Evaluating active leprosy case identification methods in six districts of Nepal.

BACKGROUND: Nepal has achieved and sustained the elimination of leprosy as a public health problem since 2009, but 17 districts and 3 provinces with 41% (10,907,128) of Nepal's population have yet to eliminate the disease. Pediatric cases and grade-2 disabilities (G2D) indicate recent transmission and late diagnosis, respectively, which necessitate active and early case detection. This operational research was performed to identify approaches best suited for early case detection, determine community-based leprosy epidemiology, and identify hidden leprosy cases early and respond with prompt treatment. METHODS: Active case detection was undertaken in two Nepali provinces with the greatest burden of leprosy, Madhesh Province (40% national cases) and Lumbini Province (18%) and at-risk prison populations in Madhesh, Lumbini and Bagmati provinces. Case detection was performed by (1) house-to-house visits among vulnerable populations (n = 26,469); (2) contact examination and tracing (n = 7608); in Madhesh and Lumbini Provinces and, (3) screening prison populations (n = 4428) in Madhesh, Lumbini and Bagmati Provinces of Nepal. Per case direct medical and non-medical costs for each approach were calculated. RESULTS: New case detection rates were highest for contact tracing (250), followed by house-to-house visits (102) and prison screening (45) per 100,000 population screened. However, the cost per case identified was cheapest for house-to-house visits [Nepalese rupee (NPR) 76,500/case], followed by contact tracing (NPR 90,286/case) and prison screening (NPR 298,300/case). House-to-house and contact tracing case paucibacillary/multibacillary (PB:MB) ratios were 59:41 and 68:32; female/male ratios 63:37 and 57:43; pediatric cases 11% in both approaches; and grade-2 disabilities (G2D) 11% and 5%, respectively. Developing leprosy was not significantly different among household and neighbor contacts [odds ratios (OR) = 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.24-5.85] and for contacts of MB versus PB cases (OR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.26-2.0). Attack rates were not significantly different among household contacts of MB cases (0.32%, 95% CI 0.07-0.94%) and PB cases (0.13%, 95% CI 0.03-0.73) (χ2 = 0.07, df = 1, P = 0.9) and neighbor contacts of MB cases (0.23%, 0.1-0.46) and PB cases (0.48%, 0.19-0.98) (χ2 = 0.8, df = 1, P = 0.7). BCG vaccination with scar presence had a significant protective effect against leprosy (OR = 0.42, 0.22-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The most effective case identification approach here is contact tracing, followed by house-to-house visits in vulnerable populations and screening in prisons, although house-to-house visits are cheaper. The findings suggest that hidden cases, recent transmission, and late diagnosis in the community exist and highlight the importance of early case detection.

Prevalence of post kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) and treatment seeking behavior of PKDL patients in Nepal.

BACKGROUND: In Nepal, the burden of post kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) is not known since there is no active case detection of PKDL by the national programme. PKDL patients could pose a challenge to sustain visceral leishmaniasis (VL) elimination. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of PKDL and assess PKDL patients' knowledge on VL and PKDL, and stigma associated with PKDL. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Household surveys were conducted in 98 VL endemic villages of five districts that reported the highest number of VL cases within 2018-2021. A total of 6,821 households with 40373 individuals were screened for PKDL. Cases with skin lesions were referred to hospitals and examined by dermatologists. Suspected PKDL cases were tested with rK39 and smear microscopy from skin lesions. An integrated diagnostic approach was implemented in two hospitals with a focus on management of leprosy cases where cases with non-leprosy skin lesions were tested for PKDL with rK39. Confirmed PKDL patients were interviewed to assess knowledge and stigma associated with PKDL, using explanatory model interview catalogue (EMIC) with maximum score of 36. Among 147 cases with skin lesions in the survey, 9 (6.12%) were confirmed as PKDL by dermatologists at the hospital. The prevalence of PKDL was 2.23 per 10,000 population. Among these 9 PKDL cases, 5 had a past history of VL and 4 did not. PKDL cases without a past history of VL were detected among the "new foci", Surkhet but none in Palpa. None of the cases negative for leprosy were positive for PKDL. There was very limited knowledge of PKDL and VL among PKDL cases. PKDL patients suffered to some degree from social and psychological stigma (mean ± s.d. score = 17.89 ± 12.84). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Strengthening the programme in PKDL case detection and management would probably contribute to sustenance of VL elimination. Awareness raising activities to promote knowledge and reduce social stigma should be conducted in VL endemic areas.