METHODS: A total of 3317 respondents age 2 years old to 60 years old were recruited in this study from August to November 2017. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to measure the level of IgG antibody against the toxoid of C. diphtheriae in the blood samples of respondents. We classified respondent antibody levels based on WHO definition, as protective (≥0.1 IU/mL) and susceptible (
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.
METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted in two main wet markets in Kelantan and 232 wet market workers were randomly selected. Blood samples were analysed for microscopic agglutination test (MAT) against 20 live leptospirosis reference serovars. MAT titres of 1:100 or more were considered as seropositive.
RESULTS: It was found that the overall seroprevalence for leptospirosis among the respondents was 33.6% (95% CI = 27.5, 39.7). The samples were tested positive against serovars Melaka (IMR LEP 1), Terengganu (IMR LEP 115), Sarawak (IMR LEP 175), Copenhageni (IMR LEP 803/11), Hardjobovis (IMR LEP 27), Australis, Autumnalis, Bataviae, Canicola, Grippotyphosa, Hardjoprajitno, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Javanica, Pyrogenes, Terrasovi, Djasiman, Patoc and Pomona. The predominant serovars was Autumnalis (18.2%).
CONCLUSION: Wet markets workers were at risk for leptospirosis infection evidenced by high seroprevalence of leptospirosis in this study. Further research need to be conducted to determine factors that favours infection in this groups.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 231 market workers and food handlers in wet markets and food premises from two localities in central Malaysia. Respondents' background information was obtained using a questionnaire. Serum samples were tested for leptospiral antibodies using ELISA and microscopic agglutination test (MAT).
RESULTS: Seroprevalence of leptospirosis among healthy workers was 46.3%. Detection of seropositivity was higher by MAT (46%) than ELISA (15%). We observed high seropositivity among local workers (49%), food handlers (49.5%), females (60.8%) and those aged 34 years and older (46.3%). Local strain LEP175 was the predominant serovar, followed by WHO strain Patoc.
CONCLUSION: Overall seroprevalence among healthy food handlers and market workers was high in this study. The workplace places susceptible individuals at risk of leptospirosis.