02991nas a2200577   4500000000100000008004100001260001300042653001500055653001000070653000900080653002200089653002400111653001100135653002500146653001000171653002100181653002900202653001100231653001600242653001100258653001600269653002800285653001200313653000900325653001600334653002500350653001000375653003000385653002900415653003200444653001600476100001600492700001400508700001500522700001500537700001300552700002000565700001500585700001200600700001600612700001000628700001200638700002200650245009500672856004800767300001100815490001600826050001700842520154000859022001402399       2012                            d  c2012 Dec10aAdolescent10aAdult10aAged10aAged, 80 and over10aAntigens, Bacterial10aBrazil10aCase-Control Studies10aChild10aChild, Preschool10aChromatography, Affinity10aFemale10aGlycolipids10aHumans10aImmunoassay10aImmunoglobulin Isotypes10aleprosy10aMale10aMiddle Aged10aMycobacterium leprae10aNepal10aPredictive Value of Tests10aReagent Kits, Diagnostic10aSensitivity and Specificity10aYoung Adult1 aStefani MMA1 aGrassi AB1 aSampaio LH1 aSousa ALOM1 aCosta MB1 aScheelbeek PF D1 aNeupane KD1 aHagge D1 aMacdonald M1 aCho S1 aOskam L1 aBührer-Sékula S00aComparison of two rapid tests for anti-phenolic glycolipid-I serology in Brazil and Nepal.  uhttp://www.scielo.br/pdf/mioc/v107s1/19.pdf  a124-310 v107 Suppl 1  aSTEFANI 20123 a<p>The diagnosis of leprosy continues to be based on clinical symptoms and early diagnosis and treatment are critical to preventing disability and transmission. Sensitive and specific laboratory tests are not available for diagnosing leprosy. Despite the limited applicability of anti-phenolic glycolipid-I (PGL-I) serology for diagnosis, it has been suggested as an additional tool to classify leprosy patients (LPs) for treatment purposes. Two formats of rapid tests to detect anti-PGL-I antibodies [ML immunochromatography assay (ICA) and ML Flow] were compared in different groups, multibacillary patients, paucibacillary patients, household contacts and healthy controls in Brazil and Nepal. High ML Flow intra-test concordance was observed and low to moderate agreement between the results of ML ICA and ML Flow tests on the serum of LPs was observed. LPs were "seroclassified" according to the results of these tests and the seroclassification was compared to other currently used classification systems: the World Health Organization operational classification, the bacilloscopic index and the Ridley-Jopling classification. When analysing the usefulness of these tests in the operational classification of PB and MB leprosy for treatment and follow-up purposes, the ML Flow test was the best point-of-care test for subjects in Nepal and despite the need for sample dilution, the ML ICA test yielded better performance among Brazilian subjects. Our results identified possible ways to improve the performance of both tests.</p>  a1678-8060