Self-reported clinical history of misdiagnosed leprosy cases in the State of Mato Grosso, Brzil, 2016-2019.

This study aimed to analyze the self-reported clinical history of patients misdiagnosed with leprosy in the State of Mato Grosso, Brazil. This is a cross-sectional study of new leprosy cases diagnosed in the State of Mato Grosso from 2016 to 2019, with individuals who were released from multidrug therapy due to misdiagnosis after starting treatment. Data were collected via telephone interviews. Over the study period, 354 leprosy cases were released from treatment due to misdiagnosis, of which 162 (45.8%) could be interviewed. All interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with their treatment, which prompted them to seek a reevaluation of their diagnosis before they were released due to "misdiagnosis". Among them, 35.8% received a final diagnosis of a musculoskeletal or connective tissue disease - mainly fibromyalgia and degenerative changes in the spine - followed by 13.6% with diagnoses of skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases. For 23.5% of the respondents, no alternative diagnosis was established, whereas 7.4% were later re-diagnosed with leprosy. Fibromyalgia and spinal problems were the most common alternative diagnoses for erroneous leprosy. Although the diagnosis of leprosy is usually clinical and does not require access to technical infrastructure in most cases, some more complex situations require diagnostic support via complementary tests, as well as close collaboration between primary care and reference services.

Self-reported clinical history of misdiagnosed leprosy cases in the State of Mato Grosso, Brazil, 2016-2019 / Histórico clínico autorreferido de casos mal classificados de hanseníase no Estado do Mato Grosso, Brasil, 2016-2019 / Historia clínica autorreportada de casos de lepra mal diagnosticados en el estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil, 2016-2019

This study aimed to analyze the self-reported clinical history of patients misdiagnosed with leprosy in the State of Mato Grosso, Brazil. This is a cross-sectional study of new leprosy cases diagnosed in the State of Mato Grosso from 2016 to 2019, with individuals who were released from multidrug therapy due to misdiagnosis after starting treatment. Data were collected via telephone interviews. Over the study period, 354 leprosy cases were released from treatment due to misdiagnosis, of which 162 (45.8%) could be interviewed. All interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with their treatment, which prompted them to seek a reevaluation of their diagnosis before they were released due to "misdiagnosis". Among them, 35.8% received a final diagnosis of a musculoskeletal or connective tissue disease - mainly fibromyalgia and degenerative changes in the spine - followed by 13.6% with diagnoses of skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases. For 23.5% of the respondents, no alternative diagnosis was established, whereas 7.4% were later re-diagnosed with leprosy. Fibromyalgia and spinal problems were the most common alternative diagnoses for erroneous leprosy. Although the diagnosis of leprosy is usually clinical and does not require access to technical infrastructure in most cases, some more complex situations require diagnostic support via complementary tests, as well as close collaboration between primary care and reference services.

O objetivo deste estudo foi analisar o histórico clínico autorreferido de pacientes diagnosticados erroneamente com hanseníase no Estado do Mato Grosso, Brasil. Trata-se de um estudo transversal de novos casos de hanseníase diagnosticados no Estado do Mato Grosso, de 2016 a 2019, que após o início da poliquimioterapia foram liberados do tratamento devido a erros de diagnóstico. Para a coleta de dados, foram realizadas entrevistas telefônicas. Durante o período do estudo, 354 indivíduos com hanseníase foram liberados do tratamento por erro de diagnóstico, dos quais 162 (45,8%) puderam ser entrevistados. Todos os entrevistados expressaram insatisfação com o tratamento, levando à reavaliação do diagnóstico antes de serem liberados por "erro de diagnóstico". Dentre eles, 35,8% tinham como diagnóstico final uma doença musculoesquelética ou do tecido conjuntivo, principalmente fibromialgia e alterações na coluna vertebral, seguidos por 13,6% com diagnósticos de doenças de pele e tecido subcutâneo. Para 23,5% dos entrevistados, nenhum diagnóstico alternativo foi estabelecido, enquanto 7,4% foram posteriormente rediagnosticados com hanseníase. Diagnósticos errôneos de hanseníase foram mais frequentemente reclassificados como fibromialgia e problemas na coluna vertebral. Embora o diagnóstico da hanseníase seja geralmente clínico e não exija acesso à infraestrutura técnica na maioria dos casos, algumas situações mais complexas requerem apoio ao diagnóstico por meio de exames complementares, bem como estreita colaboração entre a atenção primária e os serviços de referência.

El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar la historia clínica autorreportada de pacientes con diagnóstico erróneo de lepra en el estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil. Se trata de un estudio transversal de nuevos casos de lepra diagnosticados en el estado de Mato Grosso, en el periodo de 2016 a 2019, que, después de iniciar la quimioterapia multimedicamentosa, fueron dados de alta del tratamiento por errores diagnósticos. Para la recolección de datos se realizaron entrevistas telefónicas. Durante el periodo de estudio, 354 individuos con lepra fueron dados de alta del tratamiento por diagnóstico erróneo, de los cuales 162 (45,8%) fueron entrevistados. Todos los encuestados manifestaron su insatisfacción con el tratamiento, lo que llevó a una reevaluación del diagnóstico antes de ser dados de alta por "error de diagnóstico". Entre ellos, el 35,8% tenía como diagnóstico final una enfermedad musculoesquelética o del tejido conectivo, principalmente fibromialgia y cambios en la columna, seguidos de un 13,6% con diagnóstico de enfermedades de la piel y del tejido subcutáneo. El 23,5% de los encuestados no recibieron un diagnóstico alternativo, mientras que el 7,4% fueron rediagnosticados posteriormente con lepra. Los diagnósticos erróneos de lepra se reclasificaron con mayor frecuencia como fibromialgia y problemas de columna. Aunque el diagnóstico de lepra es generalmente clínico y, en la mayoría de los casos, no requiere acceso a infraestructura técnica, algunas situaciones más complejas necesitan pruebas complementarias para su diagnóstico, así como una estrecha colaboración entre la atención primaria y los servicios de referencia.

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.

Are the clinical features of leprosy and American tegumentary leishmaniasis worse in patients with both diseases?

This cross-sectional population-based study compared clinical features of leprosy and American tegumentary leishmaniasis (ATL) in patients diagnosed with both diseases (n=414) and in those diagnosed with only leprosy (n=27,790) or only ATL (n=24,357) in Mato Grosso State, which is a hyperendemic area for both diseases in Midwest Brazil. All new cases of leprosy and ATL reported in the area from 2008 to 2017 were included. Patients diagnosed with both diseases were identified by a probabilistic linkage procedure applied to leprosy and ATL databases of the national reporting system. The distribution of the frequency of clinical features between groups was compared by the chi-square test, followed by a multivariate logistic regression. Patients diagnosed with both leprosy and ATL presented higher odds of having nerve damage (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.09-1.66) and leprosy reactions (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.04-1.76) compared to patients diagnosed only with leprosy. Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis (OR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.74-3.00) was more frequent among patients with both diagnoses when compared to patients who only had ATL. In conclusion, patients diagnosed with both leprosy and ATL present more severe clinical features of such diseases. Our data can be useful for designing health policies aimed at timely and integrated management of leprosy and ATL in co-endemic areas.

Spatio-temporal analysis of leprosy risks in a municipality in the state of Mato Grosso-Brazilian Amazon: results from the leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis program in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) with single dose rifampicin (SDR) can be integrated into different leprosy control program set-ups once contact tracing has been established. We analyzed the spatio-temporal changes in the distribution of index cases (IC) and co-prevalent cases among contacts of leprosy patients (CP) over the course of the LPEP program in one of the four study areas in Brazil, namely the municipality of Alta Floresta, state of Mato Grosso, in the Brazilian Amazon basin. METHODS: Leprosy cases were mapped, and socioeconomic indicators were evaluated to explain the leprosy distribution of all leprosy cases diagnosed in the period 2016-2018. Data were obtained on new leprosy cases [Notifiable diseases information system (Sinan)], contacts traced by the LPEP program, and socioeconomic variables [Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE)]. Kernel, SCAN, factor analysis and spatial regression were applied to analyze changes. RESULTS: Overall, the new case detection rate (NCDR) was 20/10 000 inhabitants or 304 new cases, of which 55 were CP cases among the 2076 examined contacts. Changes over time were observed in the geographic distribution of cases. The highest concentration of cases was observed in the northeast of the study area, including one significant cluster (Relative risk = 2.24; population 27 427, P-value < 0.001) in an area characterized by different indicators associated with poverty as identified through spatial regression (Coefficient 3.34, P-value = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The disease distribution was partly explained by poverty indicators. LPEP influences the spatial dynamic of the disease and results highlighted the relevance of systematic contact surveillance for leprosy elimination.

Are the clinical features of leprosy and American tegumentary leishmaniasis worse in patients with both diseases?

ABSTRACT This cross-sectional population-based study compared clinical features of leprosy and American tegumentary leishmaniasis (ATL) in patients diagnosed with both diseases (n=414) and in those diagnosed with only leprosy (n=27,790) or only ATL (n=24,357) in Mato Grosso State, which is a hyperendemic area for both diseases in Midwest Brazil. All new cases of leprosy and ATL reported in the area from 2008 to 2017 were included. Patients diagnosed with both diseases were identified by a probabilistic linkage procedure applied to leprosy and ATL databases of the national reporting system. The distribution of the frequency of clinical features between groups was compared by the chi-square test, followed by a multivariate logistic regression. Patients diagnosed with both leprosy and ATL presented higher odds of having nerve damage (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.09-1.66) and leprosy reactions (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.04-1.76) compared to patients diagnosed only with leprosy. Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis (OR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.74-3.00) was more frequent among patients with both diagnoses when compared to patients who only had ATL. In conclusion, patients diagnosed with both leprosy and ATL present more severe clinical features of such diseases. Our data can be useful for designing health policies aimed at timely and integrated management of leprosy and ATL in co-endemic areas.

Leprosy and cutaneous leishmaniasis affecting the same individuals: A retrospective cohort analysis in a hyperendemic area in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy and cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) are neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) affecting the skin. Their control is challenging but the integration of skin NTDs control programs is recommended to improve timely detection and treatment. However, little is known about the occurrence of leprosy and CL in the same individuals, and what are the characteristics of such patients. This study aimed to identify and characterize patients diagnosed with both leprosy and CL (i.e., outcome) in the hyperendemic state of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Also, we investigated the demographic risk factors associated with the period between the diagnosis of both diseases. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2017. From the leprosy (n = 28,204) and CL (n = 24,771) databases of the national reporting system, 414 (0.8%; 414/52,561) patients presenting both diseases were identified through a probabilistic linkage procedure. This observed number was much higher than the number of patients that would be expected by chance alone (n = 22). The spatial distribution of patients presenting the outcome was concentrated in the North and Northeast mesoregions of the state. Through survival analysis, we detected that the probability of a patient developing both diseases increased over time from 0.2% in the first year to 1.0% within seven years. Further, using a Cox model we identified male sex (HR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.7-2.9) and low schooling level (HR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.2-1.9) as positively associated with the outcome. Furthermore, the hazard of developing the outcome was higher among individuals aged 40-55 years. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Leprosy and CL are affecting the same individuals in the area. Integration of control policies for both diseases will help to efficiently cover such patients. Measures should be focused on timely diagnosis by following-up patients diagnosed with CL, active case detection, and training of health professionals.

Perception of cure among leprosy patients post completion of multi-drug therapy.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy is a treatable disease; however, the release from treatment after completion of multidrug therapy (MDT) often does not equal absence of health problems. Consequently, sequelae interfere with the patient's perception of cure. The objective of this study was to analyze the factors associated with the perception of not being healed among people treated for leprosy in a highly endemic area in Brazil. METHOD: A cross-sectional study of perceived cure of leprosy in the post-release from treatment period was conducted in Cáceres in the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil. The study included a total of 390 leprosy patients treated with MDT and released after completion of treatment from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2017. The dependent variable was self-reported cure of leprosy; the independent variables included clinical, operational and socioeconomic variables. RESULTS: Out of the 390 former leprosy patients, 304 (77.9%) perceived themselves as cured and 86 (22.1%) considered themselves unhealed. Among the latter, 49 (57.0%) reported muscle weakness and joint pains. Individuals with complaints related to leprosy post-release from treatment had a 4.6 times higher chance to self-report as unhealed (OR 4.6; 95% CI 2.5-8.5). Patients with physical disabilities (PD) grade 1 and 2 at the time of the study had a 3.1 (OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.3-7.4) and 8.8 (OR 7.7; 95% CI 3.5-21.9) times higher likelihood to self-identify as unhealed, respectively. CONCLUSION: Among successfully treated leprosy patients, a quarter self-report as unhealed of the disease. The factors associated with the perception of being unhealed are PD and complaints related to leprosy in the post-release from treatment phase.

Preventing leprosy with retrospective active case finding combined with single-dose rifampicin for contacts in a low endemic setting: results of the Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis program in Cambodia.

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with single-dose rifampicin (SDR) reduces the risk of developing leprosy among contacts of leprosy patients. Most evidence for the feasibility of the intervention is from highly endemic settings while low-endemic areas present unique challenges including reduced awareness of the disease among the population and in the health system, and the only sporadic occurrence of cases which together make defining any type of routine process challenging. We complemented the retrospective active case finding (RACF) approach with SDR administration to eligible contacts, and piloted the intervention across 31 operational districts in Cambodia. The aim was to demonstrate the feasibility of improving early case detection and administering SDR in a low endemic setting. The intervention focused on leprosy patients diagnosed since 2011 and was implemented between October 2016 - September 2019. The "drives" approach was employed to trace contacts: a trained team systematically contacted all eligible cases in a district, traced and screened contacts, and administered SDR. A total of 555 index patients were traced by the drive team, and 10,410 contacts in their household and 5 immediate neighbor houses listed. Among these contacts, 72.0% could be screened while most others were absent on the screening day. A total of 33 new leprosy cases were diagnosed and 6189 contacts received SDR (82.6% of the screened contacts). Sixty-one contacts refused SDR administration. We conclude that integrating PEP with SDR in RACF campaigns is feasible, and that this approach is appropriate in low resource and low endemic settings. Over time, evidence on whether or not the approach reduced leprosy transmission in Cambodia, may become clear.

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.

Misdiagnosis of leprosy in Brazil in the period 2003 - 2017: spatial pattern and associated factors.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy causes a range of symptoms, and most diagnoses are established based on the clinical picture. Therefore, false negative and positive diagnoses are relatively common. We analyzed the spatial pattern of leprosy misdiagnosis and associated factors in Brazil. METHOD: Exploratory analyses of Kernel density of the new case detection rate (NCDR) and proportion of misdiagnosis in Brazil, 2003-2017. Factors associated with misdiagnosis were identified by logistic regression at the 5% significance level. RESULT: A total of 574,181 new leprosy cases were recorded in Brazil within the study period, of which 7,477 (1.3%) were misdiagnoses. No spatial correlation was observed between the proportion of misdiagnoses and the NCDR. The likelihood of misdiagnosis was elevated for females [OR: 1.58 (1.51-1.66)], children [OR: 1.49 (1.36-1.64)]; paucibacillary [OR: 1.08 (1.02-1.13)], indeterminate clinical forms [OR: 2.37 (2.15-2.62)], for cases diagnosed in the frame of mass screenings [OR: 3.36 (3.09- 3.73)] and contact examination [OR: 2.30 (2.13-2.49)] and for cases with affected nerves but no skin lesions [OR: 2.47 (2.19-2.77)] when compared with those presenting both skin lesion and affected nerves. CONCLUSION: Misdiagnosis of leprosy is not correlated with the endemicity level in Brazil but rather with personal, diagnosis-related and disease characteristics.

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.

A comprehensive research agenda for zero leprosy.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy control achieved dramatic success in the 1980s-1990s with the implementation of short course multidrug therapy, which reduced the global prevalence of leprosy to less than 1 in 10 000 population. However, a period of relative stagnation in leprosy control followed this achievement, and only limited further declines in the global number of new cases reported have been achieved over the past decade. MAIN TEXT: In 2016, major stakeholders called for the development of an innovative and comprehensive leprosy strategy aimed at reducing the incidence of leprosy, lowering the burden of disability and discrimination, and interrupting transmission. This led to the establishment of the Global Partnership for Zero Leprosy (GPZL) in 2018, with partners aligned around a shared Action Framework committed to achieving the WHO targets by 2030 through national leprosy program capacity-building, resource mobilisation and an enabling research agenda. GPZL convened over 140 experts from more than 20 countries to develop a research agenda to achieve zero leprosy. The result is a detailed research agenda focusing on diagnostics, mapping, digital technology and innovation, disability, epidemiological modelling and investment case, implementation research, stigma, post exposure prophylaxis and transmission, and vaccines. This research agenda is aligned with the research priorities identified by other stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Developing and achieving consensus on the research agenda for zero leprosy is a significant step forward for the leprosy community. In a next step, research programmes must be developed, with individual components of the research agenda requiring distinct expertise, varying in resource needs, and operating over different timescales. Moving toward zero leprosy now requires partner alignment and new investments at all stages of the research process, from discovery to implementation.

Disability progression among leprosy patients released from treatment: a survival analysis.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy can be cured, but physical disability (PD) as a result of the infection can progress in the post-release from treatment phase. This study evaluated the likelihood of, and factors associated with, the progression of the PD grade post-release from treatment among leprosy patients treated in Cáceres-MT, Brazil in the period 2000 to 2017. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study and survival analysis were performed in the hyperendemic municipality of Cáceres in the state of Mato Grosso. The study population consisted of newly diagnosed leprosy patients released from treatment between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2017. The main outcome was the progression of the PD grade with regard to probability and time; and the evaluated covariates included clinical, operational and demographic variables. The Cox proportional risk model was used to estimate the risk ratio (Hazard Ratios) of the covariates. Both an univariate and a multivariate analysis were implemented, with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The mean time for progression of the PD grade was 162 months for PB and 151 months for MB leprosy patients. The survival curve showed that 15 years after the release from treatment, the probability of PD grade progression was 35%, with no difference between PB and MB or age groups. Leprosy reactions and registered medical complaints of any kind during treatment were identified as risk factors with Hazard Ratios of 1.6 and 1.8 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: People released from treatment as cured of leprosy are susceptible to worsening of the PD, especially those who have had complications during multi-drug therapy treatment. This indicates that leprosy patients should be periodically monitored, even after the successful completion of multidrug therapy.

[Acceptability of chemoprophylaxis in an endemic area for leprosy: the PEP-Hans Brazil Project]. / Aceitabilidade da quimioprofilaxia em área endêmica para a hanseníase: projeto PEP-Hans Brasil.

The aim was to analyze the acceptability of chemoprophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (PEP) in contacts, index leprosy cases, and health professionals and related factors that can influence adherence. A qualitative content analysis study was performed after application of semi-structured interviews according to the protocol proposed in the LPEP program (2016) drafted at Alta Floresta, Mato Grosso State, Brazil, in July 2016. Study participants included individuals with leprosy, contacts, and health professionals. The QRS NVivo software version 10 was used. A total of 80 individuals were contacted, including 54 (67%) contacts, 11 (14%) index cases, and 15 (19%) health professionals. 94% of the contacts (51/54) took PEP. Three PEP categories were identified: understanding, acceptance, and expectation towards the intervention. Understanding proved to be related to care by the health team. Acceptance (or lack thereof) of the medication was related to fear, trust, and protection, the strategy's operability, self-esteem, and insecurity regarding the intervention. Expectation towards the intervention was related to wellbeing, prevention of the disease, sequelae, decrease in public expenditures, and expanded access. Participants acknowledged the relevance of the PEP strategy based on the possibility of interrupting the transmission chain, reduction in new cases, and improved quality of life. Insecurity in taking the medication and the possibility of the disease manifesting itself had a negative influence on acceptance of PEP, while prior information on the PEP strategy helped strengthen trust in the health professionals and the medication's acceptance.

O objetivo deste artigo foi analisar a aceitabilidade da quimioprofilaxia com rifampicina em dose única (PEP) entre os contatos, casos índices de hanseníase e profissionais da saúde e fatores relacionados que possam influenciar na adesão. Realizou-se um estudo qualitativo de análise de conteúdo após aplicação de entrevistas semiestruturadas segundo protocolo proposto no programa LPEP (2016), realizado em Alta Floresta, Mato Grosso, Brasil, em julho de 2016. Participaram do estudo indivíduos notificados com hanseníase, contatos e profissionais da saúde. Utilizou-se o software QRS NVivo versão 10. Foram contatados 80 indivíduos, sendo 54 (67%) contatos, 11 (14%) casos índices e 15 (19%) profissionais de saúde. Dentre os contatos, 94% (51/54) tomaram PEP. Foram identificadas 3 categorias quanto à PEP: compreensão, aceitação e expectativa da intervenção. A compreensão se mostrou relacionada ao cuidado da equipe de saúde. Aceitar ou não a medicação revelou-se relacionada ao medo, confiança e proteção, operacionalidade da estratégia, autoestima e insegurança quanto à intervenção. A expectativa da intervenção relacionou-se ao bem-estar, prevenção da doença e de sequelas, diminuição de gastos públicos e ampliação do acesso. Houve reconhecimento da relevância da estratégia PEP pela possibilidade de interrupção da cadeia de transmissão, diminuição de casos novos e melhora na qualidade de vida. A insegurança em tomar a medicação e de a doença se manifestar influenciaram negativamente à aceitação da PEP; por outro lado, as informações prévias sobre a estratégia PEP contribuíram para o fortalecimento da confiança nos profissionais de saúde e para a aceitabilidade da medicação.

El objetivo fue analizar la aceptabilidad de la quimioprofilaxis con rifampicina en dosis única (PEP) entre los contactos, casos índices de hanseniasis y profesionales de salud, así como los factores relacionados que puedan influenciar en la adhesión al tratamiento. Se realizó un estudio cualitativo de análisis de contenido, tras la realización de entrevistas semiestructuradas, según el protocolo propuesto en el programa LPEP (2016), realizado en Alta Floresta, Mato Grosso, Brasil, en julio de 2016. Participaron en el estudio individuos diagnosticados con hanseniasis, contactos y profesionales de la salud. Se utilizó el software QRS NVivo versión 10. Se contactó con 80 individuos, siendo 54 (67%) contactos, 11 (14%) casos índices y 15 (19%) profesionales de salud. Entre los contactos 94% (51/54) tomaron PEP. Se identificaron 3 categorías respecto a la PEP: comprensión, aceptación y expectativa de intervención. La comprensión estuvo relacionada con el cuidado del equipo de salud. El aceptar o no la medicación estuvo relacionado con el miedo, confianza y protección, operatividad de la estrategia, autoestima e inseguridad de la intervención. La expectativa de la intervención estuvo relacionada con el bienestar, prevención de la enfermedad, así como secuelas, disminución de gasto público y ampliación del acceso. Existió un reconocimiento de la relevancia de la estrategia PEP por la posibilidad de interrupción de la cadena de transmisión, disminución de casos nuevos y mejora en la calidad de vida. La inseguridad en tomar la medicación y de que la enfermedad se manifestara influenciaron negativamente en la aceptación de la PEP, por otro lado, la información previa sobre la estrategia PEP contribuyó al fortalecimiento de la confianza en los profesionales de salud y a la aceptabilidad de la medicación.