Trial reportPloS one2023
Examination of ELISA against PCR for assessing treatment efficacy against Cryptosporidium in a clinical trial context.
Trial report in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- High Clinical Burden ofMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- QuickFit: A High-Throughput RT-qPCR-Based Assay to Quantify Viral Growth and Fitness In Vitro.Viruses · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCryptosporidium is a gastrointestinal pathogen that presents a serious opportunistic infection in immunocompromised individuals including those living with human immunodeficiency syndrome. The CRYPTOFAZ trial, previously published, was conducted in Malawi to evaluate the efficacy of clofazimine in response to an unmet need for drugs to treat cryptosporidiosis in HIV populations. A combination of rapid diagnostic tests, ELISA, qPCR, and conventional sequencing were employed to detect Cryptosporidium in 586 individuals during pre-screening and monitor oocyst shedding and identify enteric co-pathogens in 22 enrolled/randomized participants during the in-patient period and follow-up visits. METHODOLOGY: Oocyst shedding as measured by qPCR was used to determine primary trial outcomes, however pathogen was detected even at trial days 41-55 in individuals randomized to either clofazimine or placebo arms of the study. Therefore, in this work we re-examine the trial outcomes and conclusions in light of data from the other diagnostics, particularly ELISA. ELISA data was normalized between experiments prior to comparison to qPCR. The amount of all identified enteric pathogens was examined to determine if co-pathogens other than Cryptosporidium were major causative agents to a participant's diarrhea.
conclusionELISA had higher sample-to-sample variability and proved to be equally or less sensitive than qPCR in detecting Cryptosporidium positive samples. Compared to qPCR, ELISA had equal or greater specificity in detecting Cryptosporidium negative samples. Sequencing identified several Cryptosporidium species including viatorum which has never been identified in Malawi and Southern Africa. In addition to Cryptosporidium, enterotoxigenic E. coli was also identified as a pathogen in diarrheagenic amounts in 4 out of 22 participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.