Comparative evaluation of the DPP (R) CVL rapid test for canine serodiagnosis in area of visceral leishmaniasis

Abstract

We investigated the performance of the DPP (R) canine visceral leishmaniasis (CVL) rapid test, a novel immunochromatographic assay launched by BioManguinhos (Brazil), which was recently included in the new Brazilian protocol for screening CVL in serological surveys. The present study compared the DPP (R) with the ELISA and IFA produced by BioManguinhos (Brazil) both with L. major-like antigens and with in-house tests using Leishmania infantum chagasi (in-house ELISA and in-house IFA). We analyzed the sera from clinically symptomatic (n = 47) and asymptomatic (n = 38) infected dogs from an endemic area of CVL, as well as from healthy (n = 18) dogs, in addition to the sera of dogs (n = 81) infected with other pathogens. The DPP (R) and the in-house ELISA showed a sensitivity of 90.6% and 94.1%, respectively, and specificity of 95.1% and 97.5%, respectively, and both presented cross-reactivity only with the sera of dogs with babesiosis, 44% for the DPP (R) and 22% for the in-house ELISA. The clinical groups were detected equally by the two assays. The ELISA BioManguinhos, IFA BioManguinhos, and in house-IFA showed a good sensitivity, 90.6%, 96.5% and 89.4%, respectively, but very low specificity, 77.8%, 69.1% and 65.8%, respectively, due to the high cross-reactivity with the sera from the animals harboring other pathogens. The in-house ELISA provided the highest accuracy (95.8%), followed by the DPP (R) (92.7%), ELISA BioManguinhos (84.3%), IFA BioManguinhos (83.1%), and in-house IFA (78.0%). The simultaneous use of the DPP (R) and ELISA BioManguinhos reached a sensitivity of 99.1% and 82.1% when used sequentially. In conclusion, the DPP (R) performed well as serological test for CVL, and detected both asymptomatic and symptomatic dogs in equal proportions. Although its sensitivity is not ideal yet, discarding the IFA and including the DPP (R) improved the accuracy of the new Brazilian CVL diagnostic protocol, particularly of detecting truly infected dogs. Moreover, considering the higher specificity of DPP (R) (95.1% vs 77.8%), positive predictive value (95.1% vs 81.1%) and positive likelihood value (18.3% vs 4.1%) in comparison with the ELISA BioManguinhos, the use of DPP (R) as a confirmatory test instead of a screening test is suggested. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.