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.

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.

Revised estimates of leprosy disability weights for assessing the global burden of disease: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy is a chronic bacterial infection caused by Mycobacterium leprae, which may lead to physical disability, stigma, and discrimination. The chronicity of the disease and disabilities are the prime contributors to the disease burden of leprosy. The current figures of the disease burden in the 2017 global burden of disease study, however, are considered to be under-estimated. In this study, we aimed to systematically review the literature and perform individual patient data meta-analysis to estimate new disability weights for leprosy, using Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) data. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The search strategy included all major databases with no restriction on language, setting, study design, or year of publication. Studies on human populations that have been affected by leprosy and recorded the HRQOL with the Short form tool, were included. A consortium was formed with authors who could share the anonymous individual-level data of their study. Mean disability weight estimates, sorted by the grade of leprosy disability as defined by WHO, were estimated for individual participant data and pooled using multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Eight out of 14 studies from the review were included in the meta-analysis due to the availability of individual-level data (667 individuals). The overall estimated disability weight for grade 2 disability was 0.26 (95%CI: 0.18-0.34). For grade 1 disability the estimated weight was 0.19 (95%CI: 0.13-0.26) and for grade 0 disability it was 0.13 (95%CI: 0.06-0.19). The revised disability weight for grade 2 leprosy disability is four times higher than the published GBD 2017 weights for leprosy and the grade 1 disability weight is nearly twenty times higher. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The global burden of leprosy is grossly underestimated. Revision of the current disability weights and inclusion of disability caused in individuals with grade 0 leprosy disability will contribute towards a more precise estimation of the global burden of leprosy.

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).

Revised estimates of leprosy disability weights for assessing the global burden of disease: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

Leprosy is a chronic, disabling disease that causes various kinds of disability in the affected person. This includes physical impairment, activity limitation, and participation restriction. However, the published global burden of disease estimates for leprosy is considered to be a gross under-estimation. Disability weights form an integral component in the calculation of the burden estimates. But the methodology for calculation of the weights focuses only on physical impairment and lacks the perspective of the patient. In this study, we systematically reviewed the literature and performed an individual patient data meta analysis for revising the disability weights for leprosy using domain scores from health related quality of life instruments. The domains of these instruments cover all aspects of disability from a patient's perspective. We found that the revised weights were considerably higher than the current weights, and were more reflective of the actual disability caused by leprosy. We also found that for individuals without any severe disability due to leprosy (grade 0), they still experience comparable suffering. Revision of the current disability weights and inclusion of the disability caused in grade 0 individuals will contribute towards better estimation of the global burden of leprosy.

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.

Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis in the Indian health system: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

India has the highest burden of leprosy in the world. Following a recent WHO guideline, the Indian National Leprosy Programme is introducing post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (SDR-PEP) in all high-endemic districts of the country. The aim of this study is to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of SDR-PEP in different leprosy disability burden situations. We used a stochastic individual-based model (SIMCOLEP) to simulate the leprosy new case detection rate trend and the impact of implementing contact screening and SDR-PEP from 2016 to 2040 (25 years) in the Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli (DNH) in India. Effects of the intervention were expressed as disability adjusted life years (DALY) averted under three assumption of disability prevention: 1) all grade 1 disability (G1D) cases prevented; 2) G1D cases prevented in PB cases only; 3) no disability prevented. Costs were US$ 2.9 per contact. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%. The incremental cost per DALY averted by SDR-PEP was US$ 210, US$ 447, and US$ 5,673 in the 25th year under assumption 1, 2, and 3, respectively. If prevention of G1D was assumed, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 1.0 at the threshold of US$ 2,000, which is equivalent to the GDP per capita of India. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.6, if no disability prevention was assumed. The cost per new leprosy case averted was US$ 2,873. Contact listing, screening and the provision of SDR-PEP is a cost-effective strategy in leprosy control in both the short (5 years) and long term (25 years). The cost-effectiveness depends on the extent to which disability can be prevented. As the intervention becomes increasingly cost-effective in the long term, we recommend a long-term commitment for its implementation.

Hyperendemicity, heterogeneity and spatial overlap of leprosy and cutaneous leishmaniasis in the southern Amazon region of Brazil.

Neglected tropical diseases characterized by skin lesions are highly endemic in the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil. We analyzed the spatial distribution of leprosy and Cutaneous Leishmaniasis (CL) and identified the degree of overlap in their distribution. All new cases of leprosy and CL reported between 2008 and 2017 through the national reporting system were included in the study. Scan statistics together with univariate Global and Local Moran's I were employed to identify clusters and spatial autocorrelation for each disease, with the spatial correlation between leprosy and CL measured by bivariate Global and Local Moran's I. Finally, we evaluated the demographic characteristics of the patients. The number of leprosy (N = 28,204) and CL (N = 24,771) cases in Mato Grosso and the highly smoothed detection coefficients indicated hyperendemicity and spatial distribution heterogeneity. Scan statistics demonstrated overlap of high-risk clusters for leprosy (RR = 2.0; P <0.001) and CL (RR = 4.0; P <0.001) in the North and Northeast mesoregions. Global Moran's I revealed a spatial autocorrelation for leprosy (0.228; P = 0.001) and CL (0.311; P = 0.001) and a correlation between them (0.164; P = 0.001). Both diseases were found to be concentrated in urban areas among men aged 31-60 years, of brown-skinned ethnicity and with a low educational level. Our findings indicate a need for developing integrated and spatially as well as socio-demographically targeted public health policies.

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).

Leprosy services in primary health care in India: comparative economic cost analysis of two public-health settings.

OBJECTIVES: The WHO recommends inclusion of post-exposure chemoprophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin in national leprosy control programmes. The objective was to estimate the cost of leprosy services at primary care level in two different public-health settings. METHODS: Ingredient-based costing was performed in eight primary health centres (PHCs) purposively selected in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DNH) and the Umbergaon block of Valsad district, Gujarat, India. All costs were bootstrapped, and to estimate the variation in total cost under uncertainty, a univariate sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean annual cost of providing leprosy services was USD 29 072 in the DNH PHC (95% CI: 22 125-36 020) and USD 11 082 in Umbergaon (95% CI: 8334-13 830). The single largest cost component was human resources: 79% in DNH and 83% in Umbergaon. The unit cost for screening the contact of a leprosy patient was USD 1 in DNH (95% CI: 0.8-1.2) and USD 0.3 in Umbergaon (95% CI: 0.2-0.4). In DNH, the unit cost of delivering single-dose of rifampicin (SDR) as chemoprophylaxis for contacts was USD 2.9 (95% CI: 2.5-3.7). CONCLUSIONS: The setting with an enhanced public-health financing system invests more in leprosy services than a setting with fewer financial resources. In terms of leprosy visits, the enhanced public-health system is hardly more expensive than the non-enhanced public-health system. The unit cost of contact screening is not high, favouring its sustainability in the programme.

Mínima Información esencial para documentar el seguimiento de contactos y dosis única de Rifampicina (SDR) para el control de la Lepra: Guía práctica / No disponible

Hay un renovado interés en el control de la lepra mediante la búsqueda activa de casos, que cada vez más se combina con intervenciones quimioprofilácticas para intentar reducir la transmisión del Mycobacterium leprae. El Programa Profilaxis Post-Exposición a la Lepra (LPEP, en inglés) está activo en ocho países endémicos e implementa la administración de dosis única de rifampicina (SDR, en inglés) a contactos seleccionados de pacientes de lepra. LPEP ha desarrollado un sistema de vigilancia, incluyendo la obtención de datos, reportes y controles rutinarios para cada país participante. Este sistema es todavía en gran parte específico para el programa LPEP. Para facilitar la continuidad después de completar la fase del proyecto y la puesta en marcha en otros países interesados, se intenta identificar la cantidad mínima de datos para documentar adecuadamente las actividades de la búsqueda de contactos y administración SDR para el control de la lepra de forma rutinaria. Se describen cuatro indicadores para el caso índice (además de cuatro ya obtenidos habitualmente) y siete indicadores para el cribaje de convivientes/contactos vecinos y encuestas comunitarias. Se proponen dos formas genéricas para obtener toda la información relevante a nivel de campo y distrito para el seguimiento de individuos o datos si resultara necesario, facilitar directrices para desarrollar las distintas tareas, proporcionar control de calidad al registrar las cuestiones clave para valorar la SDR y facilitar poder informar. Estos impresos genéricos tienen que adaptarse a requerimientos locales en cuanto a diseño, idioma e indicadores operacionales adicionales

In leprosy control there is a renewed interest in active case finding, which is increasingly being combined with chemoprophylactic interventions to try and reduce M. leprae transmission. The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme, currently ongoing in eight endemic countries, pilots the provision of single-dose rifampicin (SDR) to eligible contacts of leprosy patients. LPEP has developed a surveillance system including data collection, reporting and regular monitoring for every participating country. This system is still largely programm-especific to LPEP. To facilitate continuity after completion of the project phase and start-up in other interested countries, we aim at identifying the minimal set of data required to appropriately document contact tracing activities and SDR administration for leprosy control in a routine setting. We describe four indicators for the index case (plus four already routinely collected) and seven indicators for household/neighbour screening, and community surveys. We propose two generic forms to capture all relevant information required at field and district level to follow-up on individuals or data if needed, provide guidance on the sequence of tasks, provide quality control by listing key questions to assess SDR eligibility, and facilitate reporting. These generic forms have to be adapted to local requirements in terms of layout, language, and additional operational indicators

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

Population-wide administration of single dose rifampicin for leprosy prevention in isolated communities: a three year follow-up feasibility study in Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: Indonesia ranking third in the world, regarding leprosy burden. Chemoprophylaxis is effective in reducing risk of developing leprosy among contacts. 'Blanket approach' is an operational strategy for leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis in which all members of an isolated community, high endemic for leprosy are screened and given a single dose of rifampicin (SDR) in the absence of signs and symptoms of leprosy. The objective is to assess the operational feasibility of a population-wide 'blanket' administration of SDR for leprosy prevention in isolated communities in a remote island. METHODS: A prospective follow-up study was conducted in the year 2014, 2015 and 2016 in Lingat village of Selaru Island, Indonesia. During the first two visits, screening and SDR were provided, whereas only screening was conducted during the third visit. The demographic and clinical data were used for a descriptive analysis of the project coverage and leprosy epidemiology. RESULTS: During the first two visits, 1671 persons (88%) were screened, 1499 (79%) received SDR, and 213 (11%) were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. During the first two visits, 43 (2.6%) cases were diagnosed with leprosy with a rate of 2263 per 100,000 population. The prevalence was highest in the age groups 15-24 and 25-49 years. Total, 14 (33%) cases had MB and 29 (67%) PB leprosy. Two cases (5%) had grade 2 disability. During the third visit, 10 new leprosy cases, with no grade 2 disability, were detected out of 1481 screened persons at the rate of 484 cases per 100,000 population (n = 2065 population in 2016). Among those screened during the third visit, there was a 50% reduction of leprosy among those who had previously received SDR compared to those who had not. CONCLUSION: With adequate planning and some additional investment, it is feasible to implement a blanket approach of chemoprophylaxis in a remote island of Indonesia, although effort needs to be made to cover as many people as possible in the first visit. Contingency plans need to be made to actively follow this village closely in the coming years and continue leprosy elimination efforts until no new cases are found any more.

Household expenditure on leprosy outpatient services in the Indian health system: A comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy is a major public health problem in many low and middle income countries, especially in India, and contributes considerably to the global burden of the disease. Leprosy and poverty are closely associated, and therefore the economic burden of leprosy is a concern. However, evidence on patient's expenditure is scarce. In this study, we estimate the expenditure in primary care (outpatient) by leprosy households in two different public health settings. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a cross-sectional study, comparing the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli with the Umbergaon block of Valsad, Gujrat, India. A household (HH) survey was conducted between May and October, 2016. We calculated direct and indirect expenditure by zero inflated negative binomial and negative binomial regression. The sampled households were comparable on socioeconomic indicators. The mean direct expenditure was USD 6.5 (95% CI: 2.4-17.9) in Dadra and Nagar Haveli and USD 5.4 (95% CI: 3.8-7.9) per visit in Umbergaon. The mean indirect expenditure was USD 8.7 (95% CI: 7.2-10.6) in Dadra and Nagar Haveli and USD 12.4 (95% CI: 7.0-21.9) in Umbergaon. The age of the leprosy patients and type of health facilities were the major predictors of total expenditure on leprosy primary care. The higher the age, the higher the expenditure at both sites. The private facilities are more expensive than the government facilities at both sites. If the public health system is enhanced, government facilities are the first preference for patients. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: An enhanced public health system reduces the patient's expenditure and improves the health seeking behaviour. We recommend investing in health system strengthening to reduce the economic burden of leprosy.

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.

Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme: study protocol for evaluating the feasibility and impact on case detection rates of contact tracing and single dose rifampicin.

INTRODUCTION: The reported number of new leprosy patients has barely changed in recent years. Thus, additional approaches or modifications to the current standard of passive case detection are needed to interrupt leprosy transmission. Large-scale clinical trials with single dose rifampicin (SDR) given as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to contacts of newly diagnosed patients with leprosy have shown a 50-60% reduction of the risk of developing leprosy over the following 2 years. To accelerate the uptake of this evidence and introduction of PEP into national leprosy programmes, data on the effectiveness, impact and feasibility of contact tracing and PEP for leprosy are required. The leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) programme was designed to obtain those data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The LPEP programme evaluates feasibility, effectiveness and impact of PEP with SDR in pilot areas situated in several leprosy endemic countries: India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. Complementary sites are located in Brazil and Cambodia. From 2015 to 2018, contact persons of patients with leprosy are traced, screened for symptoms and assessed for eligibility to receive SDR. The intervention is implemented by the national leprosy programmes, tailored to local conditions and capacities, and relying on available human and material resources. It is coordinated on the ground with the help of the in-country partners of the International Federation of Anti-Leprosy Associations (ILEP). A robust data collection and reporting system is established in the pilot areas with regular monitoring and quality control, contributing to the strengthening of the national surveillance systems to become more action-oriented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the relevant ethics committees in the countries. Results and lessons learnt from the LPEP programme will be published in peer-reviewed journals and should provide important evidence and guidance for national and global policymakers to strengthen current leprosy elimination strategies.

Investment case concepts in leprosy elimination: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Leprosy continues to be a global public health problem, but draws less attention because 'prevalence based elimination' has been misinterpreted as eradication. The ongoing transmission of M. leprae has renewed interest in complete elimination. The aim of our study is to review systematically the literature regarding the elimination of leprosy, and to assess this information on its applicability for defining a Leprosy Elimination Investment Case (LEIC) based on Eradication Investment Case guidelines. METHODOLOGY: A literature search was conducted using the MeSH subheadings and synonyms of leprosy. A total of 1007 articles were considered and 112 were included in the final selection. The search focused on the literature covering leprosy elimination and its public health aspects. The LEIC framework was adapted from an existing "Guide to Preparing an Eradication Investment Case". RESULTS: The LEIC framework provided 11 topics under which information was synthesized from the literature. The fields were categorised under sections: 1) Proposed investment; 2) Rationale for investing; 3) Issues to consider when moving from control to eradication; 4) Management and governance. Scanty quantitative data are available for developing a LEIC, particularly regarding disease burden, and new interventions that could contribute to elimination are not yet applied routinely. DISCUSSION: For monitoring global elimination, it is necessary to measure disease burden comprehensively, and contact centered preventive interventions should be part of a global elimination strategy. The biological and technical feasibility of elimination is not certain and advanced microbiological and operational research is necessary to understand transmission better. The current WHO road map for leprosy elimination is too vague and needs further structuring through a thoroughly prepared LEIC.