Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T20:04:17.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Serological diagnosis of leishmaniasis: on detecting infection as well as disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

C. Dye ,
E. Vidor  and
J. Dereure
C. Dye
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Parasitology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WCIE 7HT, UK
E. Vidor
Affiliation:
Pasteur-Mérieux, Sérums et Vaccins, 3 Avenue Pasteur, B. P. 10, 92430 Marnes-la-Coquette, France
J. Dereure
Affiliation:
Laboratoire d'histoire Naturelle Medicale et de Parasitologie, Faculté de Médecine, 163 Rue Auguste Broussonet, 34000 Montpellier, France
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Serological tests are very frequently used in epidemiological surveys of leishmaniasis and other parasitoses. Their sensitivity and specificity are generally defined with respect to parasitism and diseases, rather than infection. The reason is that known positives are those individuals most likely to yield parasites, or who have distinctive clinical signs, and concomitantly high antibody titres. This paper investigates the performance of one serological method, the indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT), in detecting Leishmania infantum infection during an intensive 2-year cohort study of dogs in southern France. The results show that sensitivity and specificity with respect to infection can be simultaneously high, but maximum sensitivity is probably <80%, and lasts for a relatively short period of 2–3 months after a lengthy incubation period. The IFAT gave the incidence of infection as 18–65% in the first year, whereas the best estimate of incidence based on parasite isolation and clinical observation was 72%. But data from the second year suggest that the 72% was itself an underestimate. We argue that, during epidemiological surveys, the IFAT in particular, and serological tests for leishmania in general, will underestimate prevalence, incidence and hence the scale of the control problem. However, there is evidence that tests for canine leishmaniasis employing high threshold titres will identify the most infectious animals, allowing selective treatment or culling of those which contribute disproportionately to transmission.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 110 , Issue 3 , June 1993 , pp. 647 - 656
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

REFERENCES

1.Dye, C. Killick-Kendrick, R. Vitutia, MM, et al. Epidemiology of canine leishmaniasis: prevalence, incidence and basic reproduction number calculated from a cross-sectional survey on the island of Gozo, Malta. Parasitol 1992; 105: 35–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Hasibeder, G. Dye, C. Carpenter, J. Mathematical modelling and theory for estimating the basic reproduction number of canine leishmaniasis. Parasitol 1992; 105: 43–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Badaró, R. Reed, SG. Carvalho, EM. Immunofluorescent antibody test in american visceral leishmaniasis: sensitivity and specificity of different morphological forms of two Leishmania species. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1983: 32: 480–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Badaró, R. Jones, TC. Lorenco, R. et al. A prospective study of visceral leishmaniasis in an endemic area of Brazil. J Infect Dis 1986: 154: 639–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Badaró, R. Jones, TC. Carvalho, EM. et al. New perspectives on a subclinical form of visceral leishmaniasis. J Infect Dis 1986: 154: 1003–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Badaró, R. Reed, SG. Barral, A. Orge, G. Jones, TC. Evaluation of the micro enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for antibodies in american visceral leishmaniasis: antigen selection for detection of infection-specific responses. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1986: 35: 72–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.de Korte, PM. Harith, AE. Dereure, J. Huigen, E. Faucherre, V. van der Kaay, HJ. Introduction of an improved direct agglutination test for the detection of Leishmania infantum infection in Southern France. Parasitol Res 1990; 76: 526–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Evans, TG. Vasconcelos, LAB. Lima, JW. et al. Canine visceral leishmaniasis in north-east Brazil: assessment of serodiagnostic methods. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1990: 42: 118–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Harith, AE. Kolk, AHJ. Kager, P. et al. A simple and economical direct agglutination test for serodiagnosis and sero-epidemiological studies of visceral leishmaniasis. Trans Roy Soc for Trop Med Hyg 1987: 80: 583–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Harith, AE. Kolk, AHJ. Kager, P. et al. Evaluation of a newly-developed agglutination test (DAT) for serodiagnosis and sero-epidemiological studies of visceral leishmaniasis: comparison with IFAT and ELISA. Trans Roy Soc Trop Med Hyg 1987; 81: 603–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Harith, AE. Slappendel, RJ. Reiter, I, et al. Application of a direct agglutination test for detection of specific anti-Leishmania antibodies in the canine reservoir. J Clin Microbiol 1989; 27: 2252–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Ho, M, Siongok, TK, Lyerly, WH, Smith, DH. Prevalence and disease spectrum in a new focus of visceral leishmaniasis in Kenya. Trans Roy Soc Trop Med Hyg 1982: 76: 741–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Reed, SG. Shreffler, WG, Burns, JM Jr, et al. An improved serodiagnostic procedure for visceral leishmaniasis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1990; 43: 632–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Srivastava, L. Suri, JC. Sanyal, RK. ELISA test in diagnosis of kala-azar in current epidemic in Bihar. J Com Dis 1979; 11: 183–7.Google Scholar
15.Lanotte, G. Rioux, JA, Perieres, J, Vollhardt, Y. Ecologie des leishmanioses dans le sud de la France. 10. Les formes évolutives de la leishmaniose viscérale canine. Elaboration d'une typologie bio-clinique à finalité épidemiologique. Ann Parasit 1979: 54; 277–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Abranches, P, Lopez, FJ, Silva, FMC. Ribeiro, MMS. Pires, C. Le kala-azar au Portugal. III Résultats d'une enquête sur la leishmaniose canine réalisée dans les environs de Lisbonne. Comparasion des zones urbaines et rurales. Ann Parasit Hum Comp 1983: 58: 307–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Abranches, P, Silva-Pereira, MCD. Conceicão-Silva, FM, Santos-Gomes, GM, Janz, JG. Canine leishmaniasis: pathological and ecological factors influencing transmission of infection. J Parasitol 1991; 77: 557–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Vidor, E, Dereure, J, Pratlong, F. Dubreuil, N, Bissuel, G, Moreau, Y. Rioux, JA. Le chancre d'inoculation dans la leishmaniose canine à Leishmania infantum: étude d'une cohorte en région cévenole. Prat Med Chir Anim Comp 1991: 26: 133–7.Google Scholar
19.Rioux, JA. Golvan, YJ. Epidémiologie des leishmanioses dans le sud de la France. Paris: Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale. monograph 37, 1969.Google Scholar
20.Killick-Kendrick, R, Rioux, JA. The Cévennes focus of leishmaniasis in southern France and the biology of the vector, Phlebotomus ariasi. In: Canning, EU, ed. Parasitological topics. Society of Protozoologists Special Publication No. 1. 1981.Google Scholar
21.Dye, C. Guy, MW, Elkins, DB, Wilkes, TJ, Killick-Kendrick, R. The life expectancy of phlebotomine sandflies: first field estimates from southern France. Med Vet Ent 1987: 1: 417–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Aitken, M. Anderson, D, Francis, B. Hinde, J. Statistical modelling in GLIM. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.Google Scholar
23.Efron, B. Regression and ANOVA with zero-one data. J Am Stat Assoc 1978: 73: 113–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Forattini, OP. Entomologia medica. Vol. 4. São Paulo: Editora Edgard Blucher Ltda. 1973.Google Scholar
25.Lainson, R. Dye, C, Shaw, JJ, Macdonald, DW. Courtenay, O, Souza, AAA. Silveira, FT. Amazonian visceral leishmaniasis – distribution of the vector Lutzomyia longipalpis (Lutz & Neiva) in relation to the fox Cerdocyon thous (L.) and the efficiency of this reservoir host as a source of infection. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 1990; 85: 135–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Pozio, E, Gradoni, L. Bettini, S, Gramiccia, M. Leishmaniasis in Tuscany (Italy). VI. Canine leishmaniasis in the focus of Monte Argentario (Grosseto). Act Trop 1981; 38: 383–93.Google ScholarPubMed
27.Gradoni, L, Maroli, M, Gramiccia, M. Mancianti, F. Leishmania infantum infection rates in Phlebotomus perniciosus fed on naturally infected dogs under antimonial treatment. Med Vet Ent 1987; 1: 338–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Xu, Zhi-Biao. Present situation of visceral leishmaniasis in China. Parasit Today 1989: 5: 224–8.Google Scholar
29.Adler, S, Theodor, O. Investigations on Mediterranean kala-azar. VI. Canine visceral leishmaniasis. Proc Roy Soc B 1932; 110: 402–12.Google Scholar
30.Rioux, JA, Lanotte, G. Croset, H. Dedet, JP. Ecologie des leishmanioses dans le sud de la France. 5. Pouvoir infestant comparé des diverses formes de leishmaniose canine vis-à-vis de Phlebotomus ariasi Tonnoir, 1921. Ann Parasit Hum Comp 1972: 47: 413–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar