Real-time PCR for diagnosis of imported schistosomiasis

Abstract

Background: The diagnosis of schistosomiasis currently relies on microscopic detection of schistosome eggs in stool or urine samples and serological assays. The poor sensitivity of standard microscopic procedures performed in routine laboratories, makes molecular detection methods of increasing interest. The aim of the study was to evaluate two in-house real-time Schistosoma PCRs, targeting respectively S. mansoni [Sm] and S. haematobium [Sh] in excreta, biopsies and sera as potential tools to diagnose active infections and to monitor treatment efficacy.

Methods: Schistosoma PCRs were performed on 412 samples (124 urine, 86 stools, 8 biopsies, 194 sera) from patients with suspected schistosomiasis, before anti-parasitic treatment. Results were compared to microscopic examination and serological assays (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), indirect haemagglutination (HA) and Western Blot (WB) assay).

Results: Compared to microscopy, PCRs significantly increased the sensitivity of diagnosis, from 4% to 10.5% and from 33.7% to 48.8%, for Sh in urine and Sm in stools, respectively. The overall sensitivity of PCR on serum samples was 72.7% and reached 94.1% in patients with positive excreta (microscopy). The specificity of serum PCR was 98.9%. After treatment, serum PCR positivity rates slowly declined from 93.8% at day 30 to 8.3% at day 360, whereas antibody detection remained positive after 1 year.

Conclusion: Schistosoma PCRs clearly outperform standard microscopy on stools and urine and could be part of reference methods combined with WB-based serology, which remains a gold standard for initial diagnosis. When serological assays are positive and microscopy is negative, serum PCRs provide species information to guide further clinical exploration. Biomarkers such as DNA and antibodies are of limited relevance for early treatment monitoring but serum PCR could be useful when performed at least 1 year after treatment to help confirm a cured infection.

Fig 1. Flow chart for serum PCR evaluation.

PNE: polynuclear eosinophil blood count.

Fig 2. Kinetic of serum PCR, ELISA and HA positivity rates after treatment (n = 23 patients).

Bars represent the percentage of positive samples which remained positive at different times post-treatment. The table presents the number of positive sera/number of analyzed sera, at each time (n/N (%)). ^aOne serum was positive for both Sm and ShPCR at diagnosis.

Fig 3. Relative value of serum DNA load after treatment compared to the initial load (day 0), according to the number of days post-treatment (n = 23 patients).