2012
DOI: 10.1590/s0074-02762012000900010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Leprosy transmission still occurs despite the availability of highly effective treatment. The next step towards successfully eliminating leprosy is interrupting the chain of transmission of the aetiological agent, Mycobacterium leprae. In this investigation, we provide evidence that household contacts (HHCs) of leprosy patients might not only have subclinical infections, but may also be actively involved in bacilli transmission. We studied 444 patients and 1,352 contacts using anti-phenolic glycolipid-I (PGL-I… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

5
55
2
11

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
(23 reference statements)
5
55
2
11
Order By: Relevance
“…The bacterial DNA detection rate by PCR of nasal swabs (4.6%) among contacts agrees with those reported for other hyperendemic regions, which were 5.9% (Beyene et al, 2003) and 4.0% (Job et al, 2008), and endemic areas, which was 4.7% (Araújo et al, 2012). The PCR detection rate using oral swabs obtained in the present study was similar to previously reported values.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The bacterial DNA detection rate by PCR of nasal swabs (4.6%) among contacts agrees with those reported for other hyperendemic regions, which were 5.9% (Beyene et al, 2003) and 4.0% (Job et al, 2008), and endemic areas, which was 4.7% (Araújo et al, 2012). The PCR detection rate using oral swabs obtained in the present study was similar to previously reported values.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…This rate was similar to that reported by Araújo et al (2012), in which 13.3% were seropositive subjects in an endemic region, but lower than the value observed by Barreto et al (2011) in a hyperendemic area (35%). Nevertheless, leprosy contacts have a higher risk of developing the disease, regardless the proportion of seropositive contacts in endemic and non-endemic areas (Da Silva et al, 2008;Frota et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…As anti-PGL-I is a marker for those at a higher risk of developing leprosy, screening could be used for early diagnosis in household contacts (12) (21) (30) (31) , and for detection of individuals with subclinical, asymptomatic M. leprae infection (18) (21) (32) ( Table 2). Indeed, household contacts who test positive for anti-PGL-I are at increased risk of developing either form of leprosy (33) (34) , especially in households with an index case of multibacillary leprosy (21) . In particular, the estimated risk of developing multibacillary leprosy is 34.4 times higher when antibodies against PGL-I are detected (33) .…”
Section: Surveillance Of Household Contacts and At-risk Populationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…People at risk of developing leprosy should be carefully monitored (34) (37) ( Table 2) or, to prevent new cases, subjected to intervention strategies such as post-exposure prophylaxis (21) (37) . Indeed, household contacts with subclinical M. leprae infection could actively transmit M. leprae to susceptible individuals (21) , and are thus a concern.…”
Section: Surveillance Of Household Contacts and At-risk Populationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation