Efficiency of two commercial kits in serodiagnosis of leptospiral uveitis

Kannan, Arthi; Priya, Chidambaranathan Gowri; Prajna, Lalitha; Rathinam, SR

doi:10.4103/0255-0857.103762

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…above the cut-off point) or a four-fold or higher rise in titre in successive serum samples is considered to be diagnostic proof of recent infection (32). Serological information are important in the diagnostic process but must always be considered in conjunction with the clinical presentations and epidemiological data (a history of possible exposure and presence of risk factors) (33).…”

Section: Serological Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Laboratory Diagnosis of Human Leptospirosis

Khaki

2016

Int J Enteric Pathog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Leptospirosis is a worldwide zoonotic infection which appears to be a re-emerging health problem. The clinical features of the disease are broad ranging, but are often similar to those of other infections. As a result, the accuracy of a clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis is low and confirmation requires the use of laboratory tests. Evidence Acquisition: The disease is usually diagnosed in the laboratory by different methods such as direct microscopy, culture, serological methods and molecular methods. The microscopic agglutination test (MAT) is considered the reference test among the several serological methods for leptospirosis diagnosis. However, isolation and identification of the microorganism allows for definitive diagnosis, and provides for epidemiological and prophylactic studies of this disease. Therefore, culture is a golden standard method. Polymerase chain reaction is a rapid, sensitive and specific means of detecting leptospiral infection, in contrast to serology tests. Further benefit is the ability to identify early infection especially during the first few days of the disease even before antibodies are detectable. Conclusions: Choice of test for diagnosis of leptospirosis depends on the stage of the disease. An ideal test will need to discriminate between leptospirosis and a broad spectrum of diseases that cause acute febrile illness and have overlapping clinical presentations. Although detection of antibodies is by itself no proof of a current infection, serological methods (such as MAT and ELISA) are often the most appropriate diagnostic methods.

show abstract

Section: Serological Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Laboratory Diagnosis of Human Leptospirosis

Khaki

2016

Int J Enteric Pathog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incidence of ocular signs varies from 2% to 90% during the acute phase. Ocular signs tend to occur in the immune phase [4,18,34].…”

Section: Ocular Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An article reported a sensitivity of 48% and a specificity of 90% with lipopolysaccharides [29]. Kits such as Lepto IgM MICROLISA and Leptocheck (Leptospira IgM Antibodies) have been tested for the diagnosis of leptospiral uveitis, but the sensitivity and specificity in the first was 60% and 55%, and for the second 80% and 59% respectively, having these results limitations for their use [34]. Due to leptospirosis, a protein produced by the bacterium, called HbpA, has been detected in uveitis.…”

Section: Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%