Field evaluation of a novel, rapid diagnostic assay, and molecular epidemiology of enterotoxigenic E. coli among Zambian children presenting with diarrhea.

• Published in: PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• Main Authors: Suwilanji Silwamba, Obvious N Chilyabanyama, Fraser Liswaniso, Caroline C Chisenga, Roma Chilengi, Gordon Dougan, Geoffrey Kwenda, Subhra Chakraborty, Michelo Simuyandi
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2022
• Subjects: Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010207; https://doaj.org/article/0bb062a942214ab79ced309548852e20

Background Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) is one of the top aetiologic agents of diarrhea in children under the age of 5 in low-middle income countries (LMICs). The lack of point of care diagnostic tools for routine ETEC diagnosis results in limited data regarding the actual burden and epidemiology in the endemic areas. We evaluated performance of the novel Rapid LAMP based Diagnostic Test (RLDT) for detection of ETEC in stool as a point of care diagnostic assay in a resource-limited setting. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of 324 randomly selected stool samples from children under 5 presenting with moderate to severe diarrhea (MSD). The samples were collected between November 2012 to September 2013 at selected health facilities in Zambia. The RLDT was evaluated by targeting three ETEC toxin genes [heat labile toxin (LT) and heat stable toxins (STh and STp)]. Quantitative PCR was used as the "gold standard" to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of RLDT for detection of ETEC. We additionally described the prevalence and seasonality of ETEC. Results The study included 324 participants, 50.6% of which were female. The overall prevalence of ETEC was 19.8% by qPCR and 19.4% by RLDT. The children between 12 to 59 months had the highest prevalence of 22%. The study determined ETEC toxin distribution was LT 28/321(9%), ST 18/321(6%) and LT/ST 16/321(5%). The sensitivity and specificity of the RLDT compared to qPCR using a Ct 35 as the cut-off, were 90.7% and 97.5% for LT, 85.2% and 99.3% for STh and 100% and 99.7% for STp, respectively. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that RLDT is sufficiently sensitive and specific and easy to implement in the endemic countries. Being rapid and simple, the RLDT also presents as an attractive tool for point-of-care testing at the health facilities and laboratories in the resource-limited settings.