[Leprosy serology: current status and perspectives].

Acta leprologica Pub Date : 1992-01-01
S Chanteau, J L Cartel, J Roux
{"title":"[Leprosy serology: current status and perspectives].","authors":"S Chanteau,&nbsp;J L Cartel,&nbsp;J Roux","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The different serological tests used for leprosy are firstly the methods for the detection of antibodies (anti-PGL1, 35kD, 36kD, LAM), and secondly, the tests to detect the PGL1 antigen from the serum or urine. The antibody detection tests have a good but insufficient specificity for the diagnosis of leprosy patients and their sensitivity is generally high for the multibacillary patients but low for the paucibacillary patients. Their positive predictive value for the diagnosis of patients in a population are very low: 2.1% for the anti-PGL1 ELISA when the prevalence is 1/1000. For the early diagnosis of patients and the follow up of high risk populations, these tests are not cost effective: the number of patients detected in these populations is 10 fold lower than in the general population and the relative risks for developing the disease are not different among seropositive and among seronegative groups. In treated multibacillary patients, the IgM anti-PGL1 level decreases in correlation with the decrease of the bacillary index. For the diagnosis of M. leprae infection in a population, there was no correlation between the anti-PGL1 seroprevalence and the prevalence of the disease. Concerning the PGL1 antigen detection tests, they are specific and sensitive for the diagnosis of multibacillary patients but they cannot be used in routine for technical reasons. In conclusion and to date, the usefulness of serological tests in a leprosy control programme is quite questionable.</p>","PeriodicalId":6905,"journal":{"name":"Acta leprologica","volume":"8 2","pages":"65-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta leprologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The different serological tests used for leprosy are firstly the methods for the detection of antibodies (anti-PGL1, 35kD, 36kD, LAM), and secondly, the tests to detect the PGL1 antigen from the serum or urine. The antibody detection tests have a good but insufficient specificity for the diagnosis of leprosy patients and their sensitivity is generally high for the multibacillary patients but low for the paucibacillary patients. Their positive predictive value for the diagnosis of patients in a population are very low: 2.1% for the anti-PGL1 ELISA when the prevalence is 1/1000. For the early diagnosis of patients and the follow up of high risk populations, these tests are not cost effective: the number of patients detected in these populations is 10 fold lower than in the general population and the relative risks for developing the disease are not different among seropositive and among seronegative groups. In treated multibacillary patients, the IgM anti-PGL1 level decreases in correlation with the decrease of the bacillary index. For the diagnosis of M. leprae infection in a population, there was no correlation between the anti-PGL1 seroprevalence and the prevalence of the disease. Concerning the PGL1 antigen detection tests, they are specific and sensitive for the diagnosis of multibacillary patients but they cannot be used in routine for technical reasons. In conclusion and to date, the usefulness of serological tests in a leprosy control programme is quite questionable.

[麻风病血清学:现状与展望]。
用于麻风病的不同血清学试验首先是检测抗体(抗PGL1、35kD、36kD、LAM)的方法,其次是从血清或尿液中检测PGL1抗原的方法。抗体检测试验对麻风患者的诊断特异性较好,但特异性不足,对多菌群患者的敏感性普遍较高,对少菌群患者的敏感性较低。它们对人群中患者诊断的阳性预测值非常低:当患病率为1/1000时,抗pgl1 ELISA的阳性预测值为2.1%。对于患者的早期诊断和高危人群的随访,这些检测并不具有成本效益:在这些人群中检测到的患者数量比一般人群低10倍,血清阳性和血清阴性人群之间发生疾病的相对风险没有差异。在治疗的多菌性患者中,IgM抗pgl1水平的降低与细菌指数的降低相关。对于人群中麻风分枝杆菌感染的诊断,抗pgl1血清阳性率与该疾病的患病率之间没有相关性。PGL1抗原检测试验对多菌病患者的诊断具有特异性和敏感性,但由于技术原因,不能作为常规使用。总而言之,到目前为止,血清学检测在麻风控制规划中的有用性相当值得怀疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信