ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2018
Evaluation of antigen-specific immune responses for leprosy diagnosis in a hyperendemic area in China.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring endemicity and burden of leprosy across countries and regions: A systematic review and Delphi survey.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Preliminary evaluation of a neurological clinical pathway for the early detection of leprosy in low-endemic settings: A single-center exploratory study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Leprosy: a disease that has never gone away.Infectious diseases & immunity · 2025Article
- Neurological features of Hansen disease: a retrospective, multicenter cohort study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Utility of Multi-target Nested PCR and ELISPOT Assays for the Detection of Paucibacillary Leprosy: A Possible Conclusion of Clinical Laboratory Misdiagnosis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Transcriptomic Analysis ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- Leprosy surveillance study in a highly endemic Brazilian area using leprosy specific serologic tests and IFNγ whole blood assay.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020Article
- Polymorphisms in mitochondrial ribosomal protein S5 (MRPS5) are associated with leprosy risk in Chinese.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2020Article
- Prevention and Treatment of Leprosy - China, 2009-2019.China CDC weekly · 2020Review
- Host immune responses induced by specific Mycobacterium leprae antigens in an overnight whole-blood assay correlate with the diagnosis of paucibacillary leprosy patients in China.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate antigen-specific immune responses for leprosy diagnosis in a hyperendemic area in China.
methodsEighty-three leprosy patients and 161 non-leprosy controls were enrolled from Hani-yi Autonomous Prefecture of Honghe, Yunnan Province, China. Leprosy patients were divided into multibacillary (MB, n = 38), paucibacillary (PB, n = 23), and post-multi-drug therapy (MDT, n = 22) groups. Controls were divided into the following groups: healthy household contacts (HHC, n = 119), tuberculosis (TB, n = 11), and endemic controls (EC, n = 31). The NDO-LID Rapid Test, M. leprae antigen-specific ELISA and antigen-specific IFN-γ secretion in a whole blood assay (WBA) were used to evaluate these subjects.
resultsThe NDO-LID Rapid Test achieved higher positive response rates in MB than in PB patients[94.7%(36/38) vs 65.2%(15/23)], and these rates were higher than those observed by ELISA using anti-LID-1[92.1%(35/38) vs 52.2%(12/23)], anti-NDO-LID[92.1%(35/38) vs 47.8% (11/23)], and anti-ND-O-BSA[89.5%(34/38) vs 60.9%(14/23)]. However, the NDO-LID Rapid Test also showed a higher positive response rate in the EC group (33.3%,10/31), which was higher than the rates observed for anti-NDO-LID (12.9%,4/31) and anti-ND-O-BSA (16.1%,5/31). M. leprae antigen-specific ELISA demonstrated relatively high specificity (86.84-97.37%) but low sensitivity (15.97-72.73%) in discriminating between leprosy patients and non-leprosy controls by ROC curve analysis. In contrast, M. leprae antigen-specific IFN-γ secretion detection achieved higher positive response rates in PB than in MB patients (positive ratio of MB vs PB: 40% vs 56% for LID-1, 28.6% vs 47.8% for ML89, 31.4% vs 60.7% for ML2044, and 31.4 vs 47.8% for ML2028) and could distinguish MB from EC when stimulated with ML89(AUC = 0.6664) and PB fromTB when stimulated with ML2044 and ML2028(AUC = 0.7549 and 0.7372, respectively).
conclusionThe NDO-LID Rapid Test and M. leprae antigen-specific ELISA are useful tools to assist in the diagnosis of leprosy patients, especially MB patients, although the former had higher sensitivity but lower specificity than the latter. M. leprae antigen-specific IFN-γ release assessed by WBA has diagnostic value for distinguishing PB from TB but not for distinguishing PB from HHC or EC. Screening novel M. leprae-specific antigens, combining different M. leprae antigens and a multi-cytokine analyte model may be needed for more effective diagnosis of leprosy.
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.