Negligible risk of inducing resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis with single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy.

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for leprosy is administered as one single dose of rifampicin (SDR) to the contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients. SDR reduces the risk of developing leprosy among contacts by around 60 % in the first 2-3 years after receiving SDR. In countries where SDR is currently being implemented under routine programme conditions in defined areas, questions were raised by health authorities and professional bodies about the possible risk of inducing rifampicin resistance among the M. tuberculosis strains circulating in these areas. This issue has not been addressed in scientific literature to date. To produce an authoritative consensus statement about the risk that SDR would induce rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, a meeting was convened with tuberculosis (TB) and leprosy experts. The experts carefully reviewed and discussed the available evidence regarding the mechanisms and risk factors for the development of (multi) drug-resistance in M. tuberculosis with a view to the special situation of the use of SDR as PEP for leprosy. They concluded that SDR given to contacts of leprosy patients, in the absence of symptoms of active TB, poses a negligible risk of generating resistance in M. tuberculosis in individuals and at the population level. Thus, the benefits of SDR prophylaxis in reducing the risk of developing leprosy in contacts of new leprosy patients far outweigh the risks of generating drug resistance in M. tuberculosis.

A comparison of Rapid Village Survey and Leprosy Elimination Campaign, detection methods in two districts of East Java, Indonesia, 1997/1998 and 1999/2000.

A Rapid Village Survey (RVS) was planned to estimate the extent of the leprosy problem in two well documented endemic districts of East Java, Indonesia. Furthermore, the aim was to investigate the efficacy of the routine programme in detecting new and early cases, as well as the feasibility of RVS in detecting disabled people affected by leprosy in the community. A random sample survey (RVS: a simple method compared to a Population Sample) was used to determine the extent of the leprosy problem. In addition, a Leprosy Elimination Campaign (LEC), was used particularly to detect new and backlog cases in the community. Both RVS and LEC involve a health education campaign followed by the examination of persons voluntarily reporting. Routine programme case finding, involving passive case finding and contact examinations, was also carried out. The RVS prevalence rate of 12 per 10,000 was more than twice the known prevalence rate of 5 per 10,000. The LEC prevalence rate was less than the rate found by RVS, but was within the RVS confidence interval. During the RVS, many children with leprosy were detected, and 10% of all RVS new cases already had disability grade II. The population disability grade II rate due to leprosy was 9 per 10,000. Despite the fact that an active leprosy control programme had been carried out in the surveyed endemic area over a period of many years, the actual prevalence rate found was more than twice the known prevalence. Many children were found during the RVS, thus indicating continuing widespread transmission. In general, it seems that there is still a serious delay in detecting new cases under the routine programme. Consequently, there are substantial numbers of persons affected by leprosy in those districts in need of rehabilitation.