ELISA versus PCR for diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most current guidelines recommend two serological tests to diagnose chronic Chagas disease. When serological tests are persistently inconclusive, some guidelines recommend molecular tests. The aim of this investigation was to review chronic Chagas disease diagnosis literature and to summarize results of ELISA and PCR performance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review was conducted searching remote databases (MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE, SCOPUS and ISIWeb) and full texts bibliography for relevant abstracts. In addition, manufacturers of commercial tests were contacted. Original investigations were eligible if they estimated sensitivity and specificity, or reliability -or if their calculation was possible - of ELISA or PCR tests, for chronic Chagas disease.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Heterogeneity was high within each test (ELISA and PCR) and threshold effect was detected only in a particular subgroup. Reference standard blinding partially explained heterogeneity in ELISA studies, and pooled sensitivity and specificity were 97.7% [96.7%-98.5%] and 96.3% [94.6%-97.6%] respectively. Commercial ELISA with recombinant antigens studied in phase three investigations partially explained heterogeneity, and pooled sensitivity and specificity were 99.3% [97.9%-99.9%] and 97.5% [88.5%-99.5%] respectively. ELISA's reliability was seldom studied but was considered acceptable. PCR heterogeneity was not explained, but a threshold effect was detected in three groups created by using guanidine and boiling the sample before DNA extraction. PCR sensitivity is likely to be between 50% and 90%, while its specificity is close to 100%. PCR reliability was never studied.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Both conventional and recombinant based ELISA give useful information, however there are commercial tests without technical reports and therefore were not included in this review. Physicians need to have access to technical reports to understand if these serological tests are similar to those included in this review and therefore correctly order and interpret test results. Currently, PCR should not be used in clinical practice for chronic Chagas disease diagnosis and there is no PCR test commercially available for this purpose. Tests limitations and directions for future research are discussed.</p

Efficacy of a micronized, nanocrystal fenofibrate formulation in treatment of hyperlipidemia in dogs

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective, and readily available drug therapies are required for the management of hyperlipidemia and its associated complications in dogs. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of a micronized, nanocrystal formulation of fenofibrate (Tricor) in the treatment of hyperlipidemia in dogs. ANIMALS: Ten client‐owned dogs with primary (n = 7) and secondary (n = 3) hyperlipidemia. All dogs had hypertriglyceridemia at baseline; 3 dogs also had hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: Prospective dose‐escalation study. Dogs were treated with fenofibrate orally once daily in up to 3 cycles of 21 days each. Fenofibrate dose was increased at the end of each cycle if hypertriglyceridemia persisted and adverse effects were not documented. Complete blood count, biochemistry, and urine protein:creatinine ratio were collected serially. Baseline (T0) parameters were compared to time of maximal reduction in serum triglyceride concentrations (T1) and reported as median (range). RESULTS: Triglycerides normalized in all dogs (T0 = 662 mg/dL [189‐2391]; T1 = 113 mg/dL [81‐132]; P = .002). Fenofibrate dose at T1 = 6.4 mg/kg PO q24h (range, 2.2‐13.5). T1 was achieved at 3 (n = 4), 6 (n = 4), and 9 (n = 2) weeks. Serum cholesterol concentrations decreased in 9 of 10 dogs. Quiet demeanor and firm stools in 1 dog were the only reported adverse reactions. Fenofibrate administration resulted in a significant reduction in median alkaline phosphatase activity (P = .049). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Over 21 to 63 days, TriCor was effective in the management of primary and secondary hyperlipidemia in dogs