1921
Volume 98, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645

Abstract

Abstract.

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.17-0500
2017-11-06
2019-05-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/14761645/98/1/tpmd170500.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.17-0500&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.17-0500
Loading
/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.17-0500
Loading

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