ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Large-scale field application of a fingerstick blood test for Mycobacterium leprae infection: Monitoring population-wide effects of case finding and post-exposure prophylaxis on transmission in the Comoros and Madagascar.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Seroprevalence ofThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 2018, the WHO recommends provision of single-dose rifampicin post-exposure prophylaxis (SDR-PEP) to contacts of leprosy patients. In the Post-ExpOsure Prophylaxis for LEprosy (PEOPLE) trial that took place in the Comoros (Anjouan and Mohéli) and Madagascar (2019-2023), single double-dose rifampicin (SDDR)-PEP administration modalities were compared. Additionally, in 16/64 villages, anti-M. leprae phenolic glycolipid-I (anti-PGL-I) IgM levels were measured for three consecutive years, in newly diagnosed leprosy patients and more than 17,000 household- and neighbourhood contacts who had been screened for signs of leprosy. To study the impact of active case finding and SDDR-PEP on M. leprae infection rates in the population, fingerstick blood of contacts was sampled before, during and after the administration of SDDR-PEP. In this serosurvey, anti-PGL-I IgM levels were measured for the first time at such large scale by local staff using a field-friendly, quantitative lateral flow assay based on the UCP-platform (UCP-LFA). Out of 53 multibacillary patients with a bacterial index of 1 or higher, 92.5% (n = 49) tested seropositive for anti-M. leprae PGL-I IgM, confirming excellent performance of the test when executed by local staff. Before SDDR-PEP administration, seroprevalence among contacts in the different villages ranged from 21.9% to 27.4% across the three study sites. After two years of active case finding and SDDR-PEP, seroprevalence was significantly lower in the population in all three study sites (11.6% to 22.8%). Longitudinal serological monitoring in initially seropositive contacts showed significant reductions in anti-PGL-I IgM levels at an individual level. This reduction in seropositivity was observed irrespective of administration of SDDR-PEP. These serological data suggest that the implemented combination of active case finding with SDDR-PEP, led to a reduction in infection levels in the population in these study sites. This large-scale field serosurvey demonstrates the usefulness of the anti-PGL-I UCP-LFA to evaluate and monitor at a population level the effects of leprosy control interventions on M. leprae transmission.
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.