Mycobacterium leprae transmission characteristics during the declining stages of leprosy incidence: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy is an infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae. As incidence begins to decline, the characteristics of new cases shifts away from those observed in highly endemic areas, revealing potentially important insights into possible ongoing sources of transmission. We aimed to investigate whether transmission is driven mainly by undiagnosed and untreated new leprosy cases in the community, or by incompletely treated or relapsing cases. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A literature search of major electronic databases was conducted in January, 2020 with 134 articles retained out of a total 4318 records identified (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020178923). We presented quantitative data from leprosy case records with supporting evidence describing the decline in incidence across several contexts. BCG vaccination, active case finding, adherence to multidrug therapy and continued surveillance following treatment were the main strategies shared by countries who achieved a substantial reduction in incidence. From 3950 leprosy case records collected across 22 low endemic countries, 48.3% were suspected to be imported, originating from transmission outside of the country. Most cases were multibacillary (64.4%) and regularly confirmed through skin biopsy, with 122 cases of suspected relapse from previous leprosy treatment. Family history was reported in 18.7% of cases, while other suspected sources included travel to high endemic areas and direct contact with armadillos. None of the countries included in the analysis reported a distinct increase in leprosy incidence in recent years. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Together with socioeconomic improvement over time, several successful leprosy control programmes have been implemented in recent decades that led to a substantial decline in incidence. Most cases described in these contexts were multibacillary and numerous cases of suspected relapse were reported. Despite these observations, there was no indication that these cases led to a rise in new secondary cases, suggesting that they do not represent a large ongoing source of human-to-human transmission.

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.

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).

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.

Rifampicin and clarithromycin (extended release) versus rifampicin and streptomycin for limited Buruli ulcer lesions: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Buruli ulcer is a neglected tropical disease caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans infection that damages the skin and subcutis. It is most prevalent in western and central Africa and Australia. Standard antimicrobial treatment with oral rifampicin 10 mg/kg plus intramuscular streptomycin 15 mg/kg once daily for 8 weeks (RS8) is highly effective, but streptomycin injections are painful and potentially harmful. We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fully oral rifampicin 10 mg/kg plus clarithromycin 15 mg/kg extended release once daily for 8 weeks (RC8) with that of RS8 for treatment of early Buruli ulcer lesions. METHODS: We did an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised (1:1 with blocks of six), multicentre, phase 3 clinical trial comparing fully oral RC8 with RS8 in patients with early, limited Buruli ulcer lesions. There were four trial sites in hospitals in Ghana (Agogo, Tepa, Nkawie, Dunkwa) and one in Benin (Pobè). Participants were included if they were aged 5 years or older and had typical Buruli ulcer with no more than one lesion (caterories I and II) no larger than 10 cm in diameter. The trial was open label, and neither the investigators who took measurements of the lesions nor the attending doctors were masked to treatment assignment. The primary clinical endpoint was lesion healing (ie, full epithelialisation or stable scar) without recurrence at 52 weeks after start of antimicrobial therapy. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A sample size of 332 participants was calculated to detect inferiority of RC8 by a margin of 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01659437. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2017, participants were recruited to the trial. We stopped recruitment after 310 participants. Median age of participants was 14 years (IQR 10-29) and 153 (52%) were female. 297 patients had PCR-confirmed Buruli ulcer; 151 (51%) were assigned to RS8 treatment, and 146 (49%) received oral RC8 treatment. In the RS8 group, lesions healed in 144 (95%, 95% CI 91 to 98) of 151 patients, whereas lesions healed in 140 (96%, 91 to 99) of 146 patients in the RC8 group. The difference in proportion, -0·5% (-5·2 to 4·2), was not significantly greater than zero (p=0·59), showing that RC8 treatment is non-inferior to RS8 treatment for lesion healing at 52 weeks. Treatment-related adverse events were recorded in 20 (13%) patients receiving RS8 and in nine (7%) patients receiving RC8. Most adverse events were grade 1-2, but one (1%) patient receiving RS8 developed serious ototoxicity and ended treatment after 6 weeks. No patients needed surgical resection. Four patients (two in each study group) had skin grafts. INTERPRETATION: Fully oral RC8 regimen was non-inferior to RS8 for treatment of early, limited Buruli ulcer and was associated with fewer adverse events. Therefore, we propose that fully oral RC8 should be the preferred therapy for early, limited lesions of Buruli ulcer. FUNDING: WHO with additional support from MAP International, American Leprosy Missions, Fondation Raoul Follereau France, Buruli ulcer Groningen Foundation, Sanofi-Pasteur, and BuruliVac.

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).

An enhanced regimen as post-exposure chemoprophylaxis for leprosy: PEP+.

The ongoing transmission of Mycobacterium (M.) leprae reflected in a very slow decline in leprosy incidence, forces us to be innovative and conduct cutting-edge research. Single dose rifampicin (SDR) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for contacts of leprosy patients, reduces their risk to develop leprosy by 60%. This is a promising new preventive measure that can be integrated into routine leprosy control programmes, as is being demonstrated in the Leprosy Post-Exposure Programme that is currently ongoing in eight countries.The limited (60%) effectiveness of SDR is likely due to the fact that some contacts have a preclinical infection beyond the early stages for which SDR is not sufficient to prevent the development of clinical signs and symptoms of leprosy. An enhanced regimen, more potent against a higher load of leprosy bacteria, would increase the effectiveness of this preventive measure significantly.The Netherlands Leprosy Relief (NLR) is developing a multi-country study aiming to show that breaking the chain of transmission of M. leprae is possible, evidenced by a dramatic reduction in incidence. In this study the assessment of the effectiveness of an enhanced prophylactic regimen for leprosy is an important component. To define the so called PEP++ regimen for this intervention study, NLR convened an Expert Meeting that was attended by clinical leprologists, public health experts, pharmacologists, dermatologists and microbiologists.The Expert Meeting advised on combinations of available drugs, with known efficacy against leprosy, as well as on the duration of the intake, aiming at a risk reduction of 80-90%. To come to a conclusion the Expert Meeting considered the bactericidal, sterilising and bacteriostatic activity of the potential drugs. The criteria used to determine an optimal enhanced regimen were: effectiveness, safety, acceptability, availability, affordability, feasibility and not inducing drug resistance.The Expert Meeting concluded that the enhanced regimen for the PEP++ study should comprise three standard doses of rifampicin 600 mg (weight adjusted when given to children) plus moxifloxacin 400 mg given at four-weekly intervals. For children and for adults with contraindications for moxifloxacin, moxifloxacin should be replaced by clarithromycin 300 mg (weight adjusted).

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

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.

An enhanced regimen as post-exposure chemoprophylaxis for leprosy: PEP++

The ongoing transmission of Mycobacterium (M.) leprae reflected in a very slow decline in leprosy incidence, forces us to be innovative and conduct cutting-edge research. Single dose rifampicin (SDR) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for contacts of leprosy patients, reduces their risk to develop leprosy by 60%. This is a promising new preventive measure that can be integrated into routine leprosy control programmes, as is being demonstrated in the Leprosy Post-Exposure Programme that is currently ongoing in eight countries.The limited (60%) effectiveness of SDR is likely due to the fact that some contacts have a preclinical infection beyond the early stages for which SDR is not sufficient to prevent the development of clinical signs and symptoms of leprosy. An enhanced regimen, more potent against a higher load of leprosy bacteria, would increase the effectiveness of this preventive measure significantly.The Netherlands Leprosy Relief (NLR) is developing a multi-country study aiming to show that breaking the chain of transmission of M. leprae is possible, evidenced by a dramatic reduction in incidence. In this study the assessment of the effectiveness of an enhanced prophylactic regimen for leprosy is an important component. To define the so called PEP++ regimen for this intervention study, NLR convened an Expert Meeting that was attended by clinical leprologists, public health experts, pharmacologists, dermatologists and microbiologists.The Expert Meeting advised on combinations of available drugs, with known efficacy against leprosy, as well as on the duration of the intake, aiming at a risk reduction of 80-90%. To come to a conclusion the Expert Meeting considered the bactericidal, sterilising and bacteriostatic activity of the potential drugs. The criteria used to determine an optimal enhanced regimen were: effectiveness, safety, acceptability, availability, affordability, feasibility and not inducing drug resistance.The Expert Meeting concluded that the enhanced regimen for the PEP++ study should comprise three standard doses of rifampicin 600 mg (weight adjusted when given to children) plus moxifloxacin 400 mg given at four-weekly intervals. For children and for adults with contraindications for moxifloxacin, moxifloxacin should be replaced by clarithromycin 300 mg (weight adjusted).

Multidrug therapy for leprosy: a game changer on the path to elimination.

Leprosy is present in more than 100 countries, where it remains a major cause of peripheral neuropathy and disability. Attempts to eliminate the disease have faced various obstacles, including characteristics of the causative bacillus Mycobacterium leprae: the long incubation period, limited knowledge about its mode of transmission, and its poor growth on culture media. Fortunately, the leprosy bacillus is sensitive to several antibiotics. The first antibiotic to be widely used for leprosy treatment was dapsone in the 1950s, which had to be taken over several years and was associated with increasing bacterial resistance. Therefore, in 1981, WHO recommended that all registered patients with leprosy should receive combination therapy with three antibiotics: rifampicin, clofazimine, and dapsone. Global implementation of this highly effective multidrug therapy took about 15 years. In 1985, 5·3 million patients were receiving multidrug therapy; by 1991, this figure had decreased to 3·1 million (a decrease of 42%) and, by 2000, to 597 232 (a decrease of almost 90%). This reduction in the number of patients registered for treatment was due to shortening of the treatment regimen and achievement of 100% coverage with multidrug therapy. This achievement, which owed much to WHO and the donors of the multidrug therapy components, prompted WHO in 1991 to set a global target of less than one case per 10 000 population by 2000 to eliminate the disease as a public health problem. All but 15 countries achieved this target. Since 2000, about 250 000 new cases of leprosy have been detected every year. We believe an all-out campaign by a global leprosy coalition is needed to bring that figure down to zero.

Multidrug therapy for leprosy: a game changer on the path to elimination

Leprosy is present in more than 100 countries, where it remains a major cause of peripheral neuropathy and disability. Attempts to eliminate the disease have faced various obstacles, including characteristics of the causative bacillus Mycobacterium leprae: the long incubation period, limited knowledge about its mode of transmission, and its poor growth on culture media. Fortunately, the leprosy bacillus is sensitive to several antibiotics. The first antibiotic to be widely used for leprosy treatment was dapsone in the 1950s, which had to be taken over several years and was associated with increasing bacterial resistance. Therefore, in 1981, WHO recommended that all registered patients with leprosy should receive combination therapy with three antibiotics: rifampicin, clofazimine, and dapsone. Global implementation of this highly effective multidrug therapy took about 15 years. In 1985, 5·3 million patients were receiving multidrug therapy; by 1991, this figure had decreased to 3·1 million (a decrease of 42%) and, by 2000, to 597 232 (a decrease of almost 90%). This reduction in the number of patients registered for treatment was due to shortening of the treatment regimen and achievement of 100% coverage with multidrug therapy. This achievement, which owed much to WHO and the donors of the multidrug therapy components, prompted WHO in 1991 to set a global target of less than one case per 10 000 population by 2000 to eliminate the disease as a public health problem. All but 15 countries achieved this target. Since 2000, about 250 000 new cases of leprosy have been detected every year. We believe an all-out campaign by a global leprosy coalition is needed to bring that figure down to zero.

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.

Drug-resistant M leprae.

Dapsone was used as a single drug to treat leprosy, and secondary resistance soon developed, greatly reducing its effectiveness. Multidrug therapy has been used successfully since 1982, and until now, only a few sporadic cases of rifampicin resistance have been reported. Surveillance is needed to make sure that chemotherapy for leprosy remains effective for the foreseeable future. This review is based on reports from the annual drug resistance surveillance meetings convened by the World Health Organization and related literature. Very few cases of rifampicin resistance are currently known globally, except for a small group of cases in a former leprosy colony in Brazil. A low level of ofloxacin resistance has been found, especially in India. A larger number of patient samples should be tested each year. The results give grounds for cautious optimism, although the number of samples tested should be significantly increased. Possible foci of rifampicin resistance near former leprosy colonies in Brazil should be further investigated.