The Centenary of the Leprosy Relief Association (Lepra)-a moment for celebration and reflection†.

The year 2024 is the Centenary of the foundation of the Leprosy Relief Association (Lepra), formerly the British Empire Leprosy Relief Association (BELRA). The name of the organization changed to the LEProsy Relief Association (LEPRA) in 1976 but has been known as Lepra since 2008. Over the years it has worked closely with members and office holders of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Its work has encompassed activities from the earliest initiatives to ensure appropriate living conditions for those with the disease to the development of leprosy chemotherapy. However, this has now evolved into a strong partnership between the UK- and India-based Lepra hubs, which are carrying out research and public health initiatives ranging from elimination of prejudice against those with leprosy to adopting the recently launched WHO programme for skin NTDs to facilitate integrated control and management regimens. The fight against leprosy has always been a partnership between a wide variety of disease-specific NGOs, health-care workers and international health agencies. The story of Lepra illustrates the central role of these partnerships and national as well as international collaboration.

Skin Disease in the Tropics and the Lessons that can be Learned from Leprosy and Other Neglected Diseases.

Skin disease is a common illness in most tropical regions where the pattern of clinical, presentations is dominated by infections. Along with common diseases such as pyodermas and fungal infections, a group of conditions known collectively as the neglected tropical diseases of the skin or Skin NTDs, which are the targets for worldwide control or elimination are also seen in health care facilities. These diseases range from the common, such a scabies, to those that are less frequent including leprosy and mycetoma. The initiative to use skin presentations of tropical diseases as a route to diagnosis by front line health workers is both logical and welcome. However, this requires training and monitoring and as the work gets under way, it is critically important that time invested in this programme is backed by firm and lasting commitment at regional and national levels.

Comparing cutaneous research funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) with the US skin disease burden.

BACKGROUND: Disease burden should be an important component for guiding research funding. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the relationship between dermatologic research funded from 2012 to 2013 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and US skin disease burden as measured by disability-adjusted life years in the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was independently performed by 2 researchers who matched projects from the 2012 to 2013 NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools with 15 skin conditions and their respective disability-adjusted life years from Global Burden of Disease 2010. RESULTS: The NIH funded 1108 projects spanning the 15 skin conditions. Melanoma received almost half of the total skin condition budget (49.5%). Melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and leprosy were funded above what would be suggested by their disease burden, whereas dermatitis, acne vulgaris, pruritus, urticaria, decubitus ulcer, fungal skin diseases, alopecia areata, cellulitis, and scabies appeared underfunded. Bacterial skin diseases, viral skin diseases, and psoriasis were well matched with disease burden. LIMITATIONS: Disease burden is one of many factors that may be used to guide priority-setting decisions. CONCLUSION: Skin disease burden measured by disability-adjusted life year metrics partially correlates with NIH funding prioritization. Comparing US disease burden with NIH funding suggests possible underfunded and overfunded skin diseases.

Comparing cutaneous research funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases with 2010 Global Burden of Disease results.

IMPORTANCE: Disease burden data helps guide research prioritization. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which grants issued by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) reflect disease burden, measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 project. DESIGN: Two investigators independently assessed 15 skin conditions studied by GBD 2010 in the NIAMS database for grants issued in 2013. The 15 skin diseases were matched to their respective DALYs from GBD 2010. SETTING: The United States NIAMS database and GBD 2010 skin condition disability data. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): Relationship of NIAMS grant database topic funding with percent total GBD 2010 DALY and DALY rank for 15 skin conditions. RESULTS: During fiscal year 2013, 1,443 NIAMS grants were issued at a total value of $424 million. Of these grants, 17.7% covered skin topics. Of the total skin disease funding, 82% (91 grants) were categorized as "general cutaneous research." Psoriasis, leprosy, and "other skin and subcutaneous diseases" (ie; immunobullous disorders, vitiligo, and hidradenitis suppurativa) were over-represented when funding was compared with disability. Conversely, cellulitis, decubitus ulcer, urticaria, acne vulgaris, viral skin diseases, fungal skin diseases, scabies, and melanoma were under-represented. Conditions for which disability and funding appeared well-matched were dermatitis, squamous and basal cell carcinoma, pruritus, bacterial skin diseases, and alopecia areata. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Degree of representation in NIAMS is partly correlated with DALY metrics. Grant funding was well-matched with disability metrics for five of the 15 studied skin diseases, while two skin diseases were over-represented and seven were under-represented. Global burden estimates provide increasingly transparent and important information for investigating and prioritizing national research funding allocations.

Global burden of skin disease as reflected in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

IMPORTANCE: Research prioritization should be guided by impact of disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether systematic reviews and protocol topics in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) reflect disease burden, measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 project. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two investigators independently assessed 15 skin conditions in the CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation from November 1, 2013, to December 6, 2013. The 15 skin diseases were matched to their respective DALYs from GBD 2010. An official publication report of all reviews and protocols published by the Cochrane Skin Group (CSG) was also obtained to ensure that no titles were missed. There were no study participants other than the researchers, who worked with databases evaluating CDSR and GBD 2010 skin condition disability data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Relationship of CDSR topic coverage (systematic reviews and protocols) with percentage of total 2010 DALYs, 2010 DALY rank, and DALY percentage change from 1990 to 2010 for 15 skin conditions. RESULTS: All 15 skin conditions were represented by at least 1 systematic review in CDSR; 69% of systematic reviews and 67% of protocols by the CSG covered the 15 skin conditions. Comparing the number of reviews/protocols and disability, dermatitis, melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, viral skin diseases, and fungal skin diseases were well matched. Decubitus ulcer, psoriasis, and leprosy demonstrated review/protocol overrepresentation when matched with corresponding DALYs. In comparison, acne vulgaris, bacterial skin diseases, urticaria, pruritus, scabies, cellulitis, and alopecia areata were underrepresented in CDSR when matched with corresponding DALYs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Degree of representation in CDSR is partly correlated with DALY metrics. The number of published reviews/protocols was well matched with disability metrics for 5 of the 15 studied skin diseases, while 3 skin diseases were overrepresented, and 7 were underrepresented. Our results provide high-quality and transparent data to inform future prioritization decisions.