RLEP LAMP for the laboratory confirmation of leprosy: towards a point-of-care test.

BACKGROUND: Nucleic acid-based amplification tests (NAAT), above all (q)PCR, have been applied for the detection of Mycobacterium leprae in leprosy cases and household contacts with subclinical infection. However, their application in the field poses a range of technical challenges. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), as a promising point-of-care NAAT does not require sophisticated laboratory equipment, is easy to perform, and is applicable for decentralized diagnosis at the primary health care level. Among a range of gene targets, the M. leprae specific repetitive element RLEP is regarded as highly sensitive and specific for diagnostic applications.  METHODS: Our group developed and validated a dry-reagent-based (DRB) RLEP LAMP, provided product specifications for customization of a ready-to-use kit (intended for commercial production) and compared it against the in-house prototype. The assays were optimized for application on a Genie® III portable fluorometer. For technical validation, 40 "must not detect RLEP" samples derived from RLEP qPCR negative exposed and non-exposed individuals, as well as from patients with other conditions and a set of closely related mycobacterial cultures, were tested together with 25 "must detect RLEP" samples derived from qPCR confirmed leprosy patients. For clinical validation, 150 RLEP qPCR tested samples were analyzed, consisting of the following categories: high-positive samples of multibacillary (MB) leprosy patients (> 10.000 bacilli/extract), medium-positive samples of MB leprosy patients (1.001-10.000 bacilli/extract), low-positive samples of MB leprosy patients (1-1.000 bacilli/extract), endemic controls and healthy non-exposed controls; each n = 30.  RESULTS: Technical validation: both LAMP formats had a limit of detection of 1.000 RLEP copies, i.e. 43-27 bacilli, a sensitivity of 92% (in-house protocol)/100% (ready-to-use protocol) and a specificity of 100%. Reagents were stable for at least 1 year at 22 °C. Clinical validation: Both formats showed a negativity rate of 100% and a positivity rate of 100% for high-positive samples and 93-100% for medium positive samples, together with a positive predictive value of 100% and semi-quantitative results. The positivity rate for low-positive samples was 77% (in-house protocol)/43% (ready-to-use protocol) and differed significantly between both formats.  CONCLUSIONS: The ready-to-use RLEP DRB LAMP assay constitutes an ASSURED test ready for field-based evaluation trials aiming for routine diagnosis of leprosy at the primary health care level.

Development of a combined RLEP/16S rRNA (RT) qPCR assay for the detection of viable M. leprae from nasal swab samples.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy continues to be a health problem in endemic areas. More than 200,000 new cases of leprosy per year suggest that transmission of the disease is still ongoing, presumably as airborne infection through nasal droplets. Late diagnosis supports continued transmission and increases the individual risk for functional disabilities. Laboratory tools are considered beneficial to facilitate early detection and clinical assessment of cases. The aim of this study was to validate molecular tools allowing detection, quantification and assessment of viability of M. leprae from nasal swab samples which are easy to obtain without the need of any invasive procedures. METHODS: Validation of two real-time PCRs detecting M. leprae DNA (RLEP qPCR) and RNA (16S rRNA RT qPCR) was conducted on "must not detect"/"must detect" samples and 160 pre-treatment nasal swab samples from 20 clinically diagnosed multibacillary (MB) leprosy patients from Togo. RESULTS: Both assays were 100% M. leprae specific and showed analytical sensitivities of three templates each. Out of 20 clinically diagnosed MB leprosy patients, 15 (75.0%) had a positive RLEP qPCR result from nasal swab samples. The 16S rRNA RT qPCR detected viable bacilli in nasal swab samples of ten out of these 15 RLEP positive patients (66.7%). CONCLUSION: The combined RLEP/16S rRNA (RT) qPCR assay provides a sensitive and specific tool to determine the bacterial load and viability of M. leprae from nasal swab samples and is applicable for early diagnosis, monitoring treatment response and investigating the role of nasal carriage of M. leprae in human-to-human transmission through aerosol infection.

Report on an unusual case of leprosy from Germany: just an exception of the rule?

CASE PRESENTATION: We report on a German leprosy patient originating from Pakistan who had a relapse more than 5 years after completion of multi-drug therapy (MDT) of his first episode of multibacillary (MB) leprosy. State-of-the-art laboratory techniques (histopathology, PGL-I serology, microscopy and DNA/RNA qPCR) were applied for laboratory confirmation and monitoring of treatment outcome. Serology indicated the relapse long before the presence of unambiguous clinical signs. At the time of diagnosis of the relapse the patient had a remarkably high bacterial load suggesting increased risk for a second relapse. Furthermore, unexpectedly prolonged excretion of viable bacilli through the upper respiratory tract for more than 3 months after onset of MDT was shown. Therefore, MDT was administered for 2 years. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The clinical course of the patient, as well as the prolonged excretion of viable bacilli, underlines the usefulness of laboratory assessment. Laboratory tools including up-to-date molecular assays facilitate rapid diagnosis, timely MDT, identification of individuals excreting viable bacilli and patients at risk for relapses, monitoring of treatment outcome and respective adaptation of treatment where appropriate.

O-5S quantitative real-time PCR: a new diagnostic tool for laboratory confirmation of human onchocerciasis.

BACKGROUND: Onchocerciasis is a parasitic disease caused by the filarial nematode Onchocerca volvulus. In endemic areas, the diagnosis is commonly confirmed by microscopic examination of skin snip samples, though this technique is considered to have low sensitivity. The available melting-curve based quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) using degenerated primers targeting the O-150 repeat of O. volvulus was considered insufficient for confirming the individual diagnosis, especially in elimination studies. This study aimed to improve detection of O. volvulus DNA in clinical samples through the development of a highly sensitive qPCR assay. METHODS: A novel hydrolysis probe based qPCR assay was designed targeting the specific sequence of the O. volvulus O-5S rRNA gene. A total of 200 clinically suspected onchocerciasis cases were included from Goma district in South-west Ethiopia, from October 2012 through May 2013. Skin snip samples were collected and subjected to microscopy, O-150 qPCR, and the novel O-5S qPCR. RESULTS: Among the 200 individuals, 133 patients tested positive (positivity rate of 66.5%) and 67 negative by O-5S qPCR, 74 tested positive by microscopy (37.0%) and 78 tested positive by O-150 qPCR (39.0%). Among the 133 O-5S qPCR positive individuals, microscopy and O-150 qPCR detected 55.6 and 59.4% patients, respectively, implying a higher sensitivity of O-5S qPCR than microscopy and O-150 qPCR. None of the 67 individuals who tested negative by O-5S qPCR tested positive by microscopy or O-150 qPCR, implying 100% specificity of the newly designed O-5S qPCR assay. CONCLUSIONS: The novel O-5S qPCR assay is more sensitive than both microscopic examination and the existing O-150 qPCR for the detection of O. volvulus from skin snip samples. The newly designed assay is an important step towards appropriate individual diagnosis and control of onchocerciasis.

Clearance of viable Mycobacterium ulcerans from Buruli ulcer lesions during antibiotic treatment as determined by combined 16S rRNA reverse transcriptase /IS 2404 qPCR assay.

INTRODUCTION: Buruli ulcer (BU) caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans is effectively treated with rifampicin and streptomycin for 8 weeks but some lesions take several months to heal. We have shown previously that some slowly healing lesions contain mycolactone suggesting continuing infection after antibiotic therapy. Now we have determined how rapidly combined M. ulcerans 16S rRNA reverse transcriptase / IS2404 qPCR assay (16S rRNA) became negative during antibiotic treatment and investigated its influence on healing. METHODS: Fine needle aspirates and swab samples were obtained for culture, acid fast bacilli (AFB) and detection of M. ulcerans 16S rRNA and IS2404 by qPCR (16S rRNA) from patients with IS2404 PCR confirmed BU at baseline, during antibiotic and after treatment. Patients were followed up at 2 weekly intervals to determine the rate of healing. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to analyse the time to clearance of M. ulcerans 16S rRNA and the influence of persistent M ulcerans 16S rRNA on time to healing. The Mann Whitney test was used to compare the bacillary load at baseline in patients with or without viable organisms at week 4, and to analyse rate of healing at week 4 in relation to detection of viable organisms. RESULTS: Out of 129 patients, 16S rRNA was detected in 65% of lesions at baseline. The M. ulcerans 16S rRNA remained positive in 78% of patients with unhealed lesions at 4 weeks, 52% at 8 weeks, 23% at 12 weeks and 10% at week 16. The median time to clearance of M. ulcerans 16S rRNA was 12 weeks. BU lesions with positive 16S rRNA after antibiotic treatment had significantly higher bacterial load at baseline, longer healing time and lower healing rate at week 4 compared with those in which 16S rRNA was not detected at baseline or had become undetectable by week 4. CONCLUSIONS: Current antibiotic therapy for BU is highly successful in most patients but it may be possible to abbreviate treatment to 4 weeks in patients with a low initial bacterial load. On the other hand persistent infection contributes to slow healing in patients with a high bacterial load at baseline, some of whom may need antibiotic treatment extended beyond 8 weeks. Bacterial load was estimated from a single sample taken at baseline. A better estimate could be made by taking multiple samples or biopsies but this was not ethically acceptable.