Frade Marco Andrey C, de Paula Natália A, Gomes Ciro M, Vernal Sebastian, Bernardes Filho Fred, Lugão Helena B, de Abreu Marilda M M, Botini Patrícia, Duthie Malcolm S, Spencer John S, Soares Rosa Castália F R, Foss Norma T
Dermatology Division, Department of Medical Clinics, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Dermatology Division, Department of Medical Clinics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Feb 23;11(2):e0005375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005375. eCollection 2017 Feb.
Leprosy diagnosis is mainly based on clinical evaluation, although this approach is difficult, especially for untrained physicians. We conducted a temporary campaign to detect previously unknown leprosy cases in midwestern Brazil and to compare the performance of different serological tests.
A mobile clinic was stationed at the main bus terminal in Brasília, Brazil. Volunteers were quizzed and given a clinical exam to allow categorization as either patients, known contacts of patients or non-contacts, and blood was collected to determine anti-PGL-I and anti-LID-1 antibody titers by ELISA and by the NDO-LID rapid test. New cases of leprosy and the impact of performing this broad random surveillance strategy were evaluated. Accuracy values and concordance between the test results were evaluated among all groups.
Four hundred thirty-four individuals were evaluated, and 44 (10.1%) were diagnosed with leprosy. Borderline forms were the most frequent presentation. Both tests presented higher positivity in those individuals with multibacillary disease. Serological tests demonstrated specificities arround 70% for anti-PGL-1 and anti-LID ELISA; and arround 40% for NDO-LID. Sensitivities ranged from 48 to 62%. A substantial agreement between NDO-LID and ELISA with concomitant positive results was found within leprosy patients (Kappa index = 0.79 CI95% 0.36-1.22).
The unexpectedly high leprosy prevalence in this population indicates ongoing community-based exposure to Mycobacterium leprae antigens and high rates of subclinical infection. All tests showed low specificity and sensitivity values and therefore cannot be considered for use as stand-alone diagnostics. Rather, considering their positivity among MB patients and non-patients, these tests can be considered effective tools for screening and identifying individuals at high risk who might benefit from regular monitoring.
麻风病诊断主要基于临床评估,不过这种方法存在困难,尤其是对未经培训的医生而言。我们开展了一项临时活动,以在巴西中西部检测此前未知的麻风病病例,并比较不同血清学检测的性能。
在巴西巴西利亚的主要公交终点站设立了一个流动诊所。对志愿者进行询问并给予临床检查,以便将其分类为患者、患者的已知接触者或非接触者,采集血液通过酶联免疫吸附测定法(ELISA)和NDO-LID快速检测来测定抗酚糖脂-1(anti-PGL-I)和抗麻风病抑制因子-1(anti-LID-1)抗体滴度。评估了麻风病新病例以及实施这种广泛随机监测策略的影响。在所有组中评估了检测结果之间的准确性值和一致性。
对434人进行了评估,44人(10.1%)被诊断为麻风病。界线类麻风是最常见的表现形式。两种检测在多菌型麻风病患者中呈现出更高的阳性率。血清学检测显示,抗PGL-1和抗LID ELISA的特异性约为70%;NDO-LID的特异性约为40%。敏感性范围为48%至62%。在麻风病患者中发现NDO-LID和ELISA同时呈阳性结果之间存在高度一致性(卡帕指数=0.79,95%置信区间0.36 - 1.22)。
该人群中麻风病患病率意外地高,表明社区持续接触麻风分枝杆菌抗原且亚临床感染率高。所有检测均显示出较低的特异性和敏感性值,因此不能将其视为独立的诊断方法。相反,考虑到它们在多菌型患者和非患者中的阳性率,这些检测可被视为筛查和识别可能受益于定期监测的高危个体的有效工具。