Cargando…

Safety and Efficacy Assessment of Two New Leprosy Skin Test Antigens: Randomized Double Blind Clinical Study

BACKGROUND: New tools are required for the diagnosis of pre-symptomatic leprosy towards further reduction of disease burden and its associated reactions. To address this need, two new skin test antigens were developed to assess safety and efficacy in human trials. METHODS: A Phase I safety trial was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rivoire, Becky L., Groathouse, Nathan A., TerLouw, Stephen, Neupane, Kapil Dev, Ranjit, Chaman, Sapkota, Bishwa Raj, Khadge, Saraswoti, Kunwar, Chatra B., Macdonald, Murdo, Hawksworth, Rachel, Thapa, Min B., Hagge, Deanna A., Tibbals, Melinda, Smith, Carol, Dube, Tina, She, Dewei, Wolff, Mark, Zhou, Eric, Makhene, Mamodikoe, Mason, Robin, Sizemore, Christine, Brennan, Patrick J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038488/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24874401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002811
_version_ 1782318356834025472
author Rivoire, Becky L.
Groathouse, Nathan A.
TerLouw, Stephen
Neupane, Kapil Dev
Ranjit, Chaman
Sapkota, Bishwa Raj
Khadge, Saraswoti
Kunwar, Chatra B.
Macdonald, Murdo
Hawksworth, Rachel
Thapa, Min B.
Hagge, Deanna A.
Tibbals, Melinda
Smith, Carol
Dube, Tina
She, Dewei
Wolff, Mark
Zhou, Eric
Makhene, Mamodikoe
Mason, Robin
Sizemore, Christine
Brennan, Patrick J.
author_facet Rivoire, Becky L.
Groathouse, Nathan A.
TerLouw, Stephen
Neupane, Kapil Dev
Ranjit, Chaman
Sapkota, Bishwa Raj
Khadge, Saraswoti
Kunwar, Chatra B.
Macdonald, Murdo
Hawksworth, Rachel
Thapa, Min B.
Hagge, Deanna A.
Tibbals, Melinda
Smith, Carol
Dube, Tina
She, Dewei
Wolff, Mark
Zhou, Eric
Makhene, Mamodikoe
Mason, Robin
Sizemore, Christine
Brennan, Patrick J.
author_sort Rivoire, Becky L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: New tools are required for the diagnosis of pre-symptomatic leprosy towards further reduction of disease burden and its associated reactions. To address this need, two new skin test antigens were developed to assess safety and efficacy in human trials. METHODS: A Phase I safety trial was first conducted in a non-endemic region for leprosy (U.S.A.). Healthy non-exposed subjects (n = 10) received three titrated doses (2.5 µg, 1.0 µg and 0.1 µg) of MLSA-LAM (n = 5) or MLCwA (n = 5) and control antigens [Rees MLSA (1.0 µg) and saline]. A randomized double blind Phase II safety and efficacy trial followed in an endemic region for leprosy (Nepal), but involved only the 1.0 µg (high dose) and 0.1 µg (low dose) of each antigen; Tuberculin PPD served as a control antigen. This Phase II safety and efficacy trial consisted of three Stages: Stage A and B studies were an expansion of Phase I involving 10 and 90 subjects respectively, and Stage C was then conducted in two parts (high dose and low dose), each enrolling 80 participants: 20 borderline lepromatous/lepromatous (BL/LL) leprosy patients, 20 borderline tuberculoid/tuberculoid (BT/TT) leprosy patients, 20 household contacts of leprosy patients (HC), and 20 tuberculosis (TB) patients. The primary outcome measure for the skin test was delayed type hypersensitivity induration. FINDINGS: In the small Phase I safety trial, reactions were primarily against the 2.5 µg dose of both antigens and Rees control antigen, which were then excluded from subsequent studies. In the Phase II, Stage A/B ramped-up safety study, 26% of subjects (13 of 50) showed induration against the high dose of each antigen, and 4% (2 of 50) reacted to the low dose of MLSA-LAM. Phase II, Stage C safety and initial efficacy trial showed that both antigens at the low dose exhibited low sensitivity at 20% and 25% in BT/TT leprosy patients, but high specificity at 100% and 95% compared to TB patients. The high dose of both antigens showed lower specificity (70% and 60%) and sensitivity (10% and 15%). BL/LL leprosy patients were anergic to the leprosy antigens. INTERPRETATION: MLSA-LAM and MLCwA at both high (1.0 µg) and low (0.1 µg) doses were found to be safe for use in humans without known exposure to leprosy and in target populations. At a sensitivity rate of 20–25% these antigens are not suitable as a skin test for the detection of the early stages of leprosy infection; however, the degree of specificity is impressive given the presence of cross-reactive antigens in these complex native M. leprae preparations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrails.gov NCT01920750 (Phase I), NCT00128193 (Phase II)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4038488
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40384882014-06-05 Safety and Efficacy Assessment of Two New Leprosy Skin Test Antigens: Randomized Double Blind Clinical Study Rivoire, Becky L. Groathouse, Nathan A. TerLouw, Stephen Neupane, Kapil Dev Ranjit, Chaman Sapkota, Bishwa Raj Khadge, Saraswoti Kunwar, Chatra B. Macdonald, Murdo Hawksworth, Rachel Thapa, Min B. Hagge, Deanna A. Tibbals, Melinda Smith, Carol Dube, Tina She, Dewei Wolff, Mark Zhou, Eric Makhene, Mamodikoe Mason, Robin Sizemore, Christine Brennan, Patrick J. PLoS Negl Trop Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: New tools are required for the diagnosis of pre-symptomatic leprosy towards further reduction of disease burden and its associated reactions. To address this need, two new skin test antigens were developed to assess safety and efficacy in human trials. METHODS: A Phase I safety trial was first conducted in a non-endemic region for leprosy (U.S.A.). Healthy non-exposed subjects (n = 10) received three titrated doses (2.5 µg, 1.0 µg and 0.1 µg) of MLSA-LAM (n = 5) or MLCwA (n = 5) and control antigens [Rees MLSA (1.0 µg) and saline]. A randomized double blind Phase II safety and efficacy trial followed in an endemic region for leprosy (Nepal), but involved only the 1.0 µg (high dose) and 0.1 µg (low dose) of each antigen; Tuberculin PPD served as a control antigen. This Phase II safety and efficacy trial consisted of three Stages: Stage A and B studies were an expansion of Phase I involving 10 and 90 subjects respectively, and Stage C was then conducted in two parts (high dose and low dose), each enrolling 80 participants: 20 borderline lepromatous/lepromatous (BL/LL) leprosy patients, 20 borderline tuberculoid/tuberculoid (BT/TT) leprosy patients, 20 household contacts of leprosy patients (HC), and 20 tuberculosis (TB) patients. The primary outcome measure for the skin test was delayed type hypersensitivity induration. FINDINGS: In the small Phase I safety trial, reactions were primarily against the 2.5 µg dose of both antigens and Rees control antigen, which were then excluded from subsequent studies. In the Phase II, Stage A/B ramped-up safety study, 26% of subjects (13 of 50) showed induration against the high dose of each antigen, and 4% (2 of 50) reacted to the low dose of MLSA-LAM. Phase II, Stage C safety and initial efficacy trial showed that both antigens at the low dose exhibited low sensitivity at 20% and 25% in BT/TT leprosy patients, but high specificity at 100% and 95% compared to TB patients. The high dose of both antigens showed lower specificity (70% and 60%) and sensitivity (10% and 15%). BL/LL leprosy patients were anergic to the leprosy antigens. INTERPRETATION: MLSA-LAM and MLCwA at both high (1.0 µg) and low (0.1 µg) doses were found to be safe for use in humans without known exposure to leprosy and in target populations. At a sensitivity rate of 20–25% these antigens are not suitable as a skin test for the detection of the early stages of leprosy infection; however, the degree of specificity is impressive given the presence of cross-reactive antigens in these complex native M. leprae preparations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrails.gov NCT01920750 (Phase I), NCT00128193 (Phase II) Public Library of Science 2014-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4038488/ /pubmed/24874401 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002811 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration, which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rivoire, Becky L.
Groathouse, Nathan A.
TerLouw, Stephen
Neupane, Kapil Dev
Ranjit, Chaman
Sapkota, Bishwa Raj
Khadge, Saraswoti
Kunwar, Chatra B.
Macdonald, Murdo
Hawksworth, Rachel
Thapa, Min B.
Hagge, Deanna A.
Tibbals, Melinda
Smith, Carol
Dube, Tina
She, Dewei
Wolff, Mark
Zhou, Eric
Makhene, Mamodikoe
Mason, Robin
Sizemore, Christine
Brennan, Patrick J.
Safety and Efficacy Assessment of Two New Leprosy Skin Test Antigens: Randomized Double Blind Clinical Study
title Safety and Efficacy Assessment of Two New Leprosy Skin Test Antigens: Randomized Double Blind Clinical Study
title_full Safety and Efficacy Assessment of Two New Leprosy Skin Test Antigens: Randomized Double Blind Clinical Study
title_fullStr Safety and Efficacy Assessment of Two New Leprosy Skin Test Antigens: Randomized Double Blind Clinical Study
title_full_unstemmed Safety and Efficacy Assessment of Two New Leprosy Skin Test Antigens: Randomized Double Blind Clinical Study
title_short Safety and Efficacy Assessment of Two New Leprosy Skin Test Antigens: Randomized Double Blind Clinical Study
title_sort safety and efficacy assessment of two new leprosy skin test antigens: randomized double blind clinical study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038488/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24874401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002811
work_keys_str_mv AT rivoirebeckyl safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT groathousenathana safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT terlouwstephen safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT neupanekapildev safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT ranjitchaman safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT sapkotabishwaraj safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT khadgesaraswoti safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT kunwarchatrab safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT macdonaldmurdo safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT hawksworthrachel safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT thapaminb safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT haggedeannaa safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT tibbalsmelinda safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT smithcarol safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT dubetina safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT shedewei safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT wolffmark safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT zhoueric safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT makhenemamodikoe safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT masonrobin safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT sizemorechristine safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy
AT brennanpatrickj safetyandefficacyassessmentoftwonewleprosyskintestantigensrandomizeddoubleblindclinicalstudy