@article{fdi:010079485,
  title = {{P}erformance of two serodiagnostic tests for loiasis in a non-endemic area},
  author = {{G}obbi, {F}. and {B}uonfrate, {D}. and {B}oussinesq, {M}ichel and {C}hesnais, {C}edric and {P}ion, {S}{\'e}bastien and {S}ilva, {R}. and {M}oro, {L}. and {R}odariid, {P}. and {T}amarozzi, {F}. and {B}iamonte, {M}. and {B}isoffi, {Z}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{L}oiasis, caused by the filarial nematode {L}oa loa, is endemic in {C}entral and {W}est {A}frica where about 10 million people are infected. {T}here is a scarcity of convenient, commercial diagnostics for {L}. loa. {M}icroscopy requires trained personnel and has low sensitivity, while the serodiagnosis is currently not standardized. {I}ndividual case management is also important in non-endemic countries to treat migrants, expatriates and tourists. {W}e retrospectively compared the performance of a {L}oa {A}ntibody {R}apid {T}est ({RDT}) and a commercial {ELISA} pan-filarial test on 170 patients, 65 with loiasis [8 with eyeworm, 29 with positive microfilaremia, 28 with neither microfilaremia nor history of eyeworm but eosinophilia and history of {C}alabar swelling (probable loiasis)], 95 with other common parasitic infections and no previous exposure to {L}. loa (37 with {M}. perstans, 1 with {B}rugia sp., 18 with strongyloidiasis, 20 with schistosomiasis, 5 with hookworm, 4 with {A}scaris lumbricoides infection, 10 with hyper-reactive malarial splenomegaly), and 10 uninfected controls. {T}he sensitivity of the {RDT} and of the {ELISA} were 93.8% (61/65) and 90.8% (59/65), respectively. {F}or the {RDT}, most of the cross-reactions were observed in patients with {M}. perstans: 7/37 (18.9%), followed by 1/10 (10%) with hyper-reactive malarial splenomegaly and 1/20 (5%) with schistosomiasis. {N}one of the 27 subjects infected with intestinal nematodes was found positive at this test. {T}he {ELISA} is meant to be a pan-filarial assay, and reacted extensively with cases of {M}. perstans (95%), as expected, and also in 11/18 (61.1%) patients with strongyloidiasis and in 3/5 (60%) with hookworm infection. {T}he {RDT} and the {ELISA} are both highly sensitive for the diagnosis of loiasis. {T}he main difference lies in the extent of cross-reactivity with other parasites. {C}onsidering that the {RDT} is specifically meant for {L}oa loa infection, and its high sensitivity, this test could be a useful tool for the diagnosis of occult loiasis.},
  keywords = {{AFRIQUE} {DE} {L}'{OUEST} ; {AFRIQUE} {CENTRALE} ; {ITALIE}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{PL}o{S} {N}eglected {T}ropical {D}iseases},
  volume = {14},
  numero = {5},
  pages = {art. e0008187 [11 ]},
  ISSN = {1935-2735},
  year = {2020},
  DOI = {10.1371/journal.pntd.0008187},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010079485},
}