METHODS: A total of 50 serum samples were collected from patients clinically suspected for acute leptospirosis on admission in the Hospital Serdang, from June 2016 to June 2017. All the samples were subjected to MAT, lipL32 PCR and the two rapid tests (Leptocheck-WB and ImmuneMed Leptospira IgM Duo Rapid test).
RESULTS: Out of the 50 clinically suspected patients sampled, 19 were confirmed positive for leptospirosis. Six (12%) were confirmed by MAT and 13 (26%) by PCR. Similarly, of the 50 clinically suspected cases, 17 (34%) showed positivity for Leptocheck-WB and 7 (14%) for ImmuneMed Leptospira IgM Duo Rapid test. The overall sensitivity and specificity was 47.37% and 80.65% for Leptocheck-WB, and 21.05% and 90.32% for ImmuneMed Leptospira IgM Duo Rapid test. In another set of previously confirmed MAT positive samples (1:400-1:3600) obtained from a reference laboratory, Leptocheck-WB showed higher sensitivity (90.72%) than ImmuneMed Leptospira IgM Duo Rapid test (40.21%), and comparable specificity for ImmuneMed Leptospira IgM Duo Rapid test (88.89%) and Leptocheck-WB (82.86%).
CONCLUSION: The sensitivity was higher for Leptocheck-WB and had a comparable specificity with ImmuneMed Leptospira IgM Duo Rapid test. Therefore, based on the present study, Leptocheck-WB is found to be a more sensitive rapid immunodiagnostic test for acute leptospirosis screening in hospital settings.
RESULTS: Several reaction conditions of the LAMP reaction were optimized to ensure efficient amplification of the target DNA. The sensitivity of the developed LAMP assay obtained using a pure Leptospira culture was 2 × 104 copies of genomic DNA per reaction (equivalent to 0.1 ng) for a 40-minute reaction time. No cross-reactions were observed in the LAMP reaction against a series of non-leptospiral bacteria, indicating a specific reaction. The applicability of the LAMP assay was demonstrated on human blood and urine specimens collected from suspected leptospirosis patients and rat kidney specimens collected from suspected leptospirosis outbreak areas and high-risk areas. The developed LAMP assay demonstrated a higher detection rate for leptospiral DNA compared with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, possibly due to the presence of inhibitory substances, especially in rat kidney specimens, to which the PCR method is more susceptible. The present findings also highlight the importance of urine sample collection from patients for routine monitoring of the disease.
CONCLUSIONS: In short, the developed LAMP assay can serve as a feasible alternative tool for the diagnosis of leptospirosis and be used for epidemiological and environmental surveillance of the disease, considering its robustness, rapidity, sensitivity, and specificity, as demonstrated in this study.