Feasibility of post-exposure-prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin and identification of high prevalent clusters in villages' hyperendemic for leprosy in Senegal.

INTRODUCTION: Senegal is a leprosy low-endemic country with nine villages known to be hyperendemic with a leprosy incidence rate above 1,000 per million inhabitants. We aim to implement a door-to-door screening strategy associated with the administration of a single-dose-rifampicin (SDR) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to household and social contacts in these villages and to identify spatial clustering and assess the risk of leprosy in population according to the physical distance to the nearest index-case. METHODS: From October/2020 to February/2022 active door-to-door screening for leprosy was conducted in nine villages. Using an open-source application, we recorded screening results, demographic and geographic coordinate's data. Using Poisson model we analysed clustering and estimated risk of contracting leprosy in contacts according to the distance to the nearest new leprosy patient. RESULTS: In nine villages, among 9086 contacts listed, we examined 7115. Among 6554 eligible contacts, 97.8% took SDR. We found 39(0.64%) new leprosy cases among 6,124 examined in six villages. Among new cases, 21(53.8%) were children, 10(25.6%) were multibacillary and 05(12.8%) had grade 2 disability. The prevalent risk ratio and 95% confidence intervale(95%CI) adjusted by village were 4.2(95%CI 1.7-10.1), 0.97(95%CI 0.2-4.4), 0.87(95%CI 0.2-25), 0.89(95%CI 0.3-2.6) and 0.70(95%CI 0.2-2.5) for the contacts living in the same household of an index case, 1-25m, 26-50m, 51-75m and 76-100m compared to those living at more than 100m respectively. We identified nine high prevalent clusters including 27/39(69%) of new cases in 490/7,850(6%) inhabitants, with relative risks of 46.6(p-value = 0.01), and 7.3, 42.8, 8.2, 12.5, 11.4, 23.5, 22.3, and 14.6 (non-significant p-values). CONCLUSIONS: Our strategy has proved the feasibility of active screening for leprosy in contacts and the introduction of PEP for leprosy under programmatic conditions. Only individuals living in the same household as the leprosy patient had a significant risk of contracting leprosy. We documented nine clusters of leprosy that could benefit from tailored control activities while optimizing resources.

The PEP++ study protocol: a cluster-randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of an enhanced regimen of post-exposure prophylaxis for close contacts of persons affected by leprosy to prevent disease transmission.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy is an infectious disease with a slow decline in global annual caseload in the past two decades. Active case finding and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with a single dose of rifampicin (SDR) are recommended by the World Health Organization as measures for leprosy elimination. However, more potent PEP regimens are needed to increase the effect in groups highest at risk (i.e., household members and blood relatives, especially of multibacillary patients). The PEP++ trial will assess the effectiveness of an enhanced preventive regimen against leprosy in high-endemic districts in India, Brazil, Bangladesh, and Nepal compared with SDR-PEP. METHODS: The PEP++ study is a cluster-randomised controlled trial in selected districts of India, Brazil, Bangladesh, and Nepal. Sub-districts will be allocated randomly to the intervention and control arms. Leprosy patients detected from 2015 - 22 living in the districts will be approached to list their close contacts for enrolment in the study. All consenting participants will be screened for signs and symptoms of leprosy and tuberculosis (TB). In the intervention arm, eligible contacts receive the enhanced PEP++ regimen with three doses of rifampicin (150 - 600 mg) and clarithromycin (150 - 500 mg) administered at four-weekly intervals, whereas those in the control arm receive SDR-PEP. Follow-up screening for leprosy will be done for each individual two years after the final dose is administered. Cox' proportion hazards analysis and Poisson regression will be used to compare the incidence rate ratios between the intervention and control areas as the primary study outcome. DISCUSSION: Past studies have shown that the level of SDR-PEP effectiveness is not uniform across contexts or in relation to leprosy patients. To address this, a number of recent trials are seeking to strengthen PEP regimens either through the use of new medications or by increasing the dosage of the existing ones. However, few studies focus on the impact of multiple doses of chemoprophylaxis using a combination of antibiotics. The PEP++ trial will investigate effectiveness of both an enhanced regimen and use geospatial analysis for PEP administration in the study communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL7022 on the Dutch Trial Register on April 12, 2018. Protocol version 9.0 updated on 18 August 2022 https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/23060.

Comparison of antiphenolic glycolipid-1 antibody levels in seropositive contacts of leprosy after 2 years of single-dose rifampicin as postexposure prophylaxis.

Background: Leprosy is still a global problem, especially in developing countries, including Indonesia. Ineffective prevention of leprosy leads to active transmission of the disease. World Health Organization (WHO) recommend post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with single dose of rifampicin (SDR) for leprosy patients. Previous study showed protective effect of SDR against leprosy, especially for the first 2 years. Hence, the use of PEP and IgM anti PGL-1 examination are required to suspend the chain of leprosy transmission. This study evaluated the effectiveness of SDR administration by comparing IgM anti-PGL-1 antibody levels in seropositive household contacts before and after 2 years of SDR administration. Methods: Analytical observational laboratory study comparing IgM anti PGL-1 antibody levels before and after 2 years of SDR administration in leprosy contacts, with a prospective follow-up study design. We conducted this study from December 2022 to January 2023 at Dr. Mohammad Hoesin General Hospital Palembang. All seropositive household contacts of leprosy who had been administrated SDR 2 years ago were included, then PGL-1 antibody levels were examined. Results: The use of SDR showed significant improvement in leprosy contacts after 2 years (P=0.000). The median antibody level before SDR administration was 1,209.20 (615.81 - 4,353.60), which decrease to 146.03 (0 - 2,487.80) U/mL after 2 years. There was statistically significant relationship between history of BCG vaccination (P=0.003) and IgM PGL-1 antibody levels after 2 years of SDR administration. Conclusion: There is a significant decrease in IgM anti PGL-1 antibody levels among leprosy contacts after 2 years of SDR chemoprophylaxis administration.

Protocol, rationale and design of BE-PEOPLE (Bedaquiline enhanced exposure prophylaxis for LEprosy in the Comoros): a cluster randomized trial on effectiveness of rifampicin and bedaquiline as post-exposure prophylaxis of leprosy contacts.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy is an ancient infectious disease with an annual global incidence of around 200,000 over the past decade. Since 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis (SDR-PEP) for contacts of leprosy patients. The Post ExpOsure Prophylaxis for Leprosy (PEOPLE) trial evaluated PEP with a double dose of rifampicin in Comoros and Madagascar. Preliminary results of this trial show some reduction in leprosy incidence in intervention villages but a stronger regimen may be beneficial. The objective of the current Bedaquiline Enhanced ExpOsure Prophylaxis for LEprosy trial (BE-PEOPLE) is to explore effectiveness of a combination of bedaquiline and rifampicin as PEP. METHODS: BE-PEOPLE is a cluster-randomized trial in which 44 clusters in Comoros will be randomized to two study arms. Door-to-door screening will be conducted annually during four years, leprosy patients identified will be offered standard of care treatment. Based on study arm, contacts aged five years and above and living within a 100-meter radius of an index case will either receive bedaquiline (400-800 mg) and rifampicin (150-600 mg) or only rifampicin (150-600 mg). Contacts aged two to four years will receive rifampicin only. Household contacts randomized to the bedaquiline plus rifampicin arm will receive a second dose four weeks later. Incidence rate ratios of leprosy comparing contacts who received either of the PEP regimens will be the primary outcome. We will monitor resistance to rifampicin and/or bedaquiline through molecular surveillance in all incident tuberculosis and leprosy patients nationwide. At the end of the study, we will assess anti-M. leprae PGL-I IgM seropositivity as a proxy for the population burden of M. leprae infection in 8 villages (17,000 individuals) that were surveyed earlier as part of the PEOPLE trial. DISCUSSION: The COLEP trial on PEP in Bangladesh documented a reduction of 57% in incidence of leprosy among contacts treated with SDR-PEP after two years, which led to the WHO recommendation of SDR-PEP. Preliminary results of the PEOPLE trial show a lesser reduction in incidence. The BE-PEOPLE trial will explore whether reinforcing SDR-PEP with bedaquiline increases effectiveness and more rapidly reduces the incidence of leprosy, compared to SDR-PEP alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05597280. Protocol version 5.0 on 28 October 2022.

Less is more: Developing an approach for assessing clustering at the lower administrative boundaries that increases the yield of active screening for leprosy in Bihar, India.

BACKGROUND: In India, leprosy clusters at hamlet level but detailed information is lacking. We aim to identify high-incidence hamlets to be targeted for active screening and post-exposure prophylaxis. METHODOLOGY: We paid home visits to a cohort of leprosy patients registered between April 1st, 2020, and March 31st, 2022. Patients were interviewed and household members were screened for leprosy. We used an open-source app(ODK) to collect data on patients' mobility, screening results of household members, and geographic coordinates of their households. Clustering was analysed with Kulldorff's spatial scan statistic(SaTScan). Outlines of hamlets and population estimates were obtained through an open-source high-resolution population density map(https://data.humdata.org), using kernel density estimation in QGIS, an open-source software. RESULTS: We enrolled 169 patients and screened 1,044 household contacts in Bisfi and Benipatti blocks of Bihar. Median number of years of residing in the village was 17, interquartile range(IQR)12-30. There were 11 new leprosy cases among 658 household contacts examined(167 per 10,000), of which seven had paucibacillary leprosy, one was a child under 14 years, and none had visible disabilities. We identified 739 hamlets with a total population of 802,788(median 163, IQR 65-774). There were five high incidence clusters including 12% of the population and 46%(78/169) of the leprosy cases. One highly significant cluster with a relative risk (RR) of 4.7(p<0.0001) included 32 hamlets and 27 cases in 33,609 population. A second highly significant cluster included 32 hamlets and 24 cases in 33,809 population with a RR of 4.1(p<0.001). The third highly significant cluster included 16 hamlets and 17 cases in 19,659 population with a RR of 4.8(p<0.001). High-risk clusters still need to be screened door-to-door. CONCLUSIONS: We found a high yield of active household contact screening. Our tools for identifying high-incidence hamlets appear effective. Focusing labour-intensive interventions such as door-to-door screening on such hamlets could increase efficiency.

Determining target populations for leprosy prophylactic interventions: a hotspot analysis in Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy incidence remained at around 200,000 new cases globally for the last decade. Current strategies to reduce the number of new patients include early detection and providing post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to at-risk populations. Because leprosy is distributed unevenly, it is crucial to identify high-risk clusters of leprosy cases for targeting interventions. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) methodology can be used to optimize leprosy control activities by identifying clustering of leprosy cases and determining optimal target populations for PEP. METHODS: The geolocations of leprosy cases registered from 2014 to 2018 in Pasuruan and Pamekasan (Indonesia) were collected and tested for spatial autocorrelation with the Moran's I statistic. We did a hotspot analysis using the Heatmap tool of QGIS to identify clusters of leprosy cases in both areas. Fifteen cluster settings were compared, varying the heatmap radius (i.e., 500 m, 1000 m, 1500 m, 2000 m, or 2500 m) and the density of clustering (low, moderate, and high). For each cluster setting, we calculated the number of cases in clusters, the size of the cluster (km2), and the total population targeted for PEP under various strategies. RESULTS: The distribution of cases was more focused in Pasuruan (Moran's I = 0.44) than in Pamekasan (0.27). The proportion of total cases within identified clusters increased with heatmap radius and ranged from 3% to almost 100% in both areas. The proportion of the population in clusters targeted for PEP decreased with heatmap radius from > 100% to 5% in high and from 88 to 3% in moderate and low density clusters. We have developed an example of a practical guideline to determine optimal cluster settings based on a given PEP strategy, distribution of cases, resources available, and proportion of population targeted for PEP. CONCLUSION: Policy and operational decisions related to leprosy control programs can be guided by a hotspot analysis which aid in identifying high-risk clusters and estimating the number of people targeted for prophylactic interventions.

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.

Development of a questionnaire to determine the case detection delay of leprosy: A mixed-methods cultural validation study.

BACKGROUND: Delay in case detection is a risk factor for developing leprosy-related impairments, leading to disability and stigma. The objective of this study was to develop a questionnaire to determine the leprosy case detection delay, defined as the period between the first signs of the disease and the moment of diagnosis, calculated in total number of months. The instrument was developed as part of the PEP4LEP project, a large-scale intervention study which determines the most effective way to implement integrated skin screening and leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis with a single-dose of rifampicin (SDR-PEP) administration in Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A literature review was conducted and leprosy experts were consulted. The first draft of the questionnaire was developed in Ethiopia by exploring conceptual understanding, item relevance and operational suitability. Then, the first draft of the tool was piloted in Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania. The outcome is a questionnaire comprising nine questions to determine the case detection delay and two annexes for ease of administration: a local calendar to translate the patient's indication of time to number of months and a set of pictures of the signs of leprosy. In addition, a body map was included to locate the signs. A 'Question-by-Question Guide' was added to the package, to provide support in the administration of the questionnaire. The materials will be made available in English, Oromiffa (Afaan Oromo), Portuguese and Swahili via https://www.infolep.org. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: It was concluded that the developed case detection delay questionnaire can be administered quickly and easily by health workers, while not inconveniencing the patient. The instrument has promising potential for use in future leprosy research. It is recommended that the tool is further validated, also in other regions or countries, to ensure cultural validity and to examine psychometric properties like test-retest reliability and interrater reliability.

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.

Number of people requiring post-exposure prophylaxis to end leprosy: A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, around 210,000 new cases of leprosy are detected annually. To end leprosy, i.e. zero new leprosy cases, preventive interventions such as contact tracing and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) are required. This study aims to estimate the number of people requiring PEP to reduce leprosy new case detection (NCD) at national and global level by 50% and 90%. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The individual-based model SIMCOLEP was fitted to seven leprosy settings defined by NCD and MB proportion. Using data of all 110 countries with known leprosy patients in 2016, we assigned each country to one of these settings. We predicted the impact of administering PEP to about 25 contacts of leprosy patients on the annual NCD for 25 years and estimated the number of contacts requiring PEP per country for each year. The NCD trends show an increase in NCD in the first year (i.e. backlog cases) followed by a significant decrease thereafter. A reduction of 50% and 90% of new cases would be achieved in most countries in 5 and 22 years if 20.6 and 40.2 million people are treated with PEP over that period, respectively. For India, Brazil, and Indonesia together, a total of 32.9 million people requiring PEP to achieve a 90% reduction in 22 years. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The leprosy problem is far greater than the 210,000 new cases reported annually. Our model estimates of the number of people requiring PEP to achieve significant reduction of new leprosy cases can be used by policymakers and program managers to develop long-term strategies to end 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).

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.