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The 10 g monofilament has been replaced by the ballpoint pen in routine sensory testing of nerves in leprosy control in Ethiopia.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.

Dynamics of impairment during and after treatment: the AMFES cohort.

This study investigates the dynamics of impairment during and after multidrug therapy treatment for the patient cohort of the prospective ALERT MDT Field Evaluation Study (AMFES). The impairment status was compared at intake, at release from treatment (rft), and at the time of the latest survey between 24 and 48 months after release from treatment (follow-up). The eye-hand-foot impairment score (EHF score), which is the sum of the WHO impairment grades of the eyes, hands, and feet, was used as tool for comparison. In all, 433 out of the 592 patients (224 PB and 209 MB) completed treatment in time and were assessed at release from treatment. The risk of getting impaired was 4% for the 113 PB and 21% for the 91 MB patients who were initially free from impairment. Out of the 111 initially impaired PB patients, 41% recovered or improved and 13% worsened in EHF score. For the 118 initially impaired MB patients, these figures were: recovery or improvement 43% and worsening 13%. Three hundred and twenty-three out of the 433 patients (158 PB and 165 MB) had a follow-up examination in between the next 24-48 months after rft. The risks of impairment at follow-up were 6% for the 79 PB and 18% for the 77 MB patients without impairment at rft. Out of the 79 PB patients with impairment at rft, 35% recovered or improved and 28% worsened. For the 88 impaired MB patients, these figures were: recovery or improvement 26% and worsening 27%. Patients showed a tendency to compensate EHF score improvement before rft by worsening after rft and vice versa. The first main conclusion is that the impairment status at intake was by far the most important determinant for future impairment. The second one is that the dynamics of impairment were less favourable after rft than before. Little is known about the long-term fate of leprosy patients with irreversible nerve damage and the associated risk of developing severe secondary impairment. Especially in this era of the leprosy elimination goal, we should give this accumulating patient group due attention in research and health policy agendas.

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.

Factors associated with impairments in new leprosy patients: the AMFES cohort.

Data on the importance of the delay between onset of symptoms and registration as a risk factor for impairment are sparse. This study investigates the quantitative relationship between this delay, other risk factors and the impairment status in new leprosy patients. It reports on 592 new leprosy patients enrolled in 1988-1992 in the prospective ALERT MDT Field Evaluation Study in central Ethiopia (AMFES). The influence of the risk factors sex, age, delay, PB/MB classification in relation to BI, and prior dapsone treatment on the impairment status at intake is analysed. Estimates for the delay are based on patient recall. For the risk factors, odds ratios on impairment and on severity of impairment were calculated using both univariate and multivariate logistic regression. The registration delay was 2 years or more for 44% of new patients. The prevalence of impairment (WHO impairment grades 1 and 2 combined) increased continuously from 36% for new patients with a delay of 0-1 year to 81% for new patients with delays of 4 years or more. This prevalence also increased continuously with age; it rose from 26% in children to 80% for the age group 60 and over. In the multivariate regression, the odds ratios for new patients to be impaired were statistically significant for all delay categories (baseline 1-2 years) and age groups (baseline 15-29 years). No statistically significant differences in odds ratios were observed with respect to sex and PB/MB classification in relation to BI. Overall, 31% of new patients presented with WHO impairment grade 1 and 23% with grade 2. The risk on grade 2 also increased with the registration delay amongst the impaired new patients. Relatively few impaired males and relatively few impaired MB patients with a BI value of 3 or higher had grade 2 impairment. Registration delay and age are the main risk factors for presentation with impairment. Reduction of delay in central Ethiopia requires re-thinking of control methodologies. The search for ways to reduce delays in diagnosis and treatment should receive high priority in leprosy research and in leprosy control programmes.

Delay in presentation and start of treatment in leprosy patients: a case-control study of disabled and non-disabled patients in three different settings in Ethiopia.

The delay incurred by leprosy patients between the onset of symptoms and the start of treatment has not been well characterized. Because reducing this delay is likely to be the most productive of all activities aimed at preventing disability, we compared the various components of delay in disabled and nondisabled new leprosy cases in a case-control study. Disabled patients had a median overall delay of 26 months, while nondisabled patients incurred a delay of only 12 months. The total delay was divided into three components: a) the delay between the onset of symptoms and the first act of health-seeking behavior, which was significantly longer for disabled patients; b) the delay between the first action and the first visit to a recognized clinic, which was also significantly longer for disabled patients; and c) the delay between the first clinic visit and the start of treatment, which was important in some cases: in those patients whose delay was due to problems within the health services, disabled patients again had a significantly longer delay. The study also compared two rural areas of Ethiopia, one with high and one with low rates of disability in new cases. High rates of disability (and greater delay in starting treatment) were thus associated with high levels of stigma, being from the Christian rather than the Muslim community, and the use of traditional medicine. There was, surprisingly, no association with knowledge about the transmission, symptoms and curability of leprosy. Implications for health promotion activities are discussed.

Monitoring steroid use in a field program; possible process indicators.

Two new indicators are proposed in order to make the task of monitoring certain prevention of disability (POD) activities more straightforward. The indicators are very similar to the case detection rates and the cohort analyses already used in both leprosy and tuberculosis (TB) control; this makes them very simple to put into practice. Despite their simplicity, it is argued that these indicators can give important information about the implementation of POD activities in a routine field program and could, therefore, help in improving the quality of those services to patients. The indicators are the steroid start rate (SSR) and the steroid completion rate (SCR). A number of possible confounding factors have been looked at and they are not negligible. However, the case detection rates for new cases of leprosy and treatment completion rates for multidrug therapy (MDT) are subject to similar biases, which are well recognized and which have not detracted from the usefulness of these indicators in evaluating leprosy control activities. The POD indicators, if used with an awareness of the possible biases involved, can help to improve the quality of certain POD activities.

Harnessing the strengths of the leprosy programme to control tuberculosis.

Tuberculosis remains a leading cause of death in Ethiopia but there is no effective national tuberculosis control programme. By contrast, the leprosy control programme has been very successful, with a 10-fold reduction in the number of leprosy cases requiring antibacterial treatment, though patients with nerve damage require continuing care. The paradox of rising numbers of tuberculosis cases and declining numbers of leprosy cases may be solved by joint leprosy-tuberculosis clinics. The strengths of leprosy fieldworkers in control management, case holding, and compliance can be harnessed in developing an effective tuberculosis control programme. Implementing a joint programme in Ethiopia may be beneficial not only for tuberculosis patients but also for leprosy patients, who are thus brought closer to general medical services.

Is leprosy blindness avoidable? The effect of disease type, duration, and treatment on eye damage from leprosy in Uganda.

AIMS: The study was designed to measure the prevalence, range, and severity of eye involvement in leprosy patients; to relate this to disease type, duration, and treatment to identify risk factors; and to provide practical guidelines for programme managers and field staff on the prevention of blindness. METHODS: The visual outcome was assessed in a population based sample of patients in Kasese District, Uganda followed for up to two decades, and related to disease features and treatment. A total of 678 patients responded to an invitation out of 2715 registered since 1973. RESULTS: Low vision was present in 4.4% of people and blindness in 1.3%, with 1.5% and 0.6% respectively being due to leprosy. Some 12.4% of patients had iritis, of whom 33% had visual loss in one or both eyes, 3.7% of patients had lagophthalmos, and 11.7% had lens opacity. For multi-bacillary (PB) cases, the adjusted odds ratios were: for iritis 4.6 (95% CI 2.6-8.2), for lagophthalmos 1.4 (0.6-3.2), and for lens opacity 1.7 (1.0-3.0). Potentially sight threatening (PST) lesions were present in 16.8% of patients (95% CI 14.0-19.6). CONCLUSION: Levels of eye involvement in this study are low compared with many surveys. Visual loss is uncommon and is more often caused by other diseases; in the present era of multidrug therapy (MDT) it is very unlikely to be caused by leprosy. It is more common with advancing age. PST lesions, especially iritis, may occur in both PB and MB cases, even if the diagnosis of leprosy is made early and MDT started immediately; they may occur also after completion of MDT. But eye complications need not proceed to loss of sight if treated promptly, and blindness can be avoided. Training of front line staff is therefore crucial.