3. Martins-Melo FR, Ramos AN, Jr. Alencar CH, Heukelbach J, , 2014. Prevalence of Chagas disease in Brazil: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Trop 130: 167174. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bern C, Kjos S, Yabsley MJ, Montgomery SP, , 2011. Trypanosoma cruzi and Chagas’ disease in the United States. Clin Microbiol Rev 24: 655681. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gascon J, Bern C, Pinazo MJ, , 2010. Chagas disease in Spain, the United States and other non-endemic countries. Acta Trop 115: 2227. [Google Scholar]
  6. Imai K, 2014. Mother-to-child transmission of congenital chagas disease, Japan. Emerg Infect Dis 20: 146148. [Google Scholar]
  7. Jackson Y, Pinto A, Pett S, , 2014. Chagas disease in Australia and New Zealand: risks and needs for public health interventions. Trop Med Int Health 19: 212218. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pinto A, Pett S, Jackson Y, , 2014. Identifying Chagas disease in Australia: an emerging challenge for general practitioners. Aust Fam Physician 43: 440442. [Google Scholar]
  9. Stanaway JD, Roth G, , 2015. The burden of Chagas disease: estimates and challenges. Glob Heart 10: 139144. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zuñiga E, Motran C, Montes CL, Diaz FL, Bocco JL, Gruppi A, , 2000. Trypanosoma cruzi-induced immunosuppression: B cells undergo spontaneous apoptosis and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) arrests their proliferation during acute infection. Clin Exp Immunol 119: 507515. [Google Scholar]
  11. Rassi A, Jr. Rassi A, Marcondes de Rezende J, , 2012. American trypanosomiasis (Chagas disease). Infect Dis Clin North Am 26: 275291. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dutra WO, Menezes CA, Villani FN, da Costa GC, da Silveira AB, Reis Dd, Gollob KJ, , 2009. Cellular and genetic mechanisms involved in the generation of protective and pathogenic immune responses in human Chagas disease. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 104: 208218. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde, 2005. Brazilian consensus on Chagas disease [in Portuguese]. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 38 (Suppl 3): 729. [Google Scholar]
  14. Teixeira-Carvalho A, 2015. FC-TRIPLEX Chagas/Leish IgG1: a multiplexed flow cytometry method for differential serological diagnosis of Chagas disease and leishmaniasis. PLoS One 10: e0122938. [Google Scholar]
  15. Foti L, Fonseca BD, Nascimento LD, Marques CF, Silva ED, Duarte CA, Probst CM, Goldenberg S, Pinto AG, Krieger MA, , 2009. Viability study of a multiplex diagnostic platform for Chagas disease. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 104 (Suppl 1): 136141. [Google Scholar]
  16. Santos FL, de Souza WV, Barros Mda S, Nakazawa M, Krieger MA, Gomes Yde M, , 2016. Chronic Chagas disease diagnosis: a comparative performance of commercial enzyme immunoassay tests. Am J Trop Med Hyg 94: 10341039. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dias JC, 2016. 2nd Brazilian consensus on Chagas disease, 2015. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 49 (Suppl 1): 360. [Google Scholar]
  18. Martin DL, 2014. Regional variation in the correlation of antibody and T-cell responses to Trypanosoma cruzi. Am J Trop Med Hyg 90: 10741081. [Google Scholar]
  19. Boelaert M, el Safi S, Goetghebeur E, Gomes-Pereira S, Le Ray D, Van der Stuyft P, , 1999. Latent class analysis permits unbiased estimates of the validity of DAT for the diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis. Trop Med Int Health 4: 395401. [Google Scholar]
  20. Santos FL, Celedon PA, Zanchin NI, Souza WV, Silva ED, Foti L, Krieger MA, Gomes YM, , 2017. Accuracy of chimeric proteins in the serological diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease—a Phase II study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 11: e0005433. [Google Scholar]
  21. Santos FL, Celedon PA, Zanchin NI, Brasil TA, Foti L, Souza WV, Silva ED, Gomes YM, Krieger MA, , 2016. Performance assessment of four chimeric Trypanosoma cruzi antigens based on antigen-antibody detection for diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease. PLoS One 11: e0161100. [Google Scholar]
  22. Santos FL, Celedon PA, Zanchin NI, Leitolis A, Crestani S, Foti L, Souza WV, Gomes YM, Krieger MA, , 2017. Performance assessment of a Trypanosoma cruzi chimeric antigen in multiplex liquid microarray assays. J Clin Microbiol 55: 29342945. [Google Scholar]
  23. Silva ED, , 2016. Desenvolvimento de Ensaio Multiplex Para Diagnóstico da Doença de Chagas Utilizando Plataformas de Testes Rápidos. PhD Thesis, Pós-Graduação em Biociências e Biotecnologia, Instituto Carlos Chagas, Curitiba, Paraná.
  24. Gold R, Reichman M, Greenberg E, Ivanidze J, Elias E, Tsiouris AJ, Comunale JP, Johnson CE, Sanelli PC, , 2010. Developing a new reference standard: is validation necessary? Acad Radiol 17: 10791082. [Google Scholar]
  25. Schmunis GA, Yadon ZE, , 2010. Chagas disease: a Latin American health problem becoming a world health problem. Acta Trop 115: 1421. [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. [Google Scholar]
  27. Conners EE, Vinetz JM, Weeks JR, Brouwer KC, , 2016. A global systematic review of Chagas disease prevalence among migrants. Acta Trop 156: 6878. [Google Scholar]
  28. Umezawa ES, 1999. Evaluation of recombinant antigens for serodiagnosis of Chagas’ disease in South and central America. J Clin Microbiol 37: 15541560. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gomes YM, Lorena VM, Luquetti AO, , 2009. Diagnosis of Chagas disease: what has been achieved? What remains to be done with regard to diagnosis and follow up studies? Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 104 (Suppl 1): 115121. [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.17-0727
Loading
/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.17-0727
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Received : 17 Sep 2017
  • Accepted : 27 May 2018
  • Published online : 17 Sep 2018

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