Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Diagnosis of Human Cutaneous Leishmaniasis: A Comparative Study Using CL Detect Dipstick, Direct Smear and Polymerase Chain Reaction Methods.
Zamanpour, Maryam; Mohebali, Mehdi; Khamesipour, Ali; Mohammadi, Akram Mir Amin; Akhoundi, Behnaz.
  • Zamanpour M; Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Mohebali M; Department of Medical Parasitology, School of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
  • Khamesipour A; Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. mohebali@tums.ac.ir.
  • Mohammadi AMA; Center for Research of Endemic Parasites of Iran (CREPI), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. mohebali@tums.ac.ir.
  • Akhoundi B; Center for Research and Training in Skin Diseases and Leprosy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ali.khamesipour@gmail.com.
Acta Parasitol ; 68(2): 328-333, 2023 Jun.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36913075
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

In most of the endemic areas, the detection of CL is based on searching for amastigotes using the direct smear method. Since expert microscopists are not usually available in every laboratory, false diagnoses are a disaster that happens. Therefore, the aim of current research is to evaluate the validity of the CL Detect™ Rapid Test (CDRT) for diagnosis CL in comparison to direct smear and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods.

METHODS:

A total of 70 patients with skin lesions suspected to be CL were recruited. Skin samples from the lesions were collected and used for direct microscopic examination and the PCR method. Furthermore, the skin sample was collected in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for the CDRT-based rapid diagnostic test.

RESULTS:

Of 70 samples, 51 and 35 samples were positive by direct smear examination and the CDRT, respectively. The PCR showed positive results in 59 samples; 50 and 9 samples were identified as Leishmania major and Leishmania tropica, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated to be 68.6% (95% CI 54.11-80.89%) and 100% (95% CI 82.35-100%). When the results of CDRT were compared to the microscopic examinations, an agreement of 77.14% was seen between the CDRT and microscopic examination. In addition, the sensitivity and specificity were 59.32% (95% CI 45.75-71.93%) and 100% (95% CI 71.5-100%) when the CDRT was compared to PCR assay (as gold standard) and an agreement (65.71%) was found between CDRT and PCR assay.

CONCLUSION:

As the CDRT is simple, rapid, and does not require great proficiency, it is recommended for use in the detection of CL caused by L. major or L. tropica as a diagnostic method, especially in areas with limited access to expert microscopists.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Leishmania tropica / Leishmaniasis Cutánea / Leishmania major Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Leishmania tropica / Leishmaniasis Cutánea / Leishmania major Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article