Overcoming the Negligence in Laboratory Diagnosis of Mucosal Leishmaniasis.

The northern region of Brazil, which has the largest number of cases of tegumentary leishmaniasis (TL) in the country, is also the region that has the highest diversity of species of vectors and Leishmania parasites. In this region, cases of mucosal leishmaniasis (ML), a clinical form of TL, exceed the national average of cases, reaching up to 12% of the total annual TL notifications. ML is associated with multiple factors, such as the parasite species and the viral endosymbiont Leishmania RNA virus 1 (LRV1). Being a chronic parasitological disease, laboratory diagnosis of ML poses a challenge for health services. Here, we evaluated more than 700 clinical samples from patients with clinical suspicion of TL, including patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) and mucosal leishmaniasis, comparing the results of parasitological tests-direct parasitological examination by microscopy (DP) and conventional PCR (cPCR) targeting of both kDNA and hsp70. The DP was performed by collecting material from lesions through biopsies (mucosal lesions) or scarification (cutaneous lesions); for PCR, a cervical brush was used for sample collection. Blood samples were tested employing standardized real-time PCR (qPCR) protocol targeting the HSP70 gene. PCR tests showed higher sensitivity than DP for both CL and ML samples. Considering ML samples only (N = 89), DP showed a sensitivity of 49.4% (N = 44) against 98.8% (N = 88) for kDNA PCR. The qPCR hsp70 for blood samples from patients with ML (N = 14) resulted in superior sensitivity (50%; N = 7) compared to DP (21.4%; N = 3) for samples from the same patients. Our results reinforced the need to implement a molecular test for the diagnosis of ML, in addition to proposing methods less invasive for collecting material from TL patients. Sample collection using a cervical brush in lesions observed in CL and ML patients is easy to perform and less invasive, compared to scarification and biopsies. Blood samples could be a good source for qPCR diagnosis for ML patients. Thus, we propose here a standardized method for collection and for performing of molecular diagnosis of clinical samples from suspicious ML patients that can be applied in reference services for improving ML diagnosis.

First report of Leishmania (Viannia) lindenbergi causing tegumentary leishmaniasis in the Brazilian western Amazon region.

Tegumentary Leishmaniasis (TL) in the Brazilian Amazon region is associated with several Leishmania species. In this report, we describe two cases of TL related to Leishmania lindenbergi occurring in different locations of Rondônia state. After clinical diagnosis, lesion samples were collected for parasitological diagnoses via direct microscopic visualization, parasite isolation, and PCR. PCR reactions were positive in both clinical samples. Parasite isolation was possible for both patients, and isolates were submitted to species identification by isoenzyme electrophoresis and DNA sequencing. This report is the first to describe human infections caused by L. lindenbergi since the initial description and record of human infection by this species in 2002.

Further Evidence of an Association between the Presence of Leishmania RNA Virus 1 and the Mucosal Manifestations in Tegumentary Leishmaniasis Patients.

Tegumentary Leishmaniasis (TL) is endemic in Latin America, and Brazil contributes approximately 20 thousand cases per year. The pathogenesis of TL, however, is still not fully understood. Clinical manifestations vary from cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) to more severe outcomes, such as disseminated leishmaniasis (DL), mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) and diffuse cutaneous leishmaniasis (DCL). Many factors have been associated with the severity of the disease and the development of lesions. Recent studies have reported that the presence of Leishmania RNA virus 1 infecting Leishmania (Leishmania RNA virus 1, LRV1) is an important factor associated with the severity of ML in experimental animal models. In the present study, 156 patients who attended Rondonia's Hospital of Tropical Medicine with both leishmaniasis clinical diagnoses (109 CL; 38 ML; 5 CL+ML; 3 DL and 1 DCL) and molecular diagnoses were investigated. The clinical diagnosis were confirmed by PCR by targeting hsp70 and kDNA DNA sequences and the species causing the infection were determined by HSP70 PCR-RFPL. The presence of LVR1 was tested by RT-PCR. Five Leishmania species were detected: 121 (77.6%) samples were positive for Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis, 18 (11.5%) were positive for Leishmania (V.) guyanensis, 3 (1.8%) for Leishmania (V.) lainsoni, 2 (1.3%) for Leishmania (Leishmania) amazonensis and 2 (1.3%) for Leishmania (V.) shawi. Six (3.9%) samples were positive for Leishmania sp. but the species could not be determined, and 4 (2.6%) samples were suggestive of mixed infection by L. (V.) braziliensis and L. (V.) guyanensis. The virus was detected in L. braziliensis (N = 54), L. guyanensis (N = 5), L. amazonensis (N = 2), L. lainsoni (N = 1) and inconclusive samples (N = 6). Patients presenting with CL+ML, DL and DCL were excluded from further analysis. Association between the presence of the virus and the disease outcome were tested among the remaining 147 patients (CL = 109 and ML = 38). Of them, 71.1% (n = 27) mucosal lesions were positive for LRV1, and 28.9% (n = 11) were negative. In cutaneous lesions, 36.7% (n = 40) were positive and 63.3% (n = 69) were negative for LRV1. The ratio P(ML|LRV1+)/P(ML|LRV1-) was 2.93 (CI95% 1.57...5.46; p<0.001), thus corroborating the hypothesis of the association between LRV1 and the occurrence of mucosal leishmaniasis, as previously described in animal models; it also indicates that LRV1 is not the only factor contributing to the disease outcome.