02231nas a2200349 4500000000100000008004100001653001100042653001000053653001300063653002700076653001200103100001200115700001500127700001500142700001200157700001600169700001300185700001100198700001400209700000900223700001100232700001500243700001500258700001600273700001200289245008400301856005900385300001000444490000600454520140700460022001401867 2018 d10aBrazil10aChina10aEthiopia10aImmunodiagnostic tests10aleprosy1 aHooij A1 aKon Fat ET1 ada Silva M1 aBouth R1 aMessias ACC1 aGobbo AR1 aLema T1 aBobosha K1 aLi J1 aWeng X1 aSalgado CG1 aSpencer JS1 aCorstjens P1 aGeluk A00aEvaluation of Immunodiagnostic Tests for Leprosy in Brazil, China and Ethiopia. uhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-36323-1.pdf a179200 v83 a

Leprosy remains persistently endemic in several low- or middle income countries. Transmission is still ongoing as indicated by the unabated rate of leprosy new case detection, illustrating the insufficiency of current prevention methods. Therefore, low-complexity tools suitable for large scale screening efforts to specifically detect M. leprae infection and diagnose disease are required. Previously, we showed that combined detection of cellular and humoral markers, using field-friendly lateral flow assays (LFAs), increased diagnostic potential for detecting leprosy in Bangladesh compared to antibody serology alone. In the current study we assessed the diagnostic performance of similar LFAs in three other geographical settings in Asia, Africa and South-America with different leprosy endemicity. Levels of anti-PGL-I IgM antibody (humoral immunity), IP-10, CCL4 and CRP (cellular immunity) were measured in blood collected from leprosy patients, household contacts and healthy controls from each area. Combined detection of these biomarkers significantly improved the diagnostic potential, particularly for paucibacillary leprosy in all three regions, in line with data obtained in Bangladesh. These data hold promise for the use of low-complexity, multibiomarker LFAs as universal tools for more accurate detection of M. leprae infection and different phenotypes of clinical leprosy.

 a2045-2322