Volume 98, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645



Leprosy is a chronic infectious disease with a broad spectrum of manifestations. Delays in attaining correct diagnosis permit progressive peripheral nerve damage that can produce irreversible disabilities. Tests detecting antigen-specific antibodies can aid the diagnostic process and potentially detect patients earlier. Reported tests have lacked optimal sensitivity and specificity; however, the need to develop new tests to aid early diagnosis still remains. In this study, we determined the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using natural octyl disaccharide-leprosy IDRI diagnostic (NDO-LID). Serum samples from confirmed multibacillary patients ( = 338) and paucibacillary patients ( = 58) were evaluated and contrasted against samples from individuals without leprosy (100 healthy persons, 36 leishmaniasis or tuberculosis patients). ELISA detecting either antigen-specific IgM, IgG, or the combination of IgG and IgM (with protein A) were conducted. At a sensitivity of 78% among all patients, serum IgM antibodies against the NDO-LID conjugate were detected at a greater level than those recognizing phenolic glycolipid-I antigen (64% overall sensitivity), while providing similar specificity (97% versus 100%, respectively). Given the inclusion of the LID-1 protein within NDO-LID, we also detected conjugate-specific IgG within patient sera at a sensitivity of 81.6%. The use of protein A to simultaneously detect both antigen-specific IgG and IgM isotypes yielded the highest overall sensitivity of 86.3%. Taken together, our data indicate that the detection of both IgG and IgM antibodies against NDO-LID with protein A provided the best overall ability to detect Colombian leprosy patients.


Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. World Health Organization, WHO Multidrug Therapy (MDT). Available at: http://www.who.int/lep/mdt/en/. Accessed May 23, 2017.
  2. Eichelmann K, González González SE, Salas-Alanis JC, Ocampo-Candiani J, , 2013. Leprosy. An update: definition, pathogenesis, classification, diagnosis, and treatment. Actas Dermosifiliogr 104: 554563. [Google Scholar]
  3. Parkash O, , 2009. Classification of leprosy into multibacillary and paucibacillary groups: an analysis. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 55: 15. [Google Scholar]
  4. Suzuki K, Akama T, Kawashima A, Yoshihara A, Yotsu RR, Ishii N, , 2012. Current status of leprosy: epidemiology, basic science and clinical perspectives. J Dermatol 39: 121129. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cardona-Castro N, Beltrán-Alzate JC, Manrique-Hernández R, , 2008. Survey to identify Mycobacterium leprae-infected household contacts of patients from prevalent regions of leprosy in Colombia. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 103: 332336. [Google Scholar]
  6. Romero-Montoya M, Beltran-Alzate JC, Cardona-Castro N, , 2017. Evaluation and monitoring of Mycobacterium leprae transmission in household contacts of patients with Hansen’s disease in Colombia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 11: e0005325. [Google Scholar]
  7. Moura MLN, 2013. Active surveillance of Hansen’s disease (leprosy): importance for case finding among extra-domiciliary contacts. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 7: e2093. [Google Scholar]
  8. de Moura RS, Calado KL, Oliveira MLW, Bührer-Sékula S, , 2008. Leprosy serology using PGL-I: a systematic review. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 41 (Suppl 2): 1118. [Google Scholar]
  9. Martinez AN, Talhari C, Moraes MO, Talhari S, , 2014. PCR-based techniques for leprosy diagnosis: from the laboratory to the clinic. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 8: e2655. [Google Scholar]
  10. Duthie MS, 2007. Use of protein antigens for early serological diagnosis of leprosy. Clin Vaccine Immunol 14: 14001408. [Google Scholar]
  11. Duthie M, 2014. A rapid ELISA for the diagnosis of MB leprosy based on complementary detection of antibodies against a novel protein-glycolipid conjugate. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 79: 233239. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bossuyt PM, STARD Group , 2015. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ 351: h5527. [Google Scholar]
  13. Wright PF, Nilsson E, Van Rooij EM, Lelenta M, Jeggo MH, , 1993. Standardisation and validation of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay techniques for the detection of antibody in infectious disease diagnosis. Rev Sci Tech 12: 435450. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jhon C, , 2001. Methods in Molecular Biology: The ELISA Guidebook, Vol 49. Totowa, NJ: Human Press.
  15. Veloza CLA, Carolina WC, Serrano LML, Peñaranda CNR, Antonio HS, , 2010. Research biobanks: ethical and legal considerations. Revista Colombiana de Bioética. 5: 121141. [Google Scholar]
  16. Landry ML, , 2016. Immunoglobulin M for acute infection: true or false? Clin Vaccine Immunol 23: 540545. [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Received : 23 Jun 2017
  • Accepted : 18 Aug 2017
  • Published online : 06 Nov 2017

Most Cited This Month

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error