Background This study evaluates an active search strategy for leprosy diagnosis based on responses to a Leprosy Suspicion Questionnaire (LSQ), and analyzing the clinical, immunoepidemiological and follow-up aspects for individuals living in a prison population. Methods A cross-sectional study based on a questionnaire posing 14 questions about leprosy symptoms and signs that was distributed to 1,400 prisoners. This was followed by dermatoneurological examination, anti-PGL-I serology and RLEP-PCR. Those without leprosy were placed in the Non-leprosy Group (NLG, n = 1,216) and those diagnosed with clinical symptoms of leprosy were placed in the Leprosy Group (LG, n = 34). Findings In total, 896 LSQ were returned (64%), and 187 (20.9%) of the responses were deemed as positive for signs/symptoms, answering 2.7 questions on average. Clinically, 1,250 (89.3%) of the prisoners were evaluated resulting in the diagnosis of 34 new cases (LG), based on well-accepted clinical signs and symptoms, a new case detection rate of 2.7% within this population, while the NLG were comprised of 1,216 individuals. The confinement time medians were 39 months in the LG while it was 36 months in the NLG (p>0.05). The 31 leprosy cases who responded to the questionnaire (LSQ+) had an average of 1.5 responses. The symptoms “anesthetized skin area” and “pain in nerves” were most commonly mentioned in the LG while “tingling, numbness in the hands/feet”, “sensation of pricks and needles”, “pain in nerves” and “spots on the skin” responses were found in more than 30% of questionnaires in the NLG. Clinically, 88.2% had dysesthetic macular skin lesions and 97.1% presented some peripheral nerve impairment, 71.9% with some degree of disability. All cases were multibacillary, confirming a late diagnosis. Anti-PGL-I results in the LG were higher than in the NLG (p<0.0001), while the RLEP-PCR was positive in 11.8% of the patients. Interpretation Our findings within the penitentiary demonstrated a hidden prevalence of leprosy, although the individuals diagnosed were likely infected while living in their former communities and not as a result of exposure in the prison. The LSQ proved to be an important screening tool to help identify leprosy cases in prisons.
Background This study evaluates implementation strategies for leprosy diagnosis based on responses to a Leprosy Suspicion Questionnaire (LSQ), and analyzes immunoepidemiological aspects and follow-up of individuals living in a presumptively nonendemic area in Brazil. Methodology/Principal findings Quasi-experimental study based on LSQ throughout Jardinópolis town by community health agents, theoretical-practical trainings for primary care teams, dermatoneurological examination, anti-PGL-I serology, RLEP-PCR, and spatial epidemiology. A Leprosy Group (LG, n = 64) and Non-Leprosy Group (NLG, n = 415) were established. Overall, 3,241 LSQs were distributed; 1,054 (32.5%) LSQ were positive for signs/symptoms (LSQ+). Among LSQ+ respondents, Q2-Tingling (pricking)? (11.8%); Q4-Spots on the skin? (11.7%); Q7-Pain in the nerves? (11.6%); Q1-Numbness in your hands and/or feet? (10.7%) and Q8-Swelling of hands and feet? (8.5%) were most frequently reported symptoms. We evaluated 479 (14.8%) individuals and diagnosed 64 new cases, a general new case detection rate (NCDR) of 13.4%; 60 were among 300 LSQ+ (NCDR-20%), while 4 were among 179 LSQ negative (NCDR-2.23%). In LG, Q7(65%), Q2(60%), Q1(45%), Q4(40%) and Q8(25%) were most frequent. All 2x2 crossings of these 5 questions showed a relative risk for leprosy ranging from 3 to 5.8 compared with NLG. All patients were multibacillary and presented hypochromatic macules with loss of sensation. LG anti-PGL-I titers were higher than NLG, while 8.9% were positive for RLEP-PCR. The leprosy cases and anti-PGL-I spatial mappings demonstrated the disease spread across the town. Conclusions/Significance Implementation actions, primarily LSQ administration focused on neurological symptoms, indicate hidden endemic leprosy in a nonendemic Brazilian state.
The number of new cases of leprosy reported worldwide has remained essentially unchanged for the last decade despite continued global use of free multidrug therapy (MDT) provided to any diagnosed leprosy patient. In order to more effectively interrupt the chain of transmission, new strategies will be required to detect those with latent disease who contribute to furthering transmission. To improve the ability to diagnose leprosy earlier in asymptomatic infected individuals, we examined the combined use of two well-known biomarkers of M. leprae infection, namely the presence of M. leprae DNA by PCR from earlobe slit skin smears (SSS) and positive antibody titers to the M. leprae-specific antigen, Phenolic Glycolipid I (anti-PGL-I) from leprosy patients and household contacts living in seven hyperendemic cities in the northern state of Pará, Brazilian Amazon. Combining both tests increased sensitivity, specificity and accuracy over either test alone. A total of 466 individuals were evaluated, including 87 newly diagnosed leprosy patients, 52 post-treated patients, 296 household contacts and 31 healthy endemic controls. The highest frequency of double positives (PGL-I+/RLEP+) were detected in the new case group (40/87, 46%) with lower numbers for treated (12/52, 23.1%), household contacts (46/296, 15.5%) and healthy endemic controls (0/31, 0%). The frequencies in these groups were reversed for double negatives (PGL-I-/RLEP-) for new cases (6/87, 6.9%), treated leprosy cases (15/52, 28.8%) and the highest in household contacts (108/296, 36.5%) and healthy endemic controls (24/31, 77.4%). The data strongly suggest that household contacts that are double positive have latent disease, are likely contributing to shedding and transmission of disease to their close contacts and are at the highest risk of progressing to clinical disease. Proposed strategies to reduce leprosy transmission in highly endemic areas may include chemoprophylactic treatment of this group of individuals to stop the spread of bacilli to eventually lower new case detection rates in these areas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.