ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Parasitol.

Sec. Parasite Diagnostics

Volume 4 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpara.2025.1622149

Molecular Diagnosis of Chagas Disease in Patients with Megaesophagus Exhibiting Negative or Inconclusive Serological Results

Provisionally accepted
Angelica  Martins BatistaAngelica Martins Batista1Tycha  Bianca Sabaini PavanTycha Bianca Sabaini Pavan2*Eros  Antonio de AlmeidaEros Antonio de Almeida3Daniel  Maximo Correa AlcantaraDaniel Maximo Correa Alcantara4Paula  Durante AndradePaula Durante Andrade5Luiz  Claudio MartinsLuiz Claudio Martins3Jamiro  da Silva WanderleyJamiro da Silva Wanderley3Sandra  Cecila Botelho CostaSandra Cecila Botelho Costa6Glaucia  Elisete Barbosa MarconGlaucia Elisete Barbosa Marcon4,5*
  • 1Center of Biological and Health Sciences, Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • 2Gonçalo Moniz Institute (IGM), Salvador, Brazil
  • 3Grupo de Estudos em Doença de Chagas (GEDoCh), Department of Medical Clinic, Faculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo SP, Brazil, Campinas, Brazil
  • 4Oswaldo Cruz Foundation Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande MS, Brazil, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
  • 5Laboratory of Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases by Molecular Biology Techniques, Faculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas SP, Brazil, Campinas, Brazil
  • 6Laboratory of Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases by Molecular Biology Techniques, Faculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas SP, Brazil., Campinas, Brazil

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Chagas disease (CD), and it has not been extensively documented in literature. However, individuals may exhibit negative or inconclusive serology for CD. This study aimed to assess the performance of molecular diagnostics for CD in participants with these conditions. This was a prospective cohort study that included 26 participants with negative or inconclusive conventional CD serology (Group I), 33 participants with positive CD serology and megaesophagus (Group II), and 10 participants with negative serology and no CD epidemiological history (Group III). Blood samples were collected for serological tests (ELISA and IFAT), blood cultures, and molecular tests like nested PCR (nPCR) targeting Sat-DNA and kDNA, as well as quantitative PCR (qPCR) of T. cruzi. Statistical analyses applying the Composite Reference Standard (CRS), showed that diagnosis by nPCR satDNA had a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI: 82%-99%), a specificity of 81% (95% CI: 64%-93%), an accuracy of 88%. When considering a positive result from at least one molecular test, 20 out of 26 participants with megaesophagus and negative or inconclusive conventional serology were identified (76.9%).This study reinforce the greater detection capacity of Sat-DNA nPCR compared to the diagnostic methods tested. This emphasizes the importance of employing molecular diagnosis to clarify the etiology in megaesophagus cases.

Keywords: Chagas megaesophagus, negative serology, Inconclusive serology, Molecular diagnostic, NPCR, qPCR

Received: 02 May 2025; Accepted: 26 Jun 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Batista, Pavan, Almeida, Alcantara, Andrade, Martins, Wanderley, Costa and Marcon. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Tycha Bianca Sabaini Pavan, Gonçalo Moniz Institute (IGM), Salvador, Brazil
Glaucia Elisete Barbosa Marcon, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande MS, Brazil, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.