Cargando…

Profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers

BACKGROUND: Detection of Loa loa microfilariae in peripheral blood is insensitive given only 30% of individuals are microfilaraemic while 70% are amicrofilaraemic with a variety of clinical signs. Biomarkers may improve the diagnosis of loiasis. METHODS: A total of 545 individuals exposed to L. loa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dieki, Roland, Eyang Assengone, E R, Nsi Emvo, E, Akue, J P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10153730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36520072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/trac116
_version_ 1785035979998887936
author Dieki, Roland
Eyang Assengone, E R
Nsi Emvo, E
Akue, J P
author_facet Dieki, Roland
Eyang Assengone, E R
Nsi Emvo, E
Akue, J P
author_sort Dieki, Roland
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Detection of Loa loa microfilariae in peripheral blood is insensitive given only 30% of individuals are microfilaraemic while 70% are amicrofilaraemic with a variety of clinical signs. Biomarkers may improve the diagnosis of loiasis. METHODS: A total of 545 individuals exposed to L. loa were analysed using clinical data collected through a questionnaire (requesting information on eye worm, Calabar swelling, pruritis) and detection of microfilariae, immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4), DNA and antigens using microscopy, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and Western blot, respectively. RESULTS: The results revealed that the rates of detection of L. loa microfilariae in the blood, of DNA by qPCR, of IgG4 by ELISA and of antigen by Western blot were 4.7%, 5.5%, 15.60% and 10.09%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that clinical signs based on a questionnaire are highly subjective. Therefore it is imperative to use IgG4 and DNA biomarkers as well as antigens detected by Western blot to identify individuals infected with L. loa.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10153730
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101537302023-05-03 Profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers Dieki, Roland Eyang Assengone, E R Nsi Emvo, E Akue, J P Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Original Article BACKGROUND: Detection of Loa loa microfilariae in peripheral blood is insensitive given only 30% of individuals are microfilaraemic while 70% are amicrofilaraemic with a variety of clinical signs. Biomarkers may improve the diagnosis of loiasis. METHODS: A total of 545 individuals exposed to L. loa were analysed using clinical data collected through a questionnaire (requesting information on eye worm, Calabar swelling, pruritis) and detection of microfilariae, immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4), DNA and antigens using microscopy, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and Western blot, respectively. RESULTS: The results revealed that the rates of detection of L. loa microfilariae in the blood, of DNA by qPCR, of IgG4 by ELISA and of antigen by Western blot were 4.7%, 5.5%, 15.60% and 10.09%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that clinical signs based on a questionnaire are highly subjective. Therefore it is imperative to use IgG4 and DNA biomarkers as well as antigens detected by Western blot to identify individuals infected with L. loa. Oxford University Press 2022-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10153730/ /pubmed/36520072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/trac116 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Article
Dieki, Roland
Eyang Assengone, E R
Nsi Emvo, E
Akue, J P
Profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers
title Profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers
title_full Profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers
title_fullStr Profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers
title_full_unstemmed Profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers
title_short Profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers
title_sort profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10153730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36520072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/trac116
work_keys_str_mv AT diekiroland profileofloiasisinfectionthroughclinicalandlaboratorydiagnosticstheimportanceofbiomarkers
AT eyangassengoneer profileofloiasisinfectionthroughclinicalandlaboratorydiagnosticstheimportanceofbiomarkers
AT nsiemvoe profileofloiasisinfectionthroughclinicalandlaboratorydiagnosticstheimportanceofbiomarkers
AT akuejp profileofloiasisinfectionthroughclinicalandlaboratorydiagnosticstheimportanceofbiomarkers