Profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers

6Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Detection of Loa loa microfilariae in peripheral blood is insensitive given only 30% of individuals are microfilaraemic while 70% are amicrofilaraemic with a variety of clinical signs. Biomarkers may improve the diagnosis of loiasis. Methods: A total of 545 individuals exposed to L. loa were analysed using clinical data collected through a questionnaire (requesting information on eye worm, Calabar swelling, pruritis) and detection of microfilariae, immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4), DNA and antigens using microscopy, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and Western blot, respectively. Results: The results revealed that the rates of detection of L. loa microfilariae in the blood, of DNA by qPCR, of IgG4 by ELISA and of antigen by Western blot were 4.7%, 5.5%, 15.60% and 10.09%, respectively. Conclusions: This study showed that clinical signs based on a questionnaire are highly subjective. Therefore it is imperative to use IgG4 and DNA biomarkers as well as antigens detected by Western blot to identify individuals infected with L. loa.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dieki, R., Assengone, E. R. E., Emvo, E. N., & Akue, J. P. (2023). Profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 117(5), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/trac116

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free