Author(s): Van den Bossche D, Cnops L, Verschueren J, Van Esbroeck M
Abstract Share this page
Abstract PURPOSE: Microscopy is the diagnostic reference standard for the detection of parasites, but it is labor-intensive and requires experience. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) can provide an alternative to microscopy. METHODS: RDTs from four different manufacturers were compared to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), microscopy and/or parasite-specific real-time PCR: ImmunoCardSTAT!®CGE (Meridian Bioscience Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA) (A), Crypto/Giardia Duo-Strip (Coris Bioconcepts, Gembloux, Belgium) (B), RIDA®QUICK Cryptosporidium/Giardia/Entamoeba Combi (R-BioPharm, Darmstadt, Germany) (C) and Giardia/Cryptosporidium Quik Chek (Techlab Inc., Blacksburg, Virginia, USA) (D). RESULTS: Thirty frozen samples were analyzed retrospectively. For Giardia lamblia (n=12) and Cryptosporidium (n=12) sensitivities ranged from 58\% (B), over 83\% (A, C) to 100\% (D) and from 92\% (B) to 100\% (A, C, D), respectively. Specificity for both G. lamblia and Cryptosporidium was 100\% for all RDT brands. Sensitivity for Entamoeba histolytica (n=5) was 100\%, while specificity reached 80\% (A) to 88\% (C). In a prospective study, fresh samples were tested. For G. lamblia (n=30), sensitivity ranged from 66\% (B), over 79\% (A) and 83\% (C) to 100\% (D) and specificity varied between 94\% (D) and 100\% (A, B, C). For Cryptosporidium (n=3), sensitivity was 100\% for all brands except (B) (67\%) and specificities were 95\% (A, B), 98\% (C) and 100\% (D). E. histolytica (n=1) was detected by both (A) and (C), while specificity was 81\% and 87\% respectively. CONCLUSION: RDTs can be a valuable tool when microscopic expertise is poor and in remote and outbreak settings where other techniques are often not available and rapid diagnosis is required. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
This article was published in J Microbiol Methods
and referenced in Advances in Molecular Diagnostics