Abstract
Background
The diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis (LF) is based typically on either microfilaraemia as assessed by microscopy or filarial antigenaemia using an immuno-chromatographic test. While it is known that estimates of antigenaemia are generally higher than estimates of microfilaraemia, the extent of the difference is not known.
Methods
This paper presents the results of an extensive literature search for surveys that estimated both microfilaraemia and antigenaemia in order to better understand the disparity between the two measures.
Results and Conclusions
In some settings there was a very large disparity, up to 40–70%, between estimates of microfilaraemia and antigenaemia. Regression analysis was unable to identify any predictable relationship between the two measures. The implications of findings for risk mapping and surveillance of LF are discussed.
The diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis (LF) is based typically on either microfilaraemia as assessed by microscopy or filarial antigenaemia using an immuno-chromatographic test. While it is known that estimates of antigenaemia are generally higher than estimates of microfilaraemia, the extent of the difference is not known.
Methods
This paper presents the results of an extensive literature search for surveys that estimated both microfilaraemia and antigenaemia in order to better understand the disparity between the two measures.
Results and Conclusions
In some settings there was a very large disparity, up to 40–70%, between estimates of microfilaraemia and antigenaemia. Regression analysis was unable to identify any predictable relationship between the two measures. The implications of findings for risk mapping and surveillance of LF are discussed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 529–531 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Journal | Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene |
| Volume | 109 |
| Issue number | 8 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 21 Jun 2015 |