An investigation of the disparity in estimates of microfilaraemia and antigenaemia in lymphatic filariasis surveys

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis (LF) is based typically on either microfilaraemia as assessed by microscopy or filarial antigenaemia using an immuno-chromatographic test. While it is known that estimates of antigenaemia are generally higher than estimates of microfilaraemia, the ex...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cano, Jorge, Moraga, Paula, Nikolay, Birgit, Rebollo, Maria P., Okorie, Patricia N., Davies, Emmanuel, Njenga, Sammy M., Bockarie, Moses J., Brooker, Simon J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2015
Materias:
Short Communications
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542699/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26101292
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/trv048
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis (LF) is based typically on either microfilaraemia as assessed by microscopy or filarial antigenaemia using an immuno-chromatographic test. While it is known that estimates of antigenaemia are generally higher than estimates of microfilaraemia, the extent of the difference is not known. METHODS: This paper presents the results of an extensive literature search for surveys that estimated both microfilaraemia and antigenaemia in order to better understand the disparity between the two measures. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In some settings there was a very large disparity, up to 40–70%, between estimates of microfilaraemia and antigenaemia. Regression analysis was unable to identify any predictable relationship between the two measures. The implications of findings for risk mapping and surveillance of LF are discussed.

Ejemplares similares