Why the study?
Diagnosing Chagas disease is challenging due to asymptomatic infections and limitations of serological tests, such as cross-reactivity with other trypanosomatids.
What are the applications, relevance, and methodological aspects of qPCR in human Chagas disease?
What are the applications, relevance, and methodological aspects of qPCR in human Chagas disease?
qPCR is a highly sensitive and specific tool for diagnosing and monitoring human Chagas disease, though standardization across laboratories remains a challenge.
High qPCR variability in Chagas disease warrants cautious cross-lab result interpretation; challenges standardization and extends calls for consensus protocols.
Introduction: The diagnosis in Chagas disease is a challenge because most infections with Trypanosoma cruzi are asymptomatic and currently serological tests have limitations, such as cross-reactivity with other trypanosomatids. Real-time PCR (qPCR) is a useful procedure that allows T. cruzi detection even when the parasitic load is very low and seems interesting for monitoring the response to trypanocidal treatment and elucidating cases with doubtful serological results. Areas covered: This systematic review aimed to investigate the applications and relevance of qPCR in human Chagas disease, and focus on the methodological aspects. Expert opinion: The results showed that blood samples with the TaqMan procedure direct to nuclear DNA (nDNA) sequences are used the most. However, a high variability among laboratories concerning the qPCR methods make it difficult to compare between studies and the use in routine surveillance laboratories, even if some works had performed an analytical validation of T. cruzi qPCR to try to counteract this. Nevertheless, the detection of T. cruzi by qPCR has multiple advantages including fast results, reduction of carryover contamination compared to conventional PCR, and high sensitivity and specificity. This study has given an overview of assays using qPCR in human Chagas disease and has shown the relevance of this technique in diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hagström et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: