Dataset Information

Evaluation of Immunodiagnostic Tests for Leprosy in Brazil, China and Ethiopia.

ABSTRACT: Leprosy remains persistently endemic in several low- or middle income countries. Transmission is still ongoing as indicated by the unabated rate of leprosy new case detection, illustrating the insufficiency of current prevention methods. Therefore, low-complexity tools suitable for large scale screening efforts to specifically detect M. leprae infection and diagnose disease are required. Previously, we showed that combined detection of cellular and humoral markers, using field-friendly lateral flow assays (LFAs), increased diagnostic potential for detecting leprosy in Bangladesh compared to antibody serology alone. In the current study we assessed the diagnostic performance of similar LFAs in three other geographical settings in Asia, Africa and South-America with different leprosy endemicity. Levels of anti-PGL-I IgM antibody (humoral immunity), IP-10, CCL4 and CRP (cellular immunity) were measured in blood collected from leprosy patients, household contacts and healthy controls from each area. Combined detection of these biomarkers significantly improved the diagnostic potential, particularly for paucibacillary leprosy in all three regions, in line with data obtained in Bangladesh. These data hold promise for the use of low-complexity, multibiomarker LFAs as universal tools for more accurate detection of M. leprae infection and different phenotypes of clinical leprosy.

SUBMITTER: van Hooij A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6298962 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of Immunodiagnostic Tests for Leprosy in Brazil, China and Ethiopia.

van Hooij Anouk A Tjon Kon Fat Elisa M EM Batista da Silva Moises M Carvalho Bouth Raquel R Cunha Messias Ana Caroline AC Gobbo Angélica Rita AR Lema Tsehaynesh T Bobosha Kidist K Li Jinlan J Weng Xiaoman X Salgado Claudio G CG Spencer John S JS Corstjens Paul L A M PLAM Geluk Annemieke A

Scientific reports 20181218 1

Leprosy remains persistently endemic in several low- or middle income countries. Transmission is still ongoing as indicated by the unabated rate of leprosy new case detection, illustrating the insufficiency of current prevention methods. Therefore, low-complexity tools suitable for large scale screening efforts to specifically detect M. leprae infection and diagnose disease are required. Previously, we showed that combined detection of cellular and humoral markers, using field-friendly lateral f ...[more]

PMID: 30560920

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiagnosis of leprosy mainly relies on clinical examination due to the inconsistent sensitivity and poor reproducibility of the current laboratory tests. Utilisation of alternative methods to the standard Ziehl Neelsen (ZN), Fite-Faraco (FF) and Haematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining procedures may eventually improve leprosy diagnosis.Methodology/principal findingsIn this comparative study, the performance of the fluorescent Auramine O (AO) staining and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was assessed with different skin samples using a combination of ZN, FF and H&E staining as the gold standard. AO, ZN, FF, H&E and PCR tests were performed on slit skin smears (SSS) and/or punch biopsies collected from 141 clinically confirmed leprosy cases and 28 non-leprosy skin samples. DNA was extracted from punch biopsies using two different methods with or without mechanical lysis. Sensitivities were 87.6%, 59.3% and 77% for H&E, ZN and FF, respectively, whereas it reached 65.5% and 77.9% for AO in SSS and tissue sections and 91.1% for PCR in tissue samples. Morover, samples with low bacillary index, sensitivity of AO staining (61.8%) was similar to FF (60%, p>0.05) and lower than PCR (86.6%, p<0.05). Sensitivity of PCR also increased (96.8%, p<0.05) when mechanical lysis was used during DNA extraction compared to enzymatic treatment alone (84.6%).Conclusions/significanceOur results showed that for diagnostic purposes, analysis of skin section is more sensitive than SSS, especially for samples with low bacillary load. AO staining on SSS and tissue sections was not significantly better than other routine diagnostic tests but considerably more user friendly. The sensitivity of PCR was higher than current standard methods and increased when combined with more efficient DNA extraction using mechanical and chemical lysis. Therefore, we recommend AO staining for the diagnosis of leprosy in lower health facilities such as health centres and district hospitals and PCR diagnosis at referral level and research centres.

Project description:ImportanceDespite progress toward reducing global incidence, leprosy control remains a challenge in low- and middle-income countries.ObjectiveTo estimate new case detection rates of leprosy among household contacts of patients with previously diagnosed leprosy and to investigate its associated risk factors.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cohort study included families registered in the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort linked with nationwide registries of leprosy; data were collected from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2014. Household contacts of patients with a previous diagnosis of leprosy from each household unit were followed up from the time of detection of the primary case to the time of detection of a subsequent case or until December 31, 2014. Data analysis was performed from May to December 2018.ExposuresClinical characteristics of the primary case and sociodemographic factors of the household contact.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence of leprosy, estimated as the new case detection rate of leprosy per 100?000 household contacts at risk (person-years at risk). The association between occurrence of a subsequent leprosy case and the exposure risk factors was assessed using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regressions allowing for state- and household-specific random effects.ResultsAmong 42?725 household contacts (22?449 [52.5%] female; mean [SD] age, 22.4 [18.5] years) of 17?876 patients detected with leprosy, the new case detection rate of leprosy was 636.3 (95% CI, 594.4-681.1) per 100?000 person-years at risk overall and 521.9 (95% CI, 466.3-584.1) per 100?000 person-years at risk among children younger than 15 years. Household contacts of patients with multibacillary leprosy had higher odds of developing leprosy (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.88), and the odds increased among contacts aged 50 years or older (adjusted OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.03-4.76). Leprosy detection was negatively associated with illiterate or preschool educational level (adjusted OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92). For children, the odds were increased among boys (adjusted OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.20-2.42).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings in this Brazilian population-based cohort study suggest that the household contacts of patients with leprosy may have increased risk of leprosy, especially in households with existing multibacillary cases and older contacts. Public health interventions, such as contact screening, that specifically target this population appear to be needed.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate antigen-specific immune responses for leprosy diagnosis in a hyperendemic area in China. METHODS:Eighty-three leprosy patients and 161 non-leprosy controls were enrolled from Hani-yi Autonomous Prefecture of Honghe, Yunnan Province, China. Leprosy patients were divided into multibacillary (MB, n = 38), paucibacillary (PB, n = 23), and post-multi-drug therapy (MDT, n = 22) groups. Controls were divided into the following groups: healthy household contacts (HHC, n = 119), tuberculosis (TB, n = 11), and endemic controls (EC, n = 31). The NDO-LID Rapid Test, M. leprae antigen-specific ELISA and antigen-specific IFN-? secretion in a whole blood assay (WBA) were used to evaluate these subjects. RESULTS:The NDO-LID Rapid Test achieved higher positive response rates in MB than in PB patients[94.7%(36/38) vs 65.2%(15/23)], and these rates were higher than those observed by ELISA using anti-LID-1[92.1%(35/38) vs 52.2%(12/23)], anti-NDO-LID[92.1%(35/38) vs 47.8% (11/23)], and anti-ND-O-BSA[89.5%(34/38) vs 60.9%(14/23)]. However, the NDO-LID Rapid Test also showed a higher positive response rate in the EC group (33.3%,10/31), which was higher than the rates observed for anti-NDO-LID (12.9%,4/31) and anti-ND-O-BSA (16.1%,5/31). M. leprae antigen-specific ELISA demonstrated relatively high specificity (86.84-97.37%) but low sensitivity (15.97-72.73%) in discriminating between leprosy patients and non-leprosy controls by ROC curve analysis. In contrast, M. leprae antigen-specific IFN-? secretion detection achieved higher positive response rates in PB than in MB patients (positive ratio of MB vs PB: 40% vs 56% for LID-1, 28.6% vs 47.8% for ML89, 31.4% vs 60.7% for ML2044, and 31.4 vs 47.8% for ML2028) and could distinguish MB from EC when stimulated with ML89(AUC = 0.6664) and PB fromTB when stimulated with ML2044 and ML2028(AUC = 0.7549 and 0.7372, respectively). CONCLUSION:The NDO-LID Rapid Test and M. leprae antigen-specific ELISA are useful tools to assist in the diagnosis of leprosy patients, especially MB patients, although the former had higher sensitivity but lower specificity than the latter. M. leprae antigen-specific IFN-? release assessed by WBA has diagnostic value for distinguishing PB from TB but not for distinguishing PB from HHC or EC. Screening novel M. leprae-specific antigens, combining different M. leprae antigens and a multi-cytokine analyte model may be needed for more effective diagnosis of leprosy.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of Immunodiagnostic Tests for Leprosy in Brazil, China and Ethiopia.

Publications

Evaluation of Immunodiagnostic Tests for Leprosy in Brazil, China and Ethiopia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets