ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2024
Evaluation of a novel biplex rapid diagnostic test for antibody responses to Loa loa and Onchocerca volvulus infections.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laboratory diagnosis of loiasis to support individual patient management: A systematic review.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Onchocerca volvulus infection prevalence and intensity in Logo and Nyarambe Health Zones in Ituri, Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2010 and in 2021-2023: results of screening for clinical trials of moxidectin versus ivermectin.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- An Antibody Biomarker Associated with Onchocerca volvulus Microfilariae Identified by Proteomic Analysis of Parasite Tissues Isolated from Paraffin Embedded O. volvulus Nodules by Laser Capture Microdissection.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndemic to Central Africa, loiasis, caused by the vector-borne worm Loa loa, affects approximately 10 million individuals. Clinical manifestations include transient angioedema (Calabar swellings), migration of the adult worm under the eye conjunctiva (eye worm) and less specific general symptoms. Loiasis presents a significant public health challenge because L. loa-infected individuals can develop serious adverse events after taking ivermectin, the drug used to combat onchocerciasis. In this context, alternative interventions and rigorous diagnostic approaches are needed. Diagnosing loiasis is challenging because its main clinical manifestations are sporadic and non-specific. The definitive diagnosis relies on identifying adult worms migrating beneath the conjunctiva, or microfilariae (pre-larvae) in blood smears. However, "occult loiasis" (infection without blood microfilariae) is frequent. Serological rapid antibody diagnostic tests (ARTs) can provide an alternative diagnostic method. We compared a novel ART simultaneously targeting onchocerciasis (IgG4 to Ov-16 and OvOC3261, test line 1) and loiasis (IgG4 to L1-SXP-1, test line 2), called IgG4-SXP-1 biplex test) to the already established Loa-ART (all IgG isotypes to Ll-SXP-1, called pan-IgG-SXP-1 test). METHODOLOGY: Blood samples underwent both ARTs, read qualitatively and semi-quantitatively. Additionally, blood smears, skin snips, Kato-Katz method for soil-transmitted helminthiases identification and eosinophilia measurements were performed. Questionnaires gathered demographic details and loiasis-related signs. ARTs performance was compared using specific loiasis-related signs and microfilaremia as references. Discordances between the two ARTs were investigated using logistic regression models. PRINCIPAL
findingsOut of 971 participants, 35.4% had L. loa microfilaremia, 71.9% had already experienced loiasis-related signs, 85.1% were positive in the pan-IgG-SXP-1 test and 79.4% were positive in the IgG4-SXP-1 biplex test. In the microfilariae-positive population, the sensitivity of the rapid tests was 87.4% for the pan-IgG-SXP-1 test and 88.6% for the prototype IgG4-SXP-1 biplex test. Sensitivity was similar for both ARTs when using eye worm or Calabar swelling as references, but diagnostic performance varied based on microfilaremia levels and occult loiasis. Overall, IgG4-SXP-1 biplex test demonstrated a sensitivity of 84.1% and specificity of 47.6% for loiasis compared to the pan-IgG-SXP-1 test, leading to a Kappa coefficient estimated at 0.27 ± 0.03 for the qualitative results of the 2 ARTs. In the group that tested positive with the Pan-IgG test but negative with the IgG4-specific test, there was a lower prevalence of STH infection (p = 0.008) and elevated eosinophilia (p<0.001) compared to the general tested population. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The sensitivity of each test was good (84-85%) but the diagnostic agreement between the two ARTs was poor, suggesting that IgG and IgG4 antibody responses should be interpreted differently. The assessment of the innovative rapid diagnostic IgG4-SXP-1 biplex test, designed for onchocerciasis and loiasis, shows encouraging sensitivity but underlines the necessity for further in vitro assessment.
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.