BACKGROUND: The treatment of leprosy is defined by the classification of patients as paucibacillary (PB) or multibacillary (MB). The WHO (World Health Organization) classifies patients according to the number of lesions, but Ridley-Jopling (R & J) also uses complementary exams, which are difficult to use outside reference services. In 2003, a test called ML-Flow, an alternative to Elisa serology, was developed to help classify patients as PB or MB and decide about their treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the agreement between the ML-Flow test and slit skin smears, already largely used for MB detection, and to observe the efficacy of the ML-Flow test in the field. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study evaluating the medical records of 55 patients who had not undergone previous treatment, diagnosed as PB or MB according to R & J and subjected to slit skin smears and the ML- Flow test. RESULTS: In MB patients, slit skin smears were positive in 80% of the cases, the ML-flow was positive in 82.5%. Among PB patients, the ML-Flow was positive in 37.5% and slit skin smears were negative in 100% of the cases. The agreement between skin smear and ML-Flow results was 87.5%, with a kappa value of 0.59, p <0.001. CONCLUSION: No laboratory test is 100% sensitive and specific for the correct classification of all forms of leprosy. The ML-Flow test is faster, easier to use, and less invasive than slit skin smears and therefore may be useful when making therapeutic decisions in areas of difficult access to reference services.
BACKGROUND: The treatment of leprosy is defined by the classification of patients as paucibacillary (PB) or multibacillary (MB). The WHO (World Health Organization) classifies patients according to the number of lesions, but Ridley-Jopling (R & J) also uses complementary exams, which are difficult to use outside reference services. In 2003, a test called ML-Flow, an alternative to Elisa serology, was developed to help classify patients as PB or MB and decide about their treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the agreement between the ML-Flow test and slit skin smears, already largely used for MB detection, and to observe the efficacy of the ML-Flow test in the field. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study evaluating the medical records of 55 patients who had not undergone previous treatment, diagnosed as PB or MB according to R & J and subjected to slit skin smears and the ML- Flow test. RESULTS: In MB patients, slit skin smears were positive in 80% of the cases, the ML-flow was positive in 82.5%. Among PBpatients, the ML-Flow was positive in 37.5% and slit skin smears were negative in 100% of the cases. The agreement between skin smear and ML-Flow results was 87.5%, with a kappa value of 0.59, p <0.001. CONCLUSION: No laboratory test is 100% sensitive and specific for the correct classification of all forms of leprosy. The ML-Flow test is faster, easier to use, and less invasive than slit skin smears and therefore may be useful when making therapeutic decisions in areas of difficult access to reference services.
Authors: Edilamar Silva de Alecrin; Ana Laura Grossi de Oliveira; Nathália Sernizon Guimarães; Sandra Lyon; Maria Auxiliadora Parreiras Martins; Manoel Otávio da Costa Rocha Journal: Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 2.169
Authors: Pedro Henrique Ferreira Marçal; Lúcia Alves de Oliveira Fraga; Ana Márcia Menezes de Mattos; Laura Menegati; Angélica da Conceição Oliveira Coelho; Roberta Olmo Pinheiro; Euzenir Nunes Sarno; Malcolm S Duthie; Henrique Couto Teixeira Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 2.743
Authors: Carmen Phang Romero; Rodolfo Castro; Pedro Emmanuel A do Brasil; Daniella R Pereira; Roberta Olmo Pinheiro; Cristiana M Toscano; Maria Regina Fernandes de Oliveira Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 2.743
Authors: Ana Paula Mendes Carvalho; Angélica da Conceição Oliveira Coelho; Rodrigo Correa-Oliveira; Francisco Carlos Félix Lana Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.743