Are you M A Tibbals?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)58.49 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA) has been used as a confirmatory test in several ongoing and published studies of Trypanosoma cruzi in blood donors in the United States. Despite its use as a confirmatory test, few studies are available comparing RIPA to commercially available serologic test methods. Thus, we compared RIPA with two indirect hemagglutination assays (Biolab Diagnostica SA, São Paulo, Brazil; Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc., Waltham, Mass.) and four different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Ill.; Embrabio, São Paulo, Brazil; Organon Teknika, São Paulo, Brazil; and Gull Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah) using a panel of 220 serum specimens from Brazilian blood donors with a range of T. cruzi antibody titers as determined by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA). A titer of 1:20 was used as the baseline for seropositivity. All IFA-negative serum specimens (n = 19) were nonreactive on all tests. At a titer of 1:20 (n = 9), reactivity rates varied considerably among the tests, with only the RIPA and the Organon and Gull assays identifying reactive specimens. For specimens at a 1:40 titer (n = 35), most assays identified at least 32 of 35 (91%) specimens as reactive, but the Biolab assay only identified 24 (69%). At higher titers (1:80, n = 56; 1:160, n = 101) the assays were comparable, with the exception of the Biolab assay, demonstrating rates of agreement with IFA of >/=98%. Overall, when compared with several other test formats, RIPA demonstrated equivalent or superior rates of agreement with IFA-positive specimens across all titers examined. In particular, at titers of >1:40, the RIPA compared favorably with other test methods currently in use, supporting its application as a confirmatory test, particularly in a research setting.
    Journal of Clinical Microbiology 03/2000; 38(2):639-42. · 4.07 Impact Factor
  • New England Journal of Medicine 11/1999; 341(16):1237-9. · 54.42 Impact Factor