These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Profile of loiasis infection through clinical and laboratory diagnostics: the importance of biomarkers.
    Author: Dieki R, Eyang Assengone ER, Nsi Emvo E, Akue JP.
    Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg; 2023 May 02; 117(5):349-357. PubMed ID: 36520072.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]