↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Infectious Diseases of Poverty, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
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
Published in
Infectious Diseases of Poverty, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40249-016-0203-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

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, Samira Bührer-Sékula

Abstract

The 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). This 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. More 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). MB 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 87 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 26 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 32 36%