External Validation of the Discriminative Validity of the ReSVinet Score and Development of Simplified ReSVinet Scores in Secondary Care.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on how to best quantify disease severity in infants with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and/or bronchiolitis; this lack of a sufficiently validated score complicates the provision of clinical care and, the evaluation of trials of therapeutics and vaccines. The ReSVinet score appears to be one of the most promising; however, it is too time consuming to be incorporated into routine clinical care. We aimed to develop and externally validate simplified versions of this score. METHODS: Data from a multinational (the Netherlands, Spain, and United Kingdom) multicenter case-control study of infants with RSV were used to develop simplified versions of the ReSVinet score by conducting a grid search to determine the best combination of equally weighted parameters to maximize for the discriminative ability (measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) across a range of outcomes (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, ventilation requirement). Subsequently discriminative validity of the score for a range of secondary care outcomes was externally validated by secondary analysis of datasets from Rwanda and Colombia. RESULTS: Three candidate simplified scores were identified using the development dataset; they were excellent (AUROC >0.9) at discriminating for a range of outcomes, and their performance was not significantly different from the original ReSVinet score despite having fewer parameters. In the external validation datasets, the simplified scores were moderate to excellent (AUROC, 0.7-1) across a range of outcomes. In all outcomes, except in a single dataset for predicting admission to the high-dependency unit, they performed at least as well as the original ReSVinet score. CONCLUSIONS: The candidate simplified scores developed require further external validation in larger datasets, ideally from resource-limited settings before any recommendation regarding their use.

Role of PGL-I antibody detection in the diagnosis of pure neural leprosy.

Pure neural leprosy (PNL) is difficult to diagnose because skin lesions and acid-fast bacilli (AFB) in slit smears are absent. At present, the gold standard for PNL diagnosis is the histopathological examination of a peripheral nerve biopsy. Even so, detection of bacteria is difficult and histological findings may be non-specific. Furthermore, nerve biopsy is an invasive procedure that is only possible in specialized centres. Therefore, there is a need for additional diagnostic methods that may help to confirm the clinical diagnosis of PNL. In the present study, an additional laboratory test, the ELISA for anti-phenolic glycolipid I (PGL-I) IgM antibodies, was performed on 103 individuals with clinical and neurophysiological signs of peripheral neuropathy, of which 67 were diagnosed as PNL patients and 36 remained as 'not diagnosed as PNL', as well as on a control group of 34 patients with other neurological diseases. An antibody response was present in 14/67 (21%) of the patients diagnosed as PNL as compared with 3/34 (9%) of controls. Anti-PGL-I positivity was observed in 5/8 (63%) of the AFB positive cases. Patients whose diagnosis was confirmed solely by Mycobacterium leprae PCR on the nerve sample had 4/25 (16%) seropositivity. In addition, anti-PGL-I antibodies were detected in 9/40 (23%) of the PNL patients who were PCR negative for M. leprae DNA. Moreover, two patients who showed clinical and eletrophysiological manifestations suggestive of PNL were diagnosed with the help of their positive test results in the anti-PGL-I ELISA. In conclusion, detection of antibodies against PGL-I in patients with peripheral neuropathy is useful as an additional laboratory test to help PNL diagnosis.