BackgroundConfirmatory diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis (VL), as well as diagnosis of relapses and test of cure, usually requires examination by microscopy of samples collected by invasive means, such as splenic, bone marrow or lymph node aspirates. This causes discomfort to patients, with risks of bleeding and iatrogenic infections, and requires technical expertise. Molecular tests have great potential for diagnosis of VL using peripheral blood, but require well-equipped facilities and trained personnel. More user-friendly, and field-amenable options are therefore needed. One method that could meet these requirements is loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) using the Loopamp Leishmania Detection Kit, which comes as dried down reagents that can be stored at room temperature, and allows simple visualization of results.Methodology/Principal findingsThe Loopamp Leishmania Detection Kit (Eiken Chemical Co., Japan), was evaluated in the diagnosis of VL in Sudan. A total of 198 VL suspects were tested by microscopy of lymph node aspirates (the reference test), direct agglutination test-DAT (in house production) and rK28 antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (OnSite Leishmania rK39-Plus, CTK Biotech, USA). LAMP was performed on peripheral blood (whole blood and buffy coat) previously processed by: i) a direct boil and spin method, and ii) the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (QIAgen). Ninety seven of the VL suspects were confirmed as cases by microscopy of lymph node aspirates. The sensitivity and specificity for each of the tests were: rK28 RDT 98.81% and 100%; DAT 88.10% and 78.22%; LAMP-boil and spin 97.65% and 99.01%; LAMP-QIAgen 100% and 99.01%.Conclusions/SignificanceDue to its simplicity and high sensitivity, rK28 RDT can be used first in the diagnostic algorithm for primary VL diagnosis, the excellent performance of LAMP using peripheral blood indicates that it can be also included in the algorithm for diagnosis of VL as a simple test when parasitological confirmatory diagnosis is required in settings that are lower than the reference laboratory, avoiding the need for invasive lymph node aspiration.
BackgroundFirst-line schizontocidal treatment for uncomplicated malaria in the Republic of the Sudan is artesunate (total dose 12 mg/kg) plus Sulphadoxine/pyrimethamine (25/1.25 mg/kg) (AS/SP). Patients with Plasmodium vivax are also treated with 14 days primaquine (total dose 3.5 mg/kg) (PQ). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the national policy.MethodsPatients above 1 year, with microscopy-confirmed, Plasmodium falciparum and/or P. vivax malaria were treated with AS/SP. Patients with P. falciparum were randomized to no primaquine (Pf-noPQ) or a single 0.25 mg/kg dose of PQ (Pf-PQ1). Patients with P. vivax received 14 days unsupervised 3.5 mg/kg PQ (Pv-PQ14) on day 2 or at the end of follow up (Pv-noPQ). Primary endpoint was the risk of recurrent parasitaemia at day 42. G6PD activity was measured by spectrophotometry and the Accessbio Biosensor™.Results231 patients with P. falciparum (74.8%), 77 (24.9%) with P. vivax and 1 (0.3%) patient with mixed infection were enrolled. The PCR corrected cumulative risk of recurrent parasitaemia on day 42 was 3.8% (95% CI 1.2–11.2%) in the Pf-noPQ arm compared to 0.9% (95% CI 0.1–6.0%) in the Pf-PQ1 arm; (HR = 0.25 [95% CI 0.03–2.38], p = 0.189). The corresponding risks of recurrence were 13.4% (95% CI 5.2–31.9%) in the Pv-noPQ arm and 5.3% (95% CI 1.3–19.4%) in the Pv-PQ14 arm (HR 0.36 [95% CI 0.1–2.0], p = 0.212). Two (0.9%) patients had G6PD enzyme activity below 10%, 19 (8.9%) patients below 60% of the adjusted male median. Correlation between spectrophotometry and Biosensor™ was low (rs = 0.330, p < 0.001).ConclusionAS/SP remains effective for the treatment of P. falciparum and P. vivax. The addition of PQ reduced the risk of recurrent P. falciparum and P. vivax by day 42, although this did not reach statistical significance. The version of the Biosensor™ assessed is not suitable for routine use. Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02592408 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12936-018-2266-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundVisceral leishmaniasis (VL) also known as kala-azar, is a protozoan infection caused by the L. donovani complex and transmitted by sandflies. Early detection of leishmaniasis is critical in management of patients and for successful control and elimination of the disease. Definitive diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis is by parasitological demonstration of parasites in splenic, lymph node or bone marrow aspirates, which are collected using invasive methods that are unsuitable in the field. This study aimed to evaluate new less invasive urine-based ELISA and rapid diagnostic test (RDT) assays for diagnosis of VL.MethodsThe newly developed urine ELISA test was evaluated using archived and fresh urine samples collected from parasitologically confirmed VL patients and non-VL cases. Lateral flow assay (LFA) using the ELISA reagents were conducted for day0 samples. Serological tests (DAT, rk28 ICT) were conducted for every patient in the study.ResultsIn 198 patients with suspected VL, urine rapid test had a sensitivity of 72.2% and exhibited a specificity of 93.42%. Leishmania antigen ELISA had a sensitivity of 83.33% and a specificity of 95.05%. All VL-confirmed cases were followed up during the treatment period, the Leishmania antigen ELISA became negative 2 months after completion of treatment in most patients.ConclusionUrine lateral flow assay is a simple addition to the diagnostics of VL particularly at field level and as a complementary test for the diagnosis of VL in smear-negative cases. Further enhancement of the test will define its performance in monitoring treatment. Further studies are recommended to evaluate the performance of both tests in the diagnosis of HIV-co-infected cases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.