02104nas a2200409   4500000000100000008004100001260000900042653002600051653002400077653001100101653002500112653001000137653002100147653003800168653001600206653001100222653002100233653001200254653002500266653001400291653002900305653003100334100001300365700001100378700001200389700001200401700002000413700001200433700001400445700002200459700001600481245011100497300001000608490001500618520104700633022001401680       2008                            d  c200810aAntibodies, Bacterial10aAntigens, Bacterial10aBrazil10aCase-Control Studies10aChile10aEndemic Diseases10aEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay10aGlycolipids10aHumans10aImmunoglobulin M10aleprosy10aMycobacterium leprae10aROC Curve10aReagent Kits, Diagnostic10aReproducibility of Results1 aSilva RC1 aLyon S1 aAraos R1 aLyon AC1 aFaria Grossi MA1 aLyon SH1 aPenido RA1 aBührer-Sékula S1 aAntunes CMF00aThe result patterns of ML Flow and ELISA (PGL-I) serologic tests in leprosy-endemic and non-endemic areas.  a19-220 v41 Suppl 23 a<p>ML Flow and anti-PGL-I ELISA are serological tests that detect IgM antibodies against the phenolic glycolipid I (PGL-I), specific to Mycobacterium leprae. To evaluate the outcomes of ML Flow and ELISA (PGL-I) serological tests in leprosy-endemic areas in comparison to non-endemic ones, a total of 351 volunteers from Brazil and Chile were examined, including leprosy patients, healthy controls and others affected by other infectious or non-infectious diseases that are common differential diagnoses for leprosy. The ELISA cut-off point was established using the ROC Curve method (>or= 0.157). In endemic areas, 70% of leprosy patients present positive ML Flow results and 53.3% were ELISA-positive. In non-endemic areas, ML Flow was negative in all the subjects tested and ELISA was positive in 4 volunteers. ML Flow is faster and more easily performed and, therefore, a more adequate test for use in basic, primary-level health care centers. ELISA requires trained personnel, in addition to a more complex laboratory infrastructure.</p>  a1678-9849