High prevalence of vasomotor reflex impairment in newly diagnosed leprosy patients.

BACKGROUND: Initial nerve damage in leprosy occurs in small myelinated and unmyelinated nerve fibers. Early detection of leprosy in the peripheral nervous system is challenging as extensive nerve damage may take place before clinical signs of leprosy become apparent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In order to determine the prevalence of, and factors associated with, peripheral autonomic nerve dysfunction in newly diagnosed leprosy patients, 76 Brazilian patients were evaluated prior to treatment. Skin vasomotor reflex was tested by means of laser Doppler velocimetry. Blood perfusion and reflex vasoconstriction following an inspiratory gasp were registered on the second and fifth fingers. RESULTS: Vasomotor reflex was impaired in at least one finger in 33/76 (43%) patients. The fifth fingers were more frequently impaired and suffered more frequent bilateral alterations than the second fingers. Multivariate regression analysis showed that leprosy reaction (adjusted odds ratio = 8.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-48.2) was associated with overall impaired vasomotor reflex (average of the four fingers). In addition, palmar erythrocyanosis and an abnormal upper limb sensory score were associated with vasomotor reflex impairment in the second fingers, whereas anti-phenolic glycolipid-I antibodies, ulnar somatic neuropathy and a low finger skin temperature were associated with impairment in the fifth fingers. CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of peripheral autonomic dysfunction as measured by laser Doppler velocimetry was observed in newly diagnosed leprosy patients, which is clinically evident late in the disease. Autonomic nerve lesion was more frequent than somatic lesions and was strongly related to the immune-inflammatory reaction against M. leprae.

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

We conducted a population-based survey on 5 small island in South Sulawesi Province (Indonesia) to collect baseline data previous to a chemoprophylactic intervention study aiming at interrrupting 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 prevelence rate 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

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 identifity 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 logist 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 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: 0.92-3,31). This increased seroprevalence was strongest for contact groups living _< 75 metres 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 persons living in the vicinity of 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

Genetic, household and spatial clustering of leprosy in an island population in Indonesia

It is generally accepted that genetic factors play a role in susceptibility to both leprosy per se and leprosy type, but the strength of this effects has never been quantified. Estimating the contribution of genetic factors to clustering of leprosy within families is difficult since these persons often shave the same environment. Three correlation structures (genetic, household and spatial) were proposed for population data (n=560), collected on a geographically isolated Indonesian island highly endemic for leprosy, to explain the distribution of leprosy per se, leprosy type and Mycobacterium leprae-specific antibody. 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. 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 apatial model, but the genetic model was also significant. Herediatry was 57% for leprosy per se and 31% for seropositivity. Genetic factors seem to play an important role in the clustering of leprosy patients, especially MB patients, and they could explain more then half of the toral phenotypic variance. This unique study population is very suitable to confirm the role of already known chromosome regions in controlling leprosy or to search for new susceptibility loci

Risk factores for developing leprosy -A population-based cohort study in Indonesia

This study identified risk factors for developing leprosy through yearly incidence rates in five island populations. Personal factors, like age, sex, household size and the presence of M.leprae-specific antibodies as well as contact were studied. Of the 94 index patients (patients diagnosed in 2000) 43 (46%) were classified as multibacillary (MB), 17 (19%) were seropositive and 6 (7%) presented M.leprae DNA in nasal swabs as determined by polumerase chain reaction (PCR). All PCR positive patients were also seropositive. Forty-four of the 4903 persons initially without symptoms of leprosy developed leprosy in almost four years follow-up, giving an incidence rate of 2.98 per 1000 person-years. Men had a 2.2 times higher risk (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.2-4.1) to developd leprosy than women. Persons living in households of more than 7 household members. Persons who were seropositive in 2000 had a 3.7 times higher risk (95% CI:1.1-12.4) 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 to non-contacts. Patients with PCR positive nasal swabs, suggesting nasal excretion of M.leprae, are probably the patients with the highest transmission patential. Since all index patients who were PCR positive were also seropositive, serology semms an adequate tool to identify these patients. Preventing seropositive persons to become seropositive patients and thus the main source of infection may break the chain of transmission

Prevention of leprosy using rifampicin as chemoprophylaxis

An intervention study was implemented on five Indinesian island 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 aligible persons. The cohort consited 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 clearence of infections needs to be determined