Implementation approaches for leprosy prevention with single-dose rifampicin: A support tool for decision making.

BACKGROUND: In the past 15 years, the decline in annually detected leprosy patients has stagnated. To reduce the transmission of Mycobacterium leprae, the World Health Organization recommends single-dose rifampicin (SDR) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for contacts of leprosy patients. Various approaches to administer SDR-PEP have been piloted. However, requirements and criteria to select the most suitable approach were missing. The aims of this study were to develop an evidence-informed decision tool to support leprosy programme managers in selecting an SDR-PEP implementation approach, and to assess its user-friendliness among stakeholders without SDR-PEP experience. METHODOLOGY: The development process comprised two phases. First, a draft tool was developed based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews with experts from various countries, organisations and institutes. This led to: an overview of existing SDR-PEP approaches and their characteristics; understanding the requirements and best circumstances for these approaches; and, identification of relevant criteria to select an approach. In the second phase the tool's usability and applicability was assessed, through interviews and a focus group discussion with intended, inexperienced users; leprosy programme managers and non-governmental organization (NGO) staff. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Five SDR-PEP implementation approaches were identified. The levels of endemicity and stigma, and the accessibility of an area were identified as most relevant criteria to select an approach. There was an information gap on cost-effectiveness, while successful implementation depends on availability of resources. Five basic requirements, irrespective of the approach, were identified: stakeholder support; availability of medication; compliant health system; trained health staff; and health education. Two added benefits of the tool were identified: its potential value for advocacy and for training. CONCLUSION: An evidence-informed SDR-PEP decision tool to support the selection of implementation approaches for leprosy prevention was developed. While the tool was evaluated by potential users, more research is needed to further improve the tool, especially health-economic studies, to ensure efficient and cost-effective implementation of SDR-PEP.

A comparison of three types of targeted, community-based methods aimed at promoting early detection of new leprosy cases in rural parts of three endemic states in India.

BACKGROUND: India achieved elimination of leprosy nationally in 2005, but since then the number of patients with grade 2 disability at diagnosis increased steadily indicating delay in diagnosis. Therefore, there was a need for public health interventions which can increase case finding in their earlier stage. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of three such community-based interventions; 1) Enhancement of community awareness on leprosy; 2) Education and motivation of "Index" leprosy cases; and 3) Involvement of Non-Formal Health Practitioners (NFHPs) to promote early detection of new cases of leprosy. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Three community-based interventions were implemented between April 2016 and March 2018, embedded within the National Leprosy Eradication Program (NLEP) of India. Interventions were 1) increasing awareness through involvement of Gram Panchayat (local government) in the community regarding early signs of leprosy (Awareness), 2) providing health education and motivating newly diagnosed leprosy patients to bring suspects from their contacts (Index) and 3) training local non-formal health practitioners (NFHP). Each intervention was implemented in a group of ten blocks (sub-division of district) with an additional ten blocks as control (with no intervention). The main outcomes were number of new cases detected and number of grade 2 disability among them. They were obtained from the routine NLEP information system and compared between these interventions. On an average, there was an addition of 1.98 new cases in Awareness blocks, 1.13 in NFHP blocks and 1.16 cases in Index intervention blocks per month per block after adjusting for changes in control blocks during the same period. In terms of ratio, there was a 61%, 40% and 41% increase in case notification in awareness, Index and NFHP intervention, respectively. Overall, the percentage of grade 2 disability across intervention blocks declined. CONCLUSION: The Awareness intervention appears to be more effective in detection of new cases, compared to Index case motivation and sensitization of NFHPs. However, it is important to stress that while selecting strategies to increase early diagnosis it is important to determine, which is the most appropriate for each context or area and must be decided depending on the local context.

The long-term impact of the Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) program on leprosy incidence: A modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) program explored the feasibility and impact of contact tracing and the provision of single dose rifampicin (SDR) to eligible contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients in Brazil, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. As the impact of the programme is difficult to establish in the short term, we apply mathematical modelling to predict its long-term impact on the leprosy incidence. METHODOLOGY: The individual-based model SIMCOLEP was calibrated and validated to the historic leprosy incidence data in the study areas. For each area, we assessed two scenarios: 1) continuation of existing routine activities as in 2014; and 2) routine activities combined with LPEP starting in 2015. The number of contacts per index patient screened varied from 1 to 36 between areas. Projections were made until 2040. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In all areas, the LPEP program increased the number of detected cases in the first year(s) of the programme as compared to the routine programme, followed by a faster reduction afterwards with increasing benefit over time. LPEP could accelerate the reduction of the leprosy incidence by up to six years as compared to the routine programme. The impact of LPEP varied by area due to differences in the number of contacts per index patient included and differences in leprosy epidemiology and routine control programme. CONCLUSIONS: The LPEP program contributes significantly to the reduction of the leprosy incidence and could potentially accelerate the interruption of transmission. It would be advisable to include contact tracing/screening and SDR in routine leprosy programmes.

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.

The long-term impact of the leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) program on leprosy incidence: a modelling study

The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) program explored the feasibility and impact of contact tracing and the provision of SDR to eligible contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients in states or districts of Brazil, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. This study investigated the long-term impact of the LPEP program on the leprosy new case detection rate (NCDR). Our results show that LPEP could reduce the NCDR beyond the impact of the routine leprosy control programme and that many new cases could be prevented. The benefit of LPEP increases gradually over time. LPEP could accelerate the time of reaching predicted NCDR levels of 2040 under routine program by up to six years. Furthermore, we highlighted how the impact varies between countries due to differences in the number of contacts per index patient screened and differences in leprosy epidemiology and national control programme. Generally, including both household contacts and neighbours (> 20 contacts per index patient) would yield the highest impact.

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).

Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis in the Indian health system: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

India has the highest burden of leprosy in the world. Following a recent WHO guideline, the Indian National Leprosy Programme is introducing post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (SDR-PEP) in all high-endemic districts of the country. The aim of this study is to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of SDR-PEP in different leprosy disability burden situations. We used a stochastic individual-based model (SIMCOLEP) to simulate the leprosy new case detection rate trend and the impact of implementing contact screening and SDR-PEP from 2016 to 2040 (25 years) in the Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli (DNH) in India. Effects of the intervention were expressed as disability adjusted life years (DALY) averted under three assumption of disability prevention: 1) all grade 1 disability (G1D) cases prevented; 2) G1D cases prevented in PB cases only; 3) no disability prevented. Costs were US$ 2.9 per contact. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%. The incremental cost per DALY averted by SDR-PEP was US$ 210, US$ 447, and US$ 5,673 in the 25th year under assumption 1, 2, and 3, respectively. If prevention of G1D was assumed, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 1.0 at the threshold of US$ 2,000, which is equivalent to the GDP per capita of India. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.6, if no disability prevention was assumed. The cost per new leprosy case averted was US$ 2,873. Contact listing, screening and the provision of SDR-PEP is a cost-effective strategy in leprosy control in both the short (5 years) and long term (25 years). The cost-effectiveness depends on the extent to which disability can be prevented. As the intervention becomes increasingly cost-effective in the long term, we recommend a long-term commitment for its implementation.

Prolaxis post-exposición para lepra con dosis única de rifampicina: manual para su implementación / Post-exposure prolaxis for leprosy with a single dose of rifampicin: a manual for its implementation

Objetivo: La profilaxis post-exposición de la lepra con dosis única de rifampicina (SDR-PEP) ha demostrado ser efectiva y aplicable y está recomendada por la OMS desde 2018. Esta caja de herramientas SDR-PEP se desarrolló a través de la experiencia de la profilaxis lepra post-eliminación (LPEP). Se ha diseñado para facilitar y estandarizar la implementación del seguimiento de contactos y la administración SDR-PEP en regiones y países que iniciaron la intervención. Resultados: Se desarrollaron cuatro instrumentos, incorporando la evidencia existente actual para SDR-PEP y los métodos y enseñanzas del proyecto LPEP en ocho países. (1) El conjunto de diapositivas Powerpoint política/apoyo que ayudarán a los programadores sobre la evidencia, practicabilidad y recursos necesarios para SDR-PEP, (2) La colección de diapositivas PowerPoint sobre formación e implementación en el campo para formar al personal implicado en el seguimiento de contactos y PEP con SDR, (3) manual genérico de campo SDR-PEP que puede ser usado para formar un protocolo específico de campo para el seguimiento de contactos y SDR-PEP como referencia para el personal directamente implicado. Finalmente, (4) el manual director SDR-PEP, que resume los distintos componentes de la caja de herramientas y contiene las instrucciones para su uso. Conclusión: En respuesta al interés manifestado por varios países de implementar el seguimiento de contactos de lepra con PEP con SDR, con las recomendaciones OMS sobre SDR-PEP, esta caja de herramientas basada en la evidencia concreta pero flexible, ha sido diseñada para servir a los directores de programas nacionales de lepra con un medio práctico para trasladar los planteamientos a la práctica. Está disponible gratuitamente en la página de Infolep y actualizada constantemente: https://www.leprosy-information.org/keytopic/leprosy-post-exposure-prophylaxis-lpep-programme(AU).

Objective: Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (SDRPEP) has proven effective and feasible, and is recommended by WHO since 2018. This SDR-PEP toolkit was developed through the experience of the leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) programme. It has been designed to facilitate and standardise the implementation of contact tracing and SDR-PEP administration in regions and countries that start the intervention. Results: Four tools were developed, incorporating the current evidence for SDRPEP and the methods and learnings from the LPEP project in eight countries. (1) the SDR-PEP policy/advocacy PowerPoint slide deck which will help to inform policy makers about the evidence, practicalities and resources needed for SDR-PEP, (2) the SDR-PEP field implementation training PowerPoint slide deck to be used to train front line staff to implement contact tracing and PEP with SDR, (3) the SDR-PEP generic field guide which can be used as a basis to create a location specific field protocol for contact tracing and SDR-PEP serving as a reference for frontline field staff. Finally, (4) the SDR-PEP toolkit guide, summarising the different components of the toolkit and providing instructions on its optimal use. Conclusion: In response to interest expressed by countries to implement contact tracing and leprosy PEP with SDR in the light of the WHO recommendation of SDRPEP, this evidence-based, concrete yet flexible toolkit has been designed to serve national leprosy programme managers and support them with the practical means to translate policy into practice. The toolkit is freely accessible on the Infolep homepages and updated as required: https://www.leprosy-information.org/keytopic/leprosy-postexposure-prophylaxis-lpep-programme(AU).

Leprosy services in primary health care in India: comparative economic cost analysis of two public-health settings.

OBJECTIVES: The WHO recommends inclusion of post-exposure chemoprophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin in national leprosy control programmes. The objective was to estimate the cost of leprosy services at primary care level in two different public-health settings. METHODS: Ingredient-based costing was performed in eight primary health centres (PHCs) purposively selected in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DNH) and the Umbergaon block of Valsad district, Gujarat, India. All costs were bootstrapped, and to estimate the variation in total cost under uncertainty, a univariate sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean annual cost of providing leprosy services was USD 29 072 in the DNH PHC (95% CI: 22 125-36 020) and USD 11 082 in Umbergaon (95% CI: 8334-13 830). The single largest cost component was human resources: 79% in DNH and 83% in Umbergaon. The unit cost for screening the contact of a leprosy patient was USD 1 in DNH (95% CI: 0.8-1.2) and USD 0.3 in Umbergaon (95% CI: 0.2-0.4). In DNH, the unit cost of delivering single-dose of rifampicin (SDR) as chemoprophylaxis for contacts was USD 2.9 (95% CI: 2.5-3.7). CONCLUSIONS: The setting with an enhanced public-health financing system invests more in leprosy services than a setting with fewer financial resources. In terms of leprosy visits, the enhanced public-health system is hardly more expensive than the non-enhanced public-health system. The unit cost of contact screening is not high, favouring its sustainability in the programme.

Programa post-exposición a la profilaxis de la Lepra (LPEP): Actualización y análisis interno / No disponible

Se requieren nuevos planteamientos para incrementar el control de la lepra, disminuir el número de personas afectadas y cortar la transmisión. Para conseguir este objetivo las mejores soluciones son la detección precoz. El cribaje de contactos y la quimioprofilaxis. El Programa Profilaxis Post-exposición a la Lepra (LPEP) ayuda a demostrar la viabilidad de integrar el rastreo de contactos y dosis única de rifampicina (SDR) en las actividades rutinarias de control de la enfermedad. El programa LPEP está implementado entre los programas de control de la lepra de Brasil, Camboya, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka y Tanzania. Se centra en tres objetivos: rastro de contactos de nuevos pacientes diagnosticados de lepra, cribaje de contactos y administración de SDR a los contactos seleccionados. Las adaptaciones de protocolos países-específicos se refieren a la definición de contacto, edad mínima para SDR y personal implicado. La calidad de la evidencia se mantiene mediante coordinación central, documentación detallada y supervisión. Ya se han completado alrededor de 2 años de trabajo de campo en siete países en julio de 2017. Los 5,941 pacientes índice registrados (89·4% de los registrados) han identificado un total de 123,311 contactos, de los cuales el 99·1% ha sido rastreado y cribado. De entre ellos, se identificaron 406 nuevos pacientes de lepra (329/100,000) y a 10,883 (8·9%) no se les administró SDR por diversos motivos. También 785 contactos (6·7%) rehusó tomar la profilaxis con SDR. En total, se administró SDR al 89·0% de los contactos registrados. La profilaxis post-exposición con SDR es segura; se puede integrar en los programas rutinarios de control de la lepra y es generalmente bien aceptada por el paciente índice, sus contactos y el personal sanitario. El programa también consigue estimular los programas locales de control de la lepra

Innovative approaches are required to further enhance leprosy control, reduce the number of people developing leprosy, and curb transmission. Early case detection, contact screening, and chemoprophylaxis currently is the most promising approach to achieve this goal. The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme generates evidence on the feasibility of integrating contact tracing and single-dose rifampicin (SDR) administration into routine leprosy control activities in different settings. The LPEP programme is implemented within the leprosy control programmes of Brazil, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. Focus is on three key interventions: tracing the contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients; screening the contacts for leprosy; and administering SDR to eligible contacts. Country-specific protocol adaptations refer to contact definition, minimal age for SDR, and staff involved. Central coordination, detailed documentation and rigorous supervision ensure quality evidence. Around 2 years of field work had been completed in seven countries by July 2017. The 5,941 enrolled index patients (89·4% of the registered) identified a total of 123,311 contacts, of which 99·1% were traced and screened. Among them, 406 new leprosy patients were identified (329/100,000), and 10,883 (8·9%) were excluded from SDR for various reasons. Also, 785 contacts (0·7%) refused the prophylactic treatment with SDR. Overall, SDR was administered to 89·0% of the listed contacts. Post-exposure prophylaxis with SDR is safe; can be integrated into the routines of different leprosy control programmes; and is generally well accepted by index patients, their contacts and the health workforce. The programme has also invigorated local leprosy control

Household expenditure on leprosy outpatient services in the Indian health system: A comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy is a major public health problem in many low and middle income countries, especially in India, and contributes considerably to the global burden of the disease. Leprosy and poverty are closely associated, and therefore the economic burden of leprosy is a concern. However, evidence on patient's expenditure is scarce. In this study, we estimate the expenditure in primary care (outpatient) by leprosy households in two different public health settings. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a cross-sectional study, comparing the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli with the Umbergaon block of Valsad, Gujrat, India. A household (HH) survey was conducted between May and October, 2016. We calculated direct and indirect expenditure by zero inflated negative binomial and negative binomial regression. The sampled households were comparable on socioeconomic indicators. The mean direct expenditure was USD 6.5 (95% CI: 2.4-17.9) in Dadra and Nagar Haveli and USD 5.4 (95% CI: 3.8-7.9) per visit in Umbergaon. The mean indirect expenditure was USD 8.7 (95% CI: 7.2-10.6) in Dadra and Nagar Haveli and USD 12.4 (95% CI: 7.0-21.9) in Umbergaon. The age of the leprosy patients and type of health facilities were the major predictors of total expenditure on leprosy primary care. The higher the age, the higher the expenditure at both sites. The private facilities are more expensive than the government facilities at both sites. If the public health system is enhanced, government facilities are the first preference for patients. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: An enhanced public health system reduces the patient's expenditure and improves the health seeking behaviour. We recommend investing in health system strengthening to reduce the economic burden of leprosy.

The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme: update and interim analysis.

Innovative approaches are required to further enhance leprosy control, reduce the number of people developing leprosy, and curb transmission. Early case detection, contact screening, and chemoprophylaxis currently is the most promising approach to achieve this goal. The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme generates evidence on the feasibility of integrating contact tracing and single-dose rifampicin (SDR) administration into routine leprosy control activities in different settings. The LPEP programme is implemented within the leprosy control programmes of Brazil, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. Focus is on three key interventions: tracing the contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients; screening the contacts for leprosy; and administering SDR to eligible contacts. Country-specific protocol adaptations refer to contact definition, minimal age for SDR, and staff involved. Central coordination, detailed documentation and rigorous supervision ensure quality evidence. Around 2 years of field work had been completed in seven countries by July 2017. The 5,941 enrolled index patients (89·4% of the registered) identified a total of 123,311 contacts, of which 99·1% were traced and screened. Among them, 406 new leprosy patients were identified (329/100,000), and 10,883 (8·9%) were excluded from SDR for various reasons. Also, 785 contacts (0·7%) refused the prophylactic treatment with SDR. Overall, SDR was administered to 89·0% of the listed contacts. Post-exposure prophylaxis with SDR is safe; can be integrated into the routines of different leprosy control programmes; and is generally well accepted by index patients, their contacts and the health workforce. The programme has also invigorated local leprosy control.