Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27919284›Full record

Trial reportInfectious diseases of poverty2016

Can baseline ML Flow test results predict leprosy reactions? An investigation in a cohort of patients enrolled in the uniform multidrug therapy clinical trial for leprosy patients in Brazil.

Emerith Mayra Hungria, Regiane Morillas Oliveira, Gerson Oliveira Penna, Lúcio Cartaxo Aderaldo, Maria Araci de Andrade Pontes, Rossilene Cruz, Heitor de Sá Gonçalves, Maria Lúcia Fernandes Penna, Ligia Regina Franco Sansigolo Kerr, Mariane Martins de Araújo Stefani and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Infectious diseases of poverty, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Leprosy.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. ELISA Test Based on the Phenolic Glycolipid-I (PGL-I) ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in immunology · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Emerith Mayra HungriaTropical Pathology and Public Health Institute, Federal University of Goiás, Goiania, Goiás, Brazil.
Regiane Morillas OliveiraTropical Pathology and Public Health Institute, Federal University of Goiás, Goiania, Goiás, Brazil.
Gerson Oliveira PennaTropical Medicine Centre, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Lúcio Cartaxo AderaldoDona Libânia Dermatology Centre, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil.
Maria Araci de Andrade PontesDona Libânia Dermatology Centre, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil.
Rossilene CruzTropical Medicine Foundation/Foundation "Alfredo da Matta", Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
Heitor de Sá GonçalvesDona Libânia Dermatology Centre, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil.
Maria Lúcia Fernandes PennaEpidemiology and Biostatistics Department, Federal University Fluminense, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Ligia Regina Franco Sansigolo KerrDepartment of Community Health, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil.
Mariane Martins de Araújo StefaniTropical Pathology and Public Health Institute, Federal University of Goiás, Goiania, Goiás, Brazil.
Samira Bührer-SékulaTropical Pathology and Public Health Institute, Federal University of Goiás, Goiania, Goiás, Brazil. samira@buhrer.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5984-7770
Universidade Federal de Goiás · BRInstituto de Dermatologia Dona Libania · BRFundação de Medicina Tropical · BRUniversidade de Brasília · BRUniversidade Federal do Ceará · BRUniversidade Federal Fluminense · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe predictive value of the serology to detection of IgM against the Mycobacterium leprae-derived phenolic glycolipid-I/PGL-I to identify leprosy patients who are at higher risk of developing reactions remains controversial. Whether baseline results of the ML Flow test can predict leprosy reactions was investigated among a cohort of patients enrolled in The Clinical Trial for Uniform Multidrug Therapy for Leprosy Patients in Brazil (U-MDT/CT-BR).

methodsThis was a descriptive study focusing on the main clinical manifestations of leprosy patients enrolled in the U-MDT/CT-BR from March 2007 to February 2012 at two Brazilian leprosy reference centers. For research purposes, 753 leprosy patients were categorized according to a modified Ridley-Jopling (R&J) classification and according to the development of leprosy reactions (reversal reaction/RR and erythema nodosum leprosum/ENL), and whether they had a positive or negative bacillary index/BI.

resultsMore than half of the patients (55.5 %) reported leprosy reaction: 18.3 % (138/753) had a RR and 5.4 % (41/753) had ENL. Leprosy reactions were more frequent in the first year following diagnosis, as seen in 27 % (205/753) of patients, while 19 % (142/753) developed reactions during subsequent follow-up. Similar frequencies of leprosy reactions and other clinical manifestations were observed in paucibacillary (PB) and multibacillary (MB) leprosy patients treated with U-MDT and regular MDT (R-MDT) (P = 0.43 and P = 0.61, respectively). Compared with PB patients, leprosy reactions were significantly more frequent in MB patients with a high BI, and more patients developed RR than ENL. However, RR and neuritis were also reported in patients with a negative BI. At baseline, the highest rate of ML Flow positivity was observed in patients with a positive BI, especially those who developed ENL, followed by patients who had neuritis and RR. Among reaction-free patients, 81.9 % were ML Flow positive, however, the differences were not statistically significant compared to reactional patients (P = 0.45).

conclusionsMB and PB patients treated with R-MDT and U-MDT showed similar frequencies of RR and other clinical manifestations. Positive ML Flow tests were associated with MB leprosy and BI positivity. However, ML Flow test results at baseline showed limited sensitivity and specificity for predicting the development of leprosy reactions.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAntigens, BacterialBrazilChildCohort StudiesErythema NodosumFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlycolipidsHumansImmunoglobulin MLeprostatic AgentsLeprosy, LepromatousMaleAntigens, BacterialGlycolipidsImmunoglobulin MLeprostatic Agentsphenolic glycolipid I, Mycobacterium lepraeBacillary indexBrazilClinical trialLeprosyLeprosy reactionsML Flow testPhenolic glycolipid-IU-MDT/CT-BR

Identifiers

PMID27919284
PMCPMC5139020
OpenAlexW2548124231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.