Investigation of canine visceral leishmaniasis in a non-endemic area in Brazil and the comparison of serological and molecular diagnostic tests

Autor: Ana Pérola Drulla Brandão, Anaiá da Paixão Sevá, Bruna Cristine Rodrigues, Helio Langoni, Roberto Mitsuyoshi Hiramoto, Mariana Zanchetta e Gava, Rodrigo Martins Soares, Paula Ferraz de Camargo Zanotto, Fernando Ferreira, Tatiana Jimenez-Villegas, Silvia Neri Godoy
Přispěvatelé: Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Instituto Chico Mendez de Conservação da Biodiversidade, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Instituto Adolfo Lutz
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2021
Předmět:
Zdroj: Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, Vol 54 (2021)
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical v.54 2021
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT)
instacron:SBMT
Scopus
Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
Repositório Institucional da USP (Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual)
Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, Volume: 54, Article number: e0182-2021, Published: 06 SEP 2021
ISSN: 1678-9849
Popis: Made available in DSpace on 2022-05-01T09:30:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2021-01-01 INTRODUCTION: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is an important zoonosis in Brazil. Previous identification of parasitized dogs can also help prevent the disease in humans, even in non-endemic areas of the country. The Brazilian Ministry of Health recommends diagnosis in dogs using a DPP® (rapid test) as a screening test and an immunoenzymatic assay (ELISA) as a confirmatory test (DPP®+ELISA), and culling infected dogs as a legal control measure. However, the accuracy of these serological tests has been questioned. METHODS: VL in dogs was investigated in a non-endemic area of the São Paulo state for three consecutive years, and the performances of different diagnostic tests were compared. RESULTS: A total of 331 dog samples were collected in 2015, 373 in 2016, and 347 in 2017. The seroprevalence by DPP®+ELISA was 3.3, 3.2, and 0.3%, respectively, and by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA), it was 3.0, 5.6, and 5.5%, respectively. ELISA confirmed 18.4% of DPP® positive samples. The concordance between the IFA and DPP® was 83.9%. The concordance between IFA and DPP®+ELISA was 92.9%. A molecular diagnostic test (PCR) was performed in 63.2% of the seropositive samples, all of which were negative. CONCLUSIONS: In non-endemic areas, diagnostic tests in dogs should be carefully evaluated to avoid false results. Universidade de São Paulo Departamento de Veterinária Preventiva e Saúde Animal Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Departamento de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais, Ilhéus, BA, Brasil Instituto Chico Mendez de Conservação da Biodiversidade Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho Departamento de Higiene Veterinária e Saúde Pública Instituto Adolfo Lutz Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho Departamento de Higiene Veterinária e Saúde Pública
Databáze: OpenAIRE