4.5 Article

Description of Leprosy Classification at Baseline among Patients Enrolled at the Uniform Multidrug Therapy Clinical Trial for Leprosy Patients in Brazil

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE
Volume 92, Issue 6, Pages 1280-1284

Publisher

AMER SOC TROP MED & HYGIENE
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0049

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development/CNPq, Brazil [152678/2011-5]
  2. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel/CAPES, Brazil [02479/09-5]
  3. CNPq [304869/2008-2, 40.3293/2005-7]
  4. Department of Science and Technology (DECIT) of Brazilian Ministry of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The uniform multidrug therapy clinical trial, Brazil (U-MDT/CT-BR), database was used to describe and report the performance of available tools to classify 830 leprosy patients as paucibacillary (PB) and multibacillary (MB) at baseline. In a modified Ridley and Jopling (R&J) classification, considering clinical features, histopathological results of skin biopsies and the slit-skin smear bacterial load results were used as the gold standard method for classification. Anti-phenolic glycolipid-I (PGL-I) serology by ML Flow test, the slit skin smear bacterial load, and the number of skin lesions were evaluated. Considering the R&J classification system as gold standard, ML Flow tests correctly allocated 70% patients in the PB group and 87% in the MB group. The classification based on counting the number of skin lesions correctly allocated 46% PB patients and 99% MB leprosy cases. Slit skin smears properly classified 91% and 97% of PB and MB patients, respectively. Based on U-MDT/CT-BR results, classification of leprosy patients for treatment purposes is unnecessary because it does not impact clinical and laboratories outcomes. In this context, the identification of new biomarkers to detect patients at a higher risk to develop leprosy reactions or relapse remains an important research challenge.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available