Risk factors for developing leprosy--a population-based cohort study in Indonesia.

We identified risk factors associated with increased yearly incidence rates of leprosy in five island populations. Age, sex, household size and Mycobacterium leprae-specific antibodies as well as contact factors were studied. Of 94 index patients (patients diagnosed in 2000), 43 (46%) were classified as multibacillary (MB), 17 (19%) were seropositive for PGL-1 [corrected] antibodies and 6 (7%) had M. leprae DNA in nasal swabs as determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. All PCR positive patients were also seropositive. Forty-four of 4903 initially symptom free persons developed leprosy within 4 years, giving an incidence rate of 298 per 1000 person-years. Men had a 22 times higher risk [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-4.1] of developing leprosy than women. People living in households with more than 7 members had a 3.1 times higher risk (95% CI: 1.3-7.3) than households of 1-4 members. Persons who were seropositive in 2000 had a 3.8 times higher risk (95% CI: 1.1-12.6) than seronegative persons. Household contacts of MB patients had an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 4.6 (95% CI: 1.6-12.9) and household contacts of PCR positive patients an aHR of 9.36 (95% CI: 2.5-34.9) compared with non-contacts. Patients with PCR positive nasal swabs, suggesting nasal excretion of M. leprae, are probably the patients with the highest transmission potential. Since all index patients who were PCR positive were also seropositive, serology seems an adequate tool to identify these patients. Preventing seropositive persons from becoming seropositive and infectious patients might break the chain of transmission.

Genetic, household and spatial clustering of leprosy on an island in Indonesia: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: It is generally accepted that genetic factors play a role in susceptibility to both leprosy per se and leprosy type, but only few studies have tempted to quantify this. Estimating the contribution of genetic factors to clustering of leprosy within families is difficult since these persons often share the same environment. The first aim of this study was to test which correlation structure (genetic, household or spatial) gives the best explanation for the distribution of leprosy patients and seropositive persons and second to quantify the role of genetic factors in the occurrence of leprosy and seropositivity. METHODS: The three correlation structures were proposed for population data (n = 560), collected on a geographically isolated island highly endemic for leprosy, to explain the distribution of leprosy per se, leprosy type and persons harbouring Mycobacterium leprae-specific antibodies. Heritability estimates and risk ratios for siblings were calculated to quantify the genetic effect. Leprosy was clinically diagnosed and specific anti-M. leprae antibodies were measured using ELISA. RESULTS: For leprosy per se in the total population the genetic correlation structure fitted best. In the population with relative stable household status (persons under 21 years and above 39 years) all structures were significant. For multibacillary leprosy (MB) genetic factors seemed more important than for paucibacillary leprosy. Seropositivity could be explained best by the spatial model, but the genetic model was also significant. Heritability was 57% for leprosy per se and 31% for seropositivity. CONCLUSION: Genetic factors seem to play an important role in the clustering of patients with a more advanced form of leprosy, and they could explain more than half of the total phenotypic variance.

Prevention of leprosy using rifampicin as chemoprophylaxis.

An intervention study was implemented on five Indonesian islands highly endemic for leprosy to determine whether rifampicin can be used as chemoprophylaxis to prevent leprosy. The population was actively screened before the intervention and subsequently once a year for three years. In the control group, no chemoprophylaxis was given. In the contact group, chemoprophylaxis was only given to contacts of leprosy patients and in the blanket group to all eligible persons. The cohort consisted of 3,965 persons. The yearly incidence rate in the control group was 39/10,000; the cumulative incidence after three years was significantly lower in the blanket group (P = 0.031). No difference was found between the contact and the control groups (P = 0.93). Whether this apparent reduced leprosy incidence in the first three years in the blanket group is due to a delayed development of leprosy or a complete clearance of infection needs to be determined.

Population survey to determine risk factors for Mycobacterium leprae transmission and infection.

BACKGROUND: Not every leprosy patient is equally effective in transmitting Mycobacterium leprae. We studied the spatial distribution of infection (using seropositivity as a marker) in the population to identify which disease characteristics of leprosy patients are important in transmission. METHODS: Clinical data and blood samples for anti-M. leprae ELISA were collected during a cross-sectional survey on five Indonesian islands highly endemic for leprosy. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to define contacts of patients. We investigated spatial clustering of patients and seropositive people and used logistic regression to determine risk factors for seropositivity. RESULTS: Of the 3986 people examined for leprosy, 3271 gave blood. Seroprevalence varied between islands (1.7-8.7%) and correlated significantly with leprosy prevalence. Five clusters of patients and two clusters of seropositives were detected. In multivariate analysis, seropositivity significantly differed by leprosy status, age, sex, and island. Serological status of patients appeared to be the best discriminator of contact groups with higher seroprevalence: contacts of seropositive patients had an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.75 (95% CI 0.922-3.31). This increased seroprevalence was strongest for contact groups living < or =75 m of two seropositive patients (aOR = 3.07; 95% CI 1.74-5.42). CONCLUSIONS: In this highly endemic area for leprosy, not only household contacts of seropositive patients, but also people living in the vicinity of a seropositive patient were more likely to harbour antibodies against M. leprae. Through measuring the serological status of patients and using a broader definition of contacts, higher risk groups can be more specifically identified.

Epidemiology of leprosy on five isolated islands in the Flores Sea, Indonesia.

We conducted a population-based survey on five small islands in South Sulawesi Province (Indonesia) to collect baseline data previous to a chemoprophylactic intervention study aiming at interrupting the transmission of Mycobacterium leprae. Here we describe the present leprosy epidemiology on these geographically isolated islands. Of the 4774 inhabitants living in the study area 4140 were screened for leprosy (coverage: 87%). We identified 96 leprosy patients (85 new and 11 old patients), representing a new case detection rate (CDR) of 205/10 000 and a prevalence rate of 195/10 000. CDRs were similar for males and females. Male patients were more often classified as multibacillary (MB) than women. Of the new patients, 33 (39%) were classified as MB, 16 (19%) as paucibacillary (PB) 2-5 lesions and 36 (42%) as PB single lesion. In this area of high leprosy endemicity leprosy patients were extensively clustered, i.e. not equally distributed among the islands and within the islands among the houses.