Cargando…

Evaluation of point of care tests for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Suriname

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a serious health problem in Suriname. To expand the diagnostic options, two newly developed diagnostic tests, i.e. the rapid diagnostic test CL Detect™ Rapid Test (CL Detect) and the Loopamp™ Leishmania Detection Kit (Loopamp) were evaluated. METHODS: Diag...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schallig, Henk D. F. H., Hu, Ricardo V. P., Kent, Alida D., van Loenen, Merlin, Menting, Sandra, Picado, Albert, Oosterling, Zippora, Cruz, Israel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6323762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30616544
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3634-3
_version_ 1783385831667400704
author Schallig, Henk D. F. H.
Hu, Ricardo V. P.
Kent, Alida D.
van Loenen, Merlin
Menting, Sandra
Picado, Albert
Oosterling, Zippora
Cruz, Israel
author_facet Schallig, Henk D. F. H.
Hu, Ricardo V. P.
Kent, Alida D.
van Loenen, Merlin
Menting, Sandra
Picado, Albert
Oosterling, Zippora
Cruz, Israel
author_sort Schallig, Henk D. F. H.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a serious health problem in Suriname. To expand the diagnostic options, two newly developed diagnostic tests, i.e. the rapid diagnostic test CL Detect™ Rapid Test (CL Detect) and the Loopamp™ Leishmania Detection Kit (Loopamp) were evaluated. METHODS: Diagnostic test performance was compared to the routine diagnostic approach in place, i.e. clinical symptoms combined with microscopy, and to polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which was used as a reference standard. The study population (n = 93) was a typical representation of the CL affected population in Suriname and mainly infected with Leishmania guyanensis. RESULTS: CL Detect had a very low sensitivity compared to microscopy (36.7%) or PCR (35.8%), due to a high number of false negative results. The specificity of the CL Detect compared to microscopy and PCR was 85.7 and 83.3% respectively. Loopamp sensitivity was 84.8% compared to microscopy and 91.4% compared to PCR. The Loopamp test had a moderate specificity (42.9%) compared to microscopy, but a good specificity compared to PCR (91.7%). CONCLUSION: The CL Detect is not likely to be a good replacement for the routine diagnostic procedure for CL in Suriname. The high sensitivity of the easy to perform Loopamp enables the implementation of sensitive molecular diagnosis in resource limited settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6323762
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63237622019-01-11 Evaluation of point of care tests for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Suriname Schallig, Henk D. F. H. Hu, Ricardo V. P. Kent, Alida D. van Loenen, Merlin Menting, Sandra Picado, Albert Oosterling, Zippora Cruz, Israel BMC Infect Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a serious health problem in Suriname. To expand the diagnostic options, two newly developed diagnostic tests, i.e. the rapid diagnostic test CL Detect™ Rapid Test (CL Detect) and the Loopamp™ Leishmania Detection Kit (Loopamp) were evaluated. METHODS: Diagnostic test performance was compared to the routine diagnostic approach in place, i.e. clinical symptoms combined with microscopy, and to polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which was used as a reference standard. The study population (n = 93) was a typical representation of the CL affected population in Suriname and mainly infected with Leishmania guyanensis. RESULTS: CL Detect had a very low sensitivity compared to microscopy (36.7%) or PCR (35.8%), due to a high number of false negative results. The specificity of the CL Detect compared to microscopy and PCR was 85.7 and 83.3% respectively. Loopamp sensitivity was 84.8% compared to microscopy and 91.4% compared to PCR. The Loopamp test had a moderate specificity (42.9%) compared to microscopy, but a good specificity compared to PCR (91.7%). CONCLUSION: The CL Detect is not likely to be a good replacement for the routine diagnostic procedure for CL in Suriname. The high sensitivity of the easy to perform Loopamp enables the implementation of sensitive molecular diagnosis in resource limited settings. BioMed Central 2019-01-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6323762/ /pubmed/30616544 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3634-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Schallig, Henk D. F. H.
Hu, Ricardo V. P.
Kent, Alida D.
van Loenen, Merlin
Menting, Sandra
Picado, Albert
Oosterling, Zippora
Cruz, Israel
Evaluation of point of care tests for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Suriname
title Evaluation of point of care tests for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Suriname
title_full Evaluation of point of care tests for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Suriname
title_fullStr Evaluation of point of care tests for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Suriname
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of point of care tests for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Suriname
title_short Evaluation of point of care tests for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Suriname
title_sort evaluation of point of care tests for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in suriname
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6323762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30616544
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3634-3
work_keys_str_mv AT schallighenkdfh evaluationofpointofcaretestsforthediagnosisofcutaneousleishmaniasisinsuriname
AT huricardovp evaluationofpointofcaretestsforthediagnosisofcutaneousleishmaniasisinsuriname
AT kentalidad evaluationofpointofcaretestsforthediagnosisofcutaneousleishmaniasisinsuriname
AT vanloenenmerlin evaluationofpointofcaretestsforthediagnosisofcutaneousleishmaniasisinsuriname
AT mentingsandra evaluationofpointofcaretestsforthediagnosisofcutaneousleishmaniasisinsuriname
AT picadoalbert evaluationofpointofcaretestsforthediagnosisofcutaneousleishmaniasisinsuriname
AT oosterlingzippora evaluationofpointofcaretestsforthediagnosisofcutaneousleishmaniasisinsuriname
AT cruzisrael evaluationofpointofcaretestsforthediagnosisofcutaneousleishmaniasisinsuriname