首页> 外文期刊>Leprosy review >Comparison of three immunological tests for leprosy diagnosis and detection of subclinical infection
【24h】

Comparison of three immunological tests for leprosy diagnosis and detection of subclinical infection

机译:麻风病诊断和亚临床感染检测的三种免疫学检查的比较

获取原文
       

摘要

Objective: Our aim was to compare the performance of three serological assays in leprosy patients and their household contacts utilising two quantitative ELISA tests using native PGL-I (PGL-1 ELISA), synthetic ND-O-HSA (ND-O-HSA ELISA), and the semi-quantitative lateral flow test (ML Flow). Methods: Comparisons among three immunological assays, PGL-I ELISA, ND-OHSA ELISA, and ML Flow were performed in 154 leprosy patients, 191 household contacts and 52 health subjects. Results: The sensitivity results of the PGL-1, ND-O-HSA, and ML Flow were 68·83%, 63·84%, and 60·65%, respectively, with specificity of 98% for both ELISA assays. The native and synthetic PGL-I ELISA assays detected antibodies in 22·73% and 31·82% of the paucibacillary (PB) patients, respectively and the ML Flow test did not detect antibodies in this group. The ML Flow test was able to discriminate patients into PB or multibacillary (MB) forms, while the native PGL-I and ND-OHSA was correlated with the bacillary load and the Ridley-Jopling clinical forms.In household contacts, the native PGL-I, ND-O-HSA, and ML Flow assays detected seropositivity of 25%, 17%, and 10%, respectively. Conclusions: The use of ELISA and ML Flow tests are thus recommended as additional tools in the diagnosis and classification of the clinical forms, aiding in prescribing the correct treatment regimen to prevent subsequent nerve damage and disability, and besides, the PGL-I ELISA may be used to detect subclinical infection in leprosy.
机译:目的:我们的目的是通过使用天然PGL-I(PGL-1 ELISA),合成ND-O-HSA(ND-O-HSA ELISA)的两种定量ELISA试验,比较麻风患者及其家属的三种血清学检测方法的性能),以及半定量侧向流动测试(ML Flow)。方法:对154名麻风患者,191名家庭接触者和52名健康受试者进行了三种免疫学分析,PGL-1 ELISA,ND-OHSA ELISA和ML Flow的比较。结果:PGL-1,ND-O-HSA和ML Flow的灵敏度结果分别为68·83%,63·84%和60·65%,两种ELISA检测的特异性均为98%。天然PGL-I和合成PGL-I ELISA检测分别在22.73%和31.82%的脓杆菌(PB)患者中检测到抗体,而ML Flow试验在该组中未检测到抗体。 ML Flow试验能够将患者区分为PB或多细菌(MB)形式,而天然PGL-1和ND-OHSA与细菌载量和Ridley-Jopling临床形式相关。 I,ND-O-HSA和ML Flow分析检测到的血清阳性率为25%,17%和10%。结论:因此建议使用ELISA和ML Flow试验作为临床形式的诊断和分类的附加工具,以帮助制定正确的治疗方案,以防止随后的神经损伤和残疾,此外,PGL-1 ELISA可能用于检测麻风病的亚临床感染。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号