The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme: update and interim analysis.

Innovative approaches are required to further enhance leprosy control, reduce the number of people developing leprosy, and curb transmission. Early case detection, contact screening, and chemoprophylaxis currently is the most promising approach to achieve this goal. The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme generates evidence on the feasibility of integrating contact tracing and single-dose rifampicin (SDR) administration into routine leprosy control activities in different settings. The LPEP programme is implemented within the leprosy control programmes of Brazil, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. Focus is on three key interventions: tracing the contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients; screening the contacts for leprosy; and administering SDR to eligible contacts. Country-specific protocol adaptations refer to contact definition, minimal age for SDR, and staff involved. Central coordination, detailed documentation and rigorous supervision ensure quality evidence. Around 2 years of field work had been completed in seven countries by July 2017. The 5,941 enrolled index patients (89·4% of the registered) identified a total of 123,311 contacts, of which 99·1% were traced and screened. Among them, 406 new leprosy patients were identified (329/100,000), and 10,883 (8·9%) were excluded from SDR for various reasons. Also, 785 contacts (0·7%) refused the prophylactic treatment with SDR. Overall, SDR was administered to 89·0% of the listed contacts. Post-exposure prophylaxis with SDR is safe; can be integrated into the routines of different leprosy control programmes; and is generally well accepted by index patients, their contacts and the health workforce. The programme has also invigorated local leprosy control.

Spatio-temporal analysis of leprosy risks in a municipality in the state of Mato Grosso-Brazilian Amazon: results from the leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis program in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) with single dose rifampicin (SDR) can be integrated into different leprosy control program set-ups once contact tracing has been established. We analyzed the spatio-temporal changes in the distribution of index cases (IC) and co-prevalent cases among contacts of leprosy patients (CP) over the course of the LPEP program in one of the four study areas in Brazil, namely the municipality of Alta Floresta, state of Mato Grosso, in the Brazilian Amazon basin. METHODS: Leprosy cases were mapped, and socioeconomic indicators were evaluated to explain the leprosy distribution of all leprosy cases diagnosed in the period 2016-2018. Data were obtained on new leprosy cases [Notifiable diseases information system (Sinan)], contacts traced by the LPEP program, and socioeconomic variables [Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE)]. Kernel, SCAN, factor analysis and spatial regression were applied to analyze changes. RESULTS: Overall, the new case detection rate (NCDR) was 20/10 000 inhabitants or 304 new cases, of which 55 were CP cases among the 2076 examined contacts. Changes over time were observed in the geographic distribution of cases. The highest concentration of cases was observed in the northeast of the study area, including one significant cluster (Relative risk = 2.24; population 27 427, P-value < 0.001) in an area characterized by different indicators associated with poverty as identified through spatial regression (Coefficient 3.34, P-value = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The disease distribution was partly explained by poverty indicators. LPEP influences the spatial dynamic of the disease and results highlighted the relevance of systematic contact surveillance for leprosy elimination.

Reimagining leprosy elimination with AI analysis of a combination of skin lesion images with demographic and clinical data.

Background: Leprosy is an infectious disease that mostly affects underserved populations. Although it has been largely eliminated, still about 200'000 new patients are diagnosed annually. In the absence of a diagnostic test, clinical diagnosis is often delayed, potentially leading to irreversible neurological damage and its resulting stigma, as well as continued transmission. Accelerating diagnosis could significantly contribute to advancing global leprosy elimination. Digital and Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven technology has shown potential to augment health workers abilities in making faster and more accurate diagnosis, especially when using images such as in the fields of dermatology or ophthalmology. That made us start the quest for an AI-driven diagnosis assistant for leprosy, based on skin images. Methods: Here we describe the accuracy of an AI-enabled image-based diagnosis assistant for leprosy, called AI4Leprosy, based on a combination of skin images and clinical data, collected following a standardized process. In a Brazilian leprosy national referral center, 222 patients with leprosy or other dermatological conditions were included, and the 1229 collected skin images and 585 sets of metadata are stored in an open-source dataset for other researchers to exploit. Findings: We used this dataset to test whether a CNN-based AI algorithm could contribute to leprosy diagnosis and employed three AI models, testing images and metadata both independently and in combination. AI modeling indicated that the most important clinical signs are thermal sensitivity loss, nodules and papules, feet paresthesia, number of lesions and gender, but also scaling surface and pruritus that were negatively associated with leprosy. Using elastic-net logistic regression provided a high classification accuracy (90%) and an area under curve (AUC) of 96.46% for leprosy diagnosis. Interpretation: Future validation of these models is underway, gathering larger datasets from populations of different skin types and collecting images with smartphone cameras to mimic real world settings. We hope that the results of our research will lead to clinical solutions that help accelerate global leprosy elimination. Funding: This study was partially funded by Novartis Foundation and Microsoft (in-kind contribution).

Preventing leprosy with retrospective active case finding combined with single-dose rifampicin for contacts in a low endemic setting: results of the Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis program in Cambodia.

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with single-dose rifampicin (SDR) reduces the risk of developing leprosy among contacts of leprosy patients. Most evidence for the feasibility of the intervention is from highly endemic settings while low-endemic areas present unique challenges including reduced awareness of the disease among the population and in the health system, and the only sporadic occurrence of cases which together make defining any type of routine process challenging. We complemented the retrospective active case finding (RACF) approach with SDR administration to eligible contacts, and piloted the intervention across 31 operational districts in Cambodia. The aim was to demonstrate the feasibility of improving early case detection and administering SDR in a low endemic setting. The intervention focused on leprosy patients diagnosed since 2011 and was implemented between October 2016 - September 2019. The "drives" approach was employed to trace contacts: a trained team systematically contacted all eligible cases in a district, traced and screened contacts, and administered SDR. A total of 555 index patients were traced by the drive team, and 10,410 contacts in their household and 5 immediate neighbor houses listed. Among these contacts, 72.0% could be screened while most others were absent on the screening day. A total of 33 new leprosy cases were diagnosed and 6189 contacts received SDR (82.6% of the screened contacts). Sixty-one contacts refused SDR administration. We conclude that integrating PEP with SDR in RACF campaigns is feasible, and that this approach is appropriate in low resource and low endemic settings. Over time, evidence on whether or not the approach reduced leprosy transmission in Cambodia, may become clear.

The long-term impact of the Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) program on leprosy incidence: A modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) program explored the feasibility and impact of contact tracing and the provision of single dose rifampicin (SDR) to eligible contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients in Brazil, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. As the impact of the programme is difficult to establish in the short term, we apply mathematical modelling to predict its long-term impact on the leprosy incidence. METHODOLOGY: The individual-based model SIMCOLEP was calibrated and validated to the historic leprosy incidence data in the study areas. For each area, we assessed two scenarios: 1) continuation of existing routine activities as in 2014; and 2) routine activities combined with LPEP starting in 2015. The number of contacts per index patient screened varied from 1 to 36 between areas. Projections were made until 2040. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In all areas, the LPEP program increased the number of detected cases in the first year(s) of the programme as compared to the routine programme, followed by a faster reduction afterwards with increasing benefit over time. LPEP could accelerate the reduction of the leprosy incidence by up to six years as compared to the routine programme. The impact of LPEP varied by area due to differences in the number of contacts per index patient included and differences in leprosy epidemiology and routine control programme. CONCLUSIONS: The LPEP program contributes significantly to the reduction of the leprosy incidence and could potentially accelerate the interruption of transmission. It would be advisable to include contact tracing/screening and SDR in routine leprosy programmes.

Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (LPEP): an international feasibility programme.

BACKGROUND: Innovative approaches are required for leprosy control to reduce cases and curb transmission of Mycobacterium leprae. Early case detection, contact screening, and chemoprophylaxis are the most promising tools. We aimed to generate evidence on the feasibility of integrating contact tracing and administration of single-dose rifampicin (SDR) into routine leprosy control activities. METHODS: The leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) programme was an international, multicentre feasibility study implemented within the leprosy control programmes of Brazil, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania. LPEP explored the feasibility of combining three key interventions: systematically tracing contacts of individuals newly diagnosed with leprosy; screening the traced contacts for leprosy; and administering SDR to eligible contacts. Outcomes were assessed in terms of number of contacts traced, screened, and SDR administration rates. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2015, and Aug 1, 2019, LPEP enrolled 9170 index patients and listed 179 769 contacts, of whom 174 782 (97·2%) were successfully traced and screened. Of those screened, 22 854 (13·1%) were excluded from SDR mainly because of health reasons and age. Among those excluded, 810 were confirmed as new patients (46 per 10 000 contacts screened). Among the eligible screened contacts, 1182 (0·7%) refused prophylactic treatment with SDR. Overall, SDR was administered to 151 928 (86·9%) screened contacts. No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Post-exposure prophylaxis with SDR is safe; can be integrated into different leprosy control programmes with minimal additional efforts once contact tracing has been established; and is generally well accepted by index patients, their contacts, and health-care workers. The programme has also invigorated local leprosy control through the availability of a prophylactic intervention; therefore, we recommend rolling out SDR in all settings where contact tracing and screening have been established. FUNDING: Novartis Foundation.

[Acceptability of chemoprophylaxis in an endemic area for leprosy: the PEP-Hans Brazil Project]. / Aceitabilidade da quimioprofilaxia em área endêmica para a hanseníase: projeto PEP-Hans Brasil.

The aim was to analyze the acceptability of chemoprophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (PEP) in contacts, index leprosy cases, and health professionals and related factors that can influence adherence. A qualitative content analysis study was performed after application of semi-structured interviews according to the protocol proposed in the LPEP program (2016) drafted at Alta Floresta, Mato Grosso State, Brazil, in July 2016. Study participants included individuals with leprosy, contacts, and health professionals. The QRS NVivo software version 10 was used. A total of 80 individuals were contacted, including 54 (67%) contacts, 11 (14%) index cases, and 15 (19%) health professionals. 94% of the contacts (51/54) took PEP. Three PEP categories were identified: understanding, acceptance, and expectation towards the intervention. Understanding proved to be related to care by the health team. Acceptance (or lack thereof) of the medication was related to fear, trust, and protection, the strategy's operability, self-esteem, and insecurity regarding the intervention. Expectation towards the intervention was related to wellbeing, prevention of the disease, sequelae, decrease in public expenditures, and expanded access. Participants acknowledged the relevance of the PEP strategy based on the possibility of interrupting the transmission chain, reduction in new cases, and improved quality of life. Insecurity in taking the medication and the possibility of the disease manifesting itself had a negative influence on acceptance of PEP, while prior information on the PEP strategy helped strengthen trust in the health professionals and the medication's acceptance.

O objetivo deste artigo foi analisar a aceitabilidade da quimioprofilaxia com rifampicina em dose única (PEP) entre os contatos, casos índices de hanseníase e profissionais da saúde e fatores relacionados que possam influenciar na adesão. Realizou-se um estudo qualitativo de análise de conteúdo após aplicação de entrevistas semiestruturadas segundo protocolo proposto no programa LPEP (2016), realizado em Alta Floresta, Mato Grosso, Brasil, em julho de 2016. Participaram do estudo indivíduos notificados com hanseníase, contatos e profissionais da saúde. Utilizou-se o software QRS NVivo versão 10. Foram contatados 80 indivíduos, sendo 54 (67%) contatos, 11 (14%) casos índices e 15 (19%) profissionais de saúde. Dentre os contatos, 94% (51/54) tomaram PEP. Foram identificadas 3 categorias quanto à PEP: compreensão, aceitação e expectativa da intervenção. A compreensão se mostrou relacionada ao cuidado da equipe de saúde. Aceitar ou não a medicação revelou-se relacionada ao medo, confiança e proteção, operacionalidade da estratégia, autoestima e insegurança quanto à intervenção. A expectativa da intervenção relacionou-se ao bem-estar, prevenção da doença e de sequelas, diminuição de gastos públicos e ampliação do acesso. Houve reconhecimento da relevância da estratégia PEP pela possibilidade de interrupção da cadeia de transmissão, diminuição de casos novos e melhora na qualidade de vida. A insegurança em tomar a medicação e de a doença se manifestar influenciaram negativamente à aceitação da PEP; por outro lado, as informações prévias sobre a estratégia PEP contribuíram para o fortalecimento da confiança nos profissionais de saúde e para a aceitabilidade da medicação.

El objetivo fue analizar la aceptabilidad de la quimioprofilaxis con rifampicina en dosis única (PEP) entre los contactos, casos índices de hanseniasis y profesionales de salud, así como los factores relacionados que puedan influenciar en la adhesión al tratamiento. Se realizó un estudio cualitativo de análisis de contenido, tras la realización de entrevistas semiestructuradas, según el protocolo propuesto en el programa LPEP (2016), realizado en Alta Floresta, Mato Grosso, Brasil, en julio de 2016. Participaron en el estudio individuos diagnosticados con hanseniasis, contactos y profesionales de la salud. Se utilizó el software QRS NVivo versión 10. Se contactó con 80 individuos, siendo 54 (67%) contactos, 11 (14%) casos índices y 15 (19%) profesionales de salud. Entre los contactos 94% (51/54) tomaron PEP. Se identificaron 3 categorías respecto a la PEP: comprensión, aceptación y expectativa de intervención. La comprensión estuvo relacionada con el cuidado del equipo de salud. El aceptar o no la medicación estuvo relacionado con el miedo, confianza y protección, operatividad de la estrategia, autoestima e inseguridad de la intervención. La expectativa de la intervención estuvo relacionada con el bienestar, prevención de la enfermedad, así como secuelas, disminución de gasto público y ampliación del acceso. Existió un reconocimiento de la relevancia de la estrategia PEP por la posibilidad de interrupción de la cadena de transmisión, disminución de casos nuevos y mejora en la calidad de vida. La inseguridad en tomar la medicación y de que la enfermedad se manifestara influenciaron negativamente en la aceptación de la PEP, por otro lado, la información previa sobre la estrategia PEP contribuyó al fortalecimiento de la confianza en los profesionales de salud y a la aceptabilidad de la medicación.

Retrospective active case finding in Cambodia: An innovative approach to leprosy control in a low-endemic country.

Currently, leprosy control relies on the clinical diagnosis of leprosy and the subsequent administration of multidrug therapy (MDT). However, many health workers are not familiar with the cardinal signs of leprosy, particularly in low-endemic settings including Cambodia. In response, a new approach to early diagnosis was developed in the country, namely retrospective active case finding (RACF) through small mobile teams. In the frame of RACF, previously diagnosed leprosy patients are traced and their contacts screened through "drives". According to the available records, 984 of the 1,463 (67.3%) index patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2010 and registered in the national leprosy database were successfully traced in the period 2012-2015. Migration (8.4%), death (6.7%), operational issues (1.6%) and unidentified other issues (16.0%) were the main reasons for non-traceability. A total of 17,134 contacts of traced index patients (average: 2.2 household members and 15.2 neighbors) and another 7,469 contacts of the untraced index patients could be screened. Among them, 264 new leprosy patients were diagnosed. In the same period, 1,097 patients were diagnosed through the routine passive case detection system. No change was observed in the relation between the rate at which new patients were identified and the number of years since the diagnosis of the index patient. Similar to leprosy patients diagnosed through passive case detection, the leprosy patients detected through RACF were predominantly adult males. However, the fraction of PB leprosy patients was higher among the patients diagnosed through RACF, suggesting relatively earlier diagnosis. It appears that RACF is a feasible option and effective in detecting new leprosy patients among contacts of previously registered patients. However, a well-maintained national leprosy database is essential for successful contact tracing. Hence, passive case detection in the frame of routine leprosy surveillance is a precondition for efficient RACF as the two systems are mutually enhancing. Together, the two approaches may offer an interesting option for countries with low numbers of leprosy patients but evidence of ongoing transmission. The impact on leprosy transmission could be further increased by the administration of single dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis to eligible contacts.

Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme: study protocol for evaluating the feasibility and impact on case detection rates of contact tracing and single dose rifampicin.

INTRODUCTION: The reported number of new leprosy patients has barely changed in recent years. Thus, additional approaches or modifications to the current standard of passive case detection are needed to interrupt leprosy transmission. Large-scale clinical trials with single dose rifampicin (SDR) given as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to contacts of newly diagnosed patients with leprosy have shown a 50-60% reduction of the risk of developing leprosy over the following 2 years. To accelerate the uptake of this evidence and introduction of PEP into national leprosy programmes, data on the effectiveness, impact and feasibility of contact tracing and PEP for leprosy are required. The leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) programme was designed to obtain those data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The LPEP programme evaluates feasibility, effectiveness and impact of PEP with SDR in pilot areas situated in several leprosy endemic countries: India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. Complementary sites are located in Brazil and Cambodia. From 2015 to 2018, contact persons of patients with leprosy are traced, screened for symptoms and assessed for eligibility to receive SDR. The intervention is implemented by the national leprosy programmes, tailored to local conditions and capacities, and relying on available human and material resources. It is coordinated on the ground with the help of the in-country partners of the International Federation of Anti-Leprosy Associations (ILEP). A robust data collection and reporting system is established in the pilot areas with regular monitoring and quality control, contributing to the strengthening of the national surveillance systems to become more action-oriented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the relevant ethics committees in the countries. Results and lessons learnt from the LPEP programme will be published in peer-reviewed journals and should provide important evidence and guidance for national and global policymakers to strengthen current leprosy elimination strategies.

Negligible risk of inducing resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis with single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy.

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for leprosy is administered as one single dose of rifampicin (SDR) to the contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients. SDR reduces the risk of developing leprosy among contacts by around 60 % in the first 2-3 years after receiving SDR. In countries where SDR is currently being implemented under routine programme conditions in defined areas, questions were raised by health authorities and professional bodies about the possible risk of inducing rifampicin resistance among the M. tuberculosis strains circulating in these areas. This issue has not been addressed in scientific literature to date. To produce an authoritative consensus statement about the risk that SDR would induce rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, a meeting was convened with tuberculosis (TB) and leprosy experts. The experts carefully reviewed and discussed the available evidence regarding the mechanisms and risk factors for the development of (multi) drug-resistance in M. tuberculosis with a view to the special situation of the use of SDR as PEP for leprosy. They concluded that SDR given to contacts of leprosy patients, in the absence of symptoms of active TB, poses a negligible risk of generating resistance in M. tuberculosis in individuals and at the population level. Thus, the benefits of SDR prophylaxis in reducing the risk of developing leprosy in contacts of new leprosy patients far outweigh the risks of generating drug resistance in M. tuberculosis.

Aceitabilidade da quimioprofilaxia em área endêmica para a hanseníase: projeto PEP-Hans Brasil / Acceptability of chemoprophylaxis in an endemic area for leprosy: the PEP-Hans Brazil Project / Aceptabilidad de la quimioprofilaxis en un área endémica de hanseniasis: Proyecto PEP-Hans Brasil

Resumo: O objetivo deste artigo foi analisar a aceitabilidade da quimioprofilaxia com rifampicina em dose única (PEP) entre os contatos, casos índices de hanseníase e profissionais da saúde e fatores relacionados que possam influenciar na adesão. Realizou-se um estudo qualitativo de análise de conteúdo após aplicação de entrevistas semiestruturadas segundo protocolo proposto no programa LPEP (2016), realizado em Alta Floresta, Mato Grosso, Brasil, em julho de 2016. Participaram do estudo indivíduos notificados com hanseníase, contatos e profissionais da saúde. Utilizou-se o software QRS NVivo versão 10. Foram contatados 80 indivíduos, sendo 54 (67%) contatos, 11 (14%) casos índices e 15 (19%) profissionais de saúde. Dentre os contatos, 94% (51/54) tomaram PEP. Foram identificadas 3 categorias quanto à PEP: compreensão, aceitação e expectativa da intervenção. A compreensão se mostrou relacionada ao cuidado da equipe de saúde. Aceitar ou não a medicação revelou-se relacionada ao medo, confiança e proteção, operacionalidade da estratégia, autoestima e insegurança quanto à intervenção. A expectativa da intervenção relacionou-se ao bem-estar, prevenção da doença e de sequelas, diminuição de gastos públicos e ampliação do acesso. Houve reconhecimento da relevância da estratégia PEP pela possibilidade de interrupção da cadeia de transmissão, diminuição de casos novos e melhora na qualidade de vida. A insegurança em tomar a medicação e de a doença se manifestar influenciaram negativamente à aceitação da PEP; por outro lado, as informações prévias sobre a estratégia PEP contribuíram para o fortalecimento da confiança nos profissionais de saúde e para a aceitabilidade da medicação(AU).

Abstract: The aim was to analyze the acceptability of chemoprophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (PEP) in contacts, index leprosy cases, and health professionals and related factors that can influence adherence. A qualitative content analysis study was performed after application of semi-structured interviews according to the protocol proposed in the LPEP program (2016) drafted at Alta Floresta, Mato Grosso State, Brazil, in July 2016. Study participants included individuals with leprosy, contacts, and health professionals. The QRS NVivo software version 10 was used. A total of 80 individuals were contacted, including 54 (67%) contacts, 11 (14%) index cases, and 15 (19%) health professionals. 94% of the contacts (51/54) took PEP. Three PEP categories were identified: understanding, acceptance, and expectation towards the intervention. Understanding proved to be related to care by the health team. Acceptance (or lack thereof) of the medication was related to fear, trust, and protection, the strategy's operability, self-esteem, and insecurity regarding the intervention. Expectation towards the intervention was related to wellbeing, prevention of the disease, sequelae, decrease in public expenditures, and expanded access. Participants acknowledged the relevance of the PEP strategy based on the possibility of interrupting the transmission chain, reduction in new cases, and improved quality of life. Insecurity in taking the medication and the possibility of the disease manifesting itself had a negative influence on acceptance of PEP, while prior information on the PEP strategy helped strengthen trust in the health professionals and the medication's acceptance(AU).

Resumen: El objetivo fue analizar la aceptabilidad de la quimioprofilaxis con rifampicina en dosis única (PEP) entre los contactos, casos índices de hanseniasis y profesionales de salud, así como los factores relacionados que puedan influenciar en la adhesión al tratamiento. Se realizó un estudio cualitativo de análisis de contenido, tras la realización de entrevistas semiestructuradas, según el protocolo propuesto en el programa LPEP (2016), realizado en Alta Floresta, Mato Grosso, Brasil, en julio de 2016. Participaron en el estudio individuos diagnosticados con hanseniasis, contactos y profesionales de la salud. Se utilizó el software QRS NVivo versión 10. Se contactó con 80 individuos, siendo 54 (67%) contactos, 11 (14%) casos índices y 15 (19%) profesionales de salud. Entre los contactos 94% (51/54) tomaron PEP. Se identificaron 3 categorías respecto a la PEP: comprensión, aceptación y expectativa de intervención. La comprensión estuvo relacionada con el cuidado del equipo de salud. El aceptar o no la medicación estuvo relacionado con el miedo, confianza y protección, operatividad de la estrategia, autoestima e inseguridad de la intervención. La expectativa de la intervención estuvo relacionada con el bienestar, prevención de la enfermedad, así como secuelas, disminución de gasto público y ampliación del acceso. Existió un reconocimiento de la relevancia de la estrategia PEP por la posibilidad de interrupción de la cadena de transmisión, disminución de casos nuevos y mejora en la calidad de vida. La inseguridad en tomar la medicación y de que la enfermedad se manifestara influenciaron negativamente en la aceptación de la PEP, por otro lado, la información previa sobre la estrategia PEP contribuyó al fortalecimiento de la confianza en los profesionales de salud y a la aceptabilidad de la medicación(AU).