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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |