ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2014
The challenge of producing skin test antigens with minimal resources suitable for human application against a neglected tropical disease; leprosy.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy assessment of two new leprosy skin test antigens: randomized double blind clinical study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2014Trial
- Skin tests for the detection of Mycobacterial infections: achievements, current perspectives, and implications for other diseases.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2021Review
- Development of LepReact, a defined skin test for paucibacillary leprosy and low-level M. leprae infection.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
True incidence of leprosy and its impact on transmission will not be understood until a tool is available to measure pre-symptomatic infection. Diagnosis of leprosy disease is currently based on clinical symptoms, which on average take 3-10 years to manifest. The fact that incidence, as defined by new case detection, equates with prevalence, i.e., registered cases, suggests that the cycle of transmission has not been fully intercepted by implementation of multiple drug therapy. This is supported by a high incidence of childhood leprosy. Epidemiological screening for pre-symptomatic leprosy in large endemic populations is required to facilitate targeted chemoprophylactic interventions. Such a test must be sensitive, specific, simple to administer, cost-effective, and easy to interpret. The intradermal skin test method that measures cell-mediated immunity was explored as the best option. Prior knowledge on skin testing of healthy subjects and leprosy patients with whole or partially fractionated Mycobacterium leprae bacilli, such as Lepromin or the Rees' or Convit' antigens, has established an acceptable safety and potency profile of these antigens. These data, along with immunoreactivity data, laid the foundation for two new leprosy skin test antigens, MLSA-LAM (M. leprae soluble antigen devoid of mycobacterial lipoglycans, primarily lipoarabinomannan) and MLCwA (M. leprae cell wall antigens). In the absence of commercial interest, the challenge was to develop these antigens under current good manufacturing practices in an acceptable local pilot facility and submit an Investigational New Drug to the Food and Drug Administration to allow a first-in-human phase I clinical trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.