DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/dmj.v15i2.53438

HOW SUITABLE ARE NDO-LID AND PGL-I IN RAPID DIAGNOSTIC TESTS FOR SCREENING OF LEPROSY? A REVIEW OF DIAGNOSTIC STUDIES

*Gabriela Valencia Putri Husodho orcid  -  Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Diponegoro, Jl. Prof. Sudarto, SH, Tembalang, Semarang, Indonesia, Indonesia
Anatalya Diah Ayu Kumalasari orcid  -  Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Diponegoro, Jl. Prof. Sudarto, SH, Tembalang, Semarang, Indonesia, Indonesia
Agyta Hanifa Faiza orcid  -  , Indonesia
Open Access Copyright 2026 Gabriela Valencia Putri Husodho, Anatalya Diah Ayu Kumalasari, Agyta Hanifa Faiza
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Background: Indonesia has the third highest prevalence of leprosy, a neglected tropical disease caused by the “Mycobacterium leprae complex which causes neuropathy and hypopigmented skin lesions with hypoesthesia. The main problem in eradicating leprosy is due to its negative social stigma and prevalence in lower socioeconomic populations, as the gold standard for leprosy diagnosis is histopathology of skin smears. Hence, cost and time effective screening tools are needed. PGL-I and NDO-LID are antigens that have been developed as biomarkers used in serological assays, one of them being rapid lateral flow tests. Therefore, a rapid test utilizing a combination of PGL-I and NDO-LID as its marker is potentially a suitable tool for leprosy screening in areas with limited access to healthcare. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of PGL-I and NDO-LID in rapid lateral flow tests for leprosy. Methods: This literature review was done by using the search engines PubMed, Science Direct, and SpringerLink.  Results: Diagnostic potential studies for PGL-I rapid tests using UCP-LFA and Gold-LFA showed high overall sensitivity and specificity for leprosy patients, with more positive results in MB and PB patients. NDO-LID rapid test diagnostic studies which used the also showed similar results. However, these tests are not as accurate as ELISA and histopathology, but modifications such as additional biomarkers can be used to improve its utility. Conclusion: PGL-I and NDO-LID have good sensitivity and specificity from the results of various diagnostic studies, thus are potentially suitable for field screening of leprosy.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Leprosy; rapid test; serological assay; PGL-I; NDO-LID

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Original Articles
Language : EN
Recent articles
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING IN RELATION TO INFANT GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT HOW SUITABLE ARE NDO-LID AND PGL-I IN RAPID DIAGNOSTIC TESTS FOR SCREENING OF LEPROSY? A REVIEW OF DIAGNOSTIC STUDIES PREVALENCE OF ALK (D5F3) EXPRESSION IN NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER IN MRCCC SILOAM HOSPITALS CHALLENGES IN PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS MANAGEMENT IN A LIVER TRANSPLANT RECIPIENT WITH CROHN’S DISEASE: A CASE REPORT EXOGENOUS ENDOPHTHALMITIS WITH IMPENDING PERFORATION MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME AT RURAL HOSPITAL: A CASE REPORT OF 28-YEARS OLD MALE WITH POST-TRAUMATIC ENDOPHTHALMITIS More recent articles
  1. WHO. Indonesia Memulai Tahap Terakhir Upaya Eliminasi Penyakit Kaki Gajah, Kusta, dan Frambusia [Homepage on the Internet]. World Health Organization Indonesia. 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 9];Available from: https://www.who.int/indonesia/id/news/detail/10-10-2024-indonesia-launches-final-push-to-eliminate-lymphatic-filariasis--leprosy-and-yaws
  2. Bhandari J, Awais M, Robbins BA, Gupta V. Leprosy [Homepage on the Internet]. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 9]; Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559307/
  3. Palit A, Kar HK. Prevention of transmission of leprosy: The current scenario. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2020;86(2):115–123
  4. Santacroce L, Prete RD, Charitos IA, Bottalico L. Mycobacterium leprae: A historical study on the origins of leprosy and its social stigma. Le Infezioni in Medicina 2021;29(4):623
  5. J, Grant AV, Thuc NV, et al. Pauci- and Multibacillary Leprosy: Two Distinct, Genetically Neglected Diseases. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2016;10(5):e0004345
  6. Perez RL, Chase J, Tanner R. Shared challenges to the control of complex intracellular neglected pathogens. Front Public Health 2024;12:1423420
  7. Gulati A, Kaushik R, Kaushal V. Cytological diagnosis of lepromatous leprosy: A report of two cases with review of literature. Journal of Cytology / Indian Academy of Cytologists 2012;29(3):203
  8. Devides AC, Rosa PS, Faria Fernandes Belone A de, Coelho NMB, Ura S, Silva EA. Can anti–PGL-1 and anti–NDO-LID-1 antibody titers be used to predict the risk of reactions in leprosy patients? Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 2018;91(3):260–265
  9. Carvalho APM, Fabri A da COC, Oliveira RC, Lana FCF. Factors associated with anti-phenolic glycolipid-I seropositivity among the household contacts of leprosy cases. BMC Infectious Diseases 2015;15:219
  10. Gomes LC, Cortela D da CB, Silva EA, Silva AMC da, Ferreira SMB. Leprosy: prevalence and factors associated with seropositivity for anti-NDO-LID antibodies in children under 15 years of age. Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 2019;94(4):405
  11. Hooij A van, Fat EMTK, Eeden SJF van den, et al. Field-friendly serological tests for determination of M. leprae-specific antibodies. Scientific Reports 2017;7:8868
  12. Madigan CA, Cambier CJ, Kelly-Scumpia KM, et al. A Macrophage Response to Mycobacterium leprae Phenolic Glycolipid Initiates Nerve Damage in Leprosy. Cell 2017;170(5):973-985.e10
  13. Nicchio MVC, Araujo S, Martins LC, et al. Spatial and temporal epidemiology of Mycobacterium leprae infection among leprosy patients and household contacts of an endemic region in Southeast Brazil. Acta Tropica 2016;163:38–45
  14. Corstjens PLAM, Hooij A van, Tjon Kon Fat EM, et al. Fingerstick test quantifying humoral and cellular biomarkers indicative for M. leprae infection. Clinical Biochemistry 2019;66:76–82
  15. Leturiondo AL, Noronha AB, Nascimento MOO do, et al. Performance of serological tests PGL1 and NDO-LID in the diagnosis of leprosy in a reference Center in Brazil. BMC Infectious Diseases 2019;19:22
  16. Hooij A van, Tjon Kon Fat EM, Batista da Silva M, et al. Evaluation of Immunodiagnostic Tests for Leprosy in Brazil, China and Ethiopia. Sci Rep 2018;8(1):17920
  17. Moura RS, Penna GO, Fujiwara T, et al. Evaluation of a rapid serological test for leprosy classification using human serum albumin as the antigen carrier. Journal of Immunological Methods 2014;412:35–41
  18. Rumondor BB, Prakoeswa AC, Trianita MN, et al. Immunoglobulin AMG Anti Natural Disaccharide Octyl - Leprosy IDRI Diagnostic (NDO-LID) Serologic Test for Leprosy Diagnosis: a Pilot Study. Dermatol Reports [homepage on the Internet] 2019 [cited 2024 Nov 14];Available from: https://www.pagepress.org/journals/index.php/dr/article/view/8025
  19. Julianto R, Putri RD. Scoping Review: Effectiveness of NDO-LID as new biomarker for leprosy diagnosis. Intisari Sains Medis 2024;15(1):331–335
  20. Amorim FM, Nobre ML, Ferreira LC, et al. Identifying Leprosy and Those at Risk of Developing Leprosy by Detection of Antibodies against LID-1 and LID-NDO. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2016;10(9):e0004934
  21. Jian L, Xiujian S, Yuangang Y, et al. Evaluation of antibody detection against the NDO-BSA, LID-1 and NDO-LID antigens as confirmatory tests to support the diagnosis of leprosy in Yunnan province, southwest China. Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2020;114(3):193–199
  22. Duthie MS, Balagon MF, Maghanoy A, et al. Rapid Quantitative Serological Test for Detection of Infection with Mycobacterium leprae, the Causative Agent of Leprosy. J Clin Microbiol 2014;52(2):613–619
  23. Duthie MS, Orcullo FM, Abbelana J, Maghanoy A, Balagon MF. Comparative evaluation of antibody detection tests to facilitate the diagnosis of multibacillary leprosy. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2016;100(7):3267–3275
  24. Frade MAC, Paula NA de, Gomes CM, et al. Unexpectedly high leprosy seroprevalence detected using a random surveillance strategy in midwestern Brazil: A comparison of ELISA and a rapid diagnostic test. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2017;11(2):e0005375
  25. Freitas AA, Hungria EM, Costa MB, et al. Application of Mycobacterium Leprae-specific cellular and serological tests for the differential diagnosis of leprosy from confounding dermatoses. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 2016;86(2):163–168
  26. Teles SF, Silva EA, Souza RM de, et al. Association between NDO-LID and PGL-1 for leprosy and class I and II human leukocyte antigen alleles in an indigenous community in Southwest Amazon. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases 2020;24(4):296–303
  27. Chen X, You Y-G, Yuan Y-H, Yuan LC, Zhang Y, Yan W. Evaluation of antigen-specific immune responses for leprosy diagnosis in a hyperendemic area in China. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2018;12(9):e0006777
  28. Duthie MS, Roferos FO, Abellana JF, et al. Utility and limitations of serodiagnostic tests in monitoring the response to treatment of leprosy patients. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 2020;96(4):114984
  29. Barreto da Silveira IG de O, Silva Neto JA da, Silva Ferreira J da, Silva TS, Holanda ISA. Detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA in clinical and environmental samples using serological analysis and PCR. Mol Biol Rep 2021;48(10):6887–6895

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.