Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

WHO comparative evaluation of serologic assays for Chagas disease.

Transfusion 2009 June
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of commercially available test kits for Chagas disease for use in blood bank screening is difficult due to a lack of large and well-characterized specimen panels. This study presents a collaborative effort of Latin American blood centers and the World Health Organization (WHO) to establish such a panel.

STUDY DESIGN: A total of 437 specimens, from 10 countries were collected and sent to the WHO Collaborating Center in São Paulo and used to evaluate 19 screening assays during 2001 through 2005. Specimens were assigned a positive or negative status based on concordant results in at least three of the four confirmatory assays (indirect immunofluorescence, Western blot, radioimmunoprecipitation assay, and recombinant immunoblot).

RESULTS: Of the 437 specimens, 168 (39%) were characterized as positive, 262 (61%) were characterized as negative, and 7 (2%) were judged inconclusive and excluded from the analysis. Sensitivity and specificity varied considerably: 88 to 100 and 60 to 100 percent, respectively. Overall, enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) performed better than the other screening assays. Four EIAs had both parameters higher than 99 percent. Of the four confirmatory assays, only the RIPA gave a 100 percent agreement with the final serologic status of the specimens.

CONCLUSION: The sensitivities and specificities of at least four of the commercially available EIAs for Chagas disease are probably high enough to justify their use for single-assay screening of blood donations. Our data suggest that the majority of commercially available indirect hemagglutination assays should not be used for blood donor screening and that the RIPA could be considered a gold standard for evaluating the performance of other assays.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app