Cargando…

Validity of a PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the validity of a PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis (NC). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective case-control study, recruiting participants from 5 hospitals in Cuenca, Ecuador, from January 2015 to February 2016. Cases fulfilled...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carpio, Arturo, Campoverde, Alfredo, Romo, Matthew L., García, Lorena, Piedra, Luis M., Pacurucu, Mónica, López, Nelson, Aguilar, Jenner, López, Sebastian, Vintimilla, Luis C., Toral, Ana M., Peña-Tapia, Pablo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5241005/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28105460
http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/NXI.0000000000000324
_version_ 1782496137373024256
author Carpio, Arturo
Campoverde, Alfredo
Romo, Matthew L.
García, Lorena
Piedra, Luis M.
Pacurucu, Mónica
López, Nelson
Aguilar, Jenner
López, Sebastian
Vintimilla, Luis C.
Toral, Ana M.
Peña-Tapia, Pablo
author_facet Carpio, Arturo
Campoverde, Alfredo
Romo, Matthew L.
García, Lorena
Piedra, Luis M.
Pacurucu, Mónica
López, Nelson
Aguilar, Jenner
López, Sebastian
Vintimilla, Luis C.
Toral, Ana M.
Peña-Tapia, Pablo
author_sort Carpio, Arturo
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the validity of a PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis (NC). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective case-control study, recruiting participants from 5 hospitals in Cuenca, Ecuador, from January 2015 to February 2016. Cases fulfilled validated diagnostic criteria for NC. For each case, a neurosurgical patient who did not fulfill the diagnostic criteria for NC was selected as a control. CT and MRI, as well as a CSF sample, were collected from both cases and controls. The diagnostic criteria to identify cases were used as a reference standard. RESULTS: Overall, 36 case and 36 control participants were enrolled. PCR had a sensitivity of 72.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.8%–85.8%) and a specificity of 100.0% (95% CI 90.3%–100.0%). For parenchymal NC, PCR had a sensitivity of 42.9% (95% CI 17.7%–71.1%), and for extraparenchymal NC, PCR had a sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI 70.8%–98.9%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the usefulness of this PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of NC. PCR may be particularly helpful for diagnosing extraparenchymal NC when neuroimaging techniques have failed. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that CSF PCR can accurately identify patients with extraparenchymal NC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5241005
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52410052017-01-19 Validity of a PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis Carpio, Arturo Campoverde, Alfredo Romo, Matthew L. García, Lorena Piedra, Luis M. Pacurucu, Mónica López, Nelson Aguilar, Jenner López, Sebastian Vintimilla, Luis C. Toral, Ana M. Peña-Tapia, Pablo Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm Article OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the validity of a PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis (NC). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective case-control study, recruiting participants from 5 hospitals in Cuenca, Ecuador, from January 2015 to February 2016. Cases fulfilled validated diagnostic criteria for NC. For each case, a neurosurgical patient who did not fulfill the diagnostic criteria for NC was selected as a control. CT and MRI, as well as a CSF sample, were collected from both cases and controls. The diagnostic criteria to identify cases were used as a reference standard. RESULTS: Overall, 36 case and 36 control participants were enrolled. PCR had a sensitivity of 72.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.8%–85.8%) and a specificity of 100.0% (95% CI 90.3%–100.0%). For parenchymal NC, PCR had a sensitivity of 42.9% (95% CI 17.7%–71.1%), and for extraparenchymal NC, PCR had a sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI 70.8%–98.9%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the usefulness of this PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of NC. PCR may be particularly helpful for diagnosing extraparenchymal NC when neuroimaging techniques have failed. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that CSF PCR can accurately identify patients with extraparenchymal NC. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2017-01-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5241005/ /pubmed/28105460 http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/NXI.0000000000000324 Text en Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , which permits downloading and sharing the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Article
Carpio, Arturo
Campoverde, Alfredo
Romo, Matthew L.
García, Lorena
Piedra, Luis M.
Pacurucu, Mónica
López, Nelson
Aguilar, Jenner
López, Sebastian
Vintimilla, Luis C.
Toral, Ana M.
Peña-Tapia, Pablo
Validity of a PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis
title Validity of a PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis
title_full Validity of a PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis
title_fullStr Validity of a PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis
title_full_unstemmed Validity of a PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis
title_short Validity of a PCR assay in CSF for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis
title_sort validity of a pcr assay in csf for the diagnosis of neurocysticercosis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5241005/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28105460
http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/NXI.0000000000000324
work_keys_str_mv AT carpioarturo validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis
AT campoverdealfredo validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis
AT romomatthewl validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis
AT garcialorena validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis
AT piedraluism validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis
AT pacurucumonica validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis
AT lopeznelson validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis
AT aguilarjenner validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis
AT lopezsebastian validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis
AT vintimillaluisc validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis
AT toralanam validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis
AT penatapiapablo validityofapcrassayincsfforthediagnosisofneurocysticercosis