Sensory testing in leprosy: comparison of ballpoint pen and monofilaments.

The 10 g monofilament has been replaced by the ballpoint pen in routine sensory testing of nerves in leprosy control in Ethiopia. Results of sensory testing between the ballpoint pen and different monofilaments on hands and feet were compared. Ballpoint pen underdiagnosis of loss of sensation was defined to occur when the pen was felt and the monofilament was not. Differences were evaluated both for individual test points (test point level) and for the test points of extremities collectively (extremity level). An extremity (either a hand or a foot) was defined as having sensory nerve function impairment (SNFI) if a supplying nerve had SNFI, which was the case when sensation was absent in two or more test points in the area supplied by that nerve. At test point level, the percentages with ballpoint pen underdiagnosis relative to the 2, 10, 20 and 50 g monofilaments were 40, 21, 9 and 7%, respectively, in the hands, and 47, 30, 15 and 7% in the feet. Ballpoint pen underdiagnosis percentages of SNFI at extremity level were 32, 18, 8 and 9% in the hands, and 37, 26, 14 and 6% in the feet. The risk of ballpoint pen underdiagnosis appears to be higher in extremities without visible damage. In conclusion, substantial levels of underdiagnosis of sensory loss with the ballpoint pen were observed. However, the consequences for the prognosis of treatment with corticosteroids in patients with the more subtle sensation loss noted here need to be established. Development and testing of guidelines is a prerequisite for the use of the ballpoint pen.

The hand-foot impairment score as a tool for evaluating prevention of disability activities in leprosy: an exploration in patients treated with corticosteroids.

The hand-foot (HF) impairment score in leprosy patients is the sum of the WHO disability grades for hands and feet. This retrospective study explored the possibility of using the HF score for evaluation of the effectiveness of corticosteroid treatment programmes for nerve function impairment (NFI). Changes in the score were compared with changes in sensory testing (ST) and voluntary muscle testing (VMT) for 42 leprosy patients who received corticosteroid treatment. The WHO grade did not change in 30/60 (50%) of extremities gaining, and in 4/10 (40%) extremities losing sensation and/or muscle strength. However, 18/24 (75%) patients with a definite gain in function improved in HF score, while the HF score remained unchanged in 10/11 (91%) patients with no change in nerve function. Five patients with impairment in multiple extremities showed both gain and loss of sensation and/or muscle strength in the same or different extremities. Overall, improvement, deterioration and absence of change in NFI, as indicated by changes in ST and VMT were reflected correctly by the HF score in 28 (76%) of the remaining 37 patients. It was also shown that the HF score does not give appropriate information on the extent of the effect of corticosteroid treatment. This study illustrates that the HF score can not be used to support management of corticosteroid treatment of individual patients, but indicates this score to be a promising device for the evaluation of the effectiveness of corticosteroid treatment programmes. This study used the HF score because information on (changes in) eye impairment was not considered reliable. However, in principle, we consider the EHF score, which is the sum of the WHO disability grades for hands, feet and eyes, preferable for evaluation purposes. We strongly recommend further validation of the EHF score as a tool for evaluation of corticosteroid treatment programmes for patient groups with different distributions of NFI through prospective studies.