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.

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.

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 174782 (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(AU).

Assessing the feasibility of integration of self-care for filarial lymphoedema into existing community leprosy self-help groups in Nepal.

BACKGROUND: Lymphatic filariasis (LF) and leprosy are disabling infectious diseases endemic in Nepal. LF infection can lead to lymphoedema and hydrocoele, while secondary effects of leprosy infection include impairments to hands, eyes and feet. The disabling effects of both conditions can be managed through self-care and the supportive effects of self-help groups (SHGs). A network of SHGs exists for people affected by leprosy in four districts in Nepal's Central Development Region, however no such service exists for people affected by LF. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of integrating LF affected people into existing leprosy SHGs in this area. METHODS: A survey was conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire to elicit information on: (i) participant characteristics, clinical manifestation and disease burden; (ii) participants' knowledge of management of their condition and access to services; and (iii) participants' knowledge and perceptions of the alternate condition (LF affected participants' knowledge of leprosy and vice versa) and attitudes towards integration. RESULTS: A total of 52 LF affected and 53 leprosy affected participants were interviewed from 14 SHGs. On average, leprosy affected participants were shown to have 1.8 times greater knowledge of self-care techniques, and practiced 2.5 times more frequently than LF affected participants. Only a quarter of LF affected participants had accessed a health service for their condition, compared with 94.3% of leprosy affected people accessing a service (including SHGs), at least once a week. High levels of stigma were perceived by both groups towards the alternate condition, however, the majority of LF (79%) and leprosy (94.3%) affected participants stated that they would consider attending an integrated SHG. CONCLUSIONS: LF affected participants need to increase their knowledge of self-care and access to health services. Despite stigma being a potential barrier, attitudes towards integration were positive, suggesting that the SHGs may be a good platform for LF affected people to start self-care in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This is not a registered trial.