Buhrer-Sekula S, Sarno E N, Oskam L, Koop S, Wichers I, Nery J A, Vieira L M, de Matos H J, Faber W R, Klatser P R
Department of Biomedical Research, Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), Meibergdreef 39, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 2000 Dec;68(4):456-63.
Leprosy control services face the problem of leprosy patients being misclassified by the lack of or the poor quality of skinsmear examination services. Misclassification increases the risk of relapse due to insufficient treatment if a multibacillary (MB) patient is classified as paucibacillary (PB), thereby also prolonging the time that the patient is infectious. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends at present an alternative classification based on the number of skin lesions. Its reliability, however, has been questioned. Our investigation sought to determine the usefulness of the ML Dipstick, a simple field assay to detect IgM antibodies to phenolic glycolipid-I of Mycobacterium leprae, for the classification of leprosy patients in addition to lesion count. In this study, 264 leprosy patients were investigated. Of 130 patients with a positive bacterial index (BI), 19 (14.6%) had less than 6 lesions and would have been classified as PB. Out of 134 patients with a negative BI, 26 (19.4%) had 6 or more lesions and would have been classified as MB patients if the lesion counting system would apply. Thus, the classification based on the number of lesions only was found to be 85% sensitive and 81% specific (using the BI as the gold standard) at detecting MB cases among the studied population. Sensitivity would have increased if patients would have been classified according to a combination of the number of lesions and the dipstick result. In that case patients are classified as MB when they are either dipstick positive (N = 16), have more than 6 lesions (N = 43), or both (N = 94). Patients negative for both dipstick and number of lesions would have been classified as PB (N = 111). The classification based on the number of lesions alone left 19 BI-positive cases classified as PB, while the combination method of the ML Dipstick and number of lesions left only 8 BI-positive cases classified as PB (5 borderline, 2 borderline lepromatous and 1 tuberculoid), thus preventing undertreatment. The combination method of the ML Dipstick and lesion counting was found to be 94% sensitive and 77% specific, which is an improvement of 9% (chi-squared test, p = 0.025) in sensitivity compared to lesion counting only. The results of this study indicate that testing all patients initially classified by lesion counting as PB (48% in our study population) with the dipstick can significantly contribute to improved classification of leprosy patients for treatment purposes.
麻风病防治服务面临着一个问题,即由于皮肤涂片检查服务缺乏或质量不佳,导致麻风病患者被错误分类。如果将多菌型(MB)患者错误分类为少菌型(PB),由于治疗不足会增加复发风险,从而也会延长患者的传染期。目前,世界卫生组织(WHO)建议根据皮肤损害数量进行另一种分类。然而,其可靠性受到了质疑。我们的调查旨在确定麻风杆菌酚糖脂-I IgM抗体检测试纸(ML Dipstick)这种简单的现场检测方法,除了用于皮损计数外,在麻风病患者分类中的实用性。在本研究中,对264例麻风病患者进行了调查。在130例细菌指数(BI)呈阳性的患者中,有19例(14.6%)皮损少于6处,若仅依据皮损计数,这些患者会被分类为少菌型。在134例细菌指数呈阴性的患者中,有26例(19.4%)皮损有6处或更多,若采用皮损计数系统,这些患者会被分类为多菌型患者。因此,在研究人群中,仅基于皮损数量的分类方法在检测多菌型病例时,敏感性为85%,特异性为81%(以细菌指数作为金标准)。如果根据皮损数量和试纸检测结果相结合来对患者进行分类,敏感性将会提高。在这种情况下,当患者试纸检测呈阳性(N = 16)、皮损超过6处(N = 43)或两者皆满足(N = 94)时,被分类为多菌型。试纸检测和皮损数量均为阴性的患者将被分类为少菌型(N = 111)。仅基于皮损数量的分类方法会使19例细菌指数阳性病例被分类为少菌型,而将试纸检测结果和皮损数量相结合的方法仅使8例细菌指数阳性病例被分类为少菌型(5例界线类、2例界线类偏瘤型和1例结核样型),从而避免了治疗不足的情况。发现试纸检测结果和皮损计数相结合的方法敏感性为94%,特异性为77%,与仅采用皮损计数相比,敏感性提高了9%(卡方检验,p = 0.025)。本研究结果表明,对所有最初仅依据皮损计数被分类为少菌型的患者(在我们的研究人群中占48%)使用试纸进行检测,可显著有助于改善麻风病患者治疗分类。