RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: We wished to validate our recently devised 16-item ENLIST ENL Severity Scale, a clinical tool for measuring the severity of the serious leprosy associated complication of erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL). We also wished to assess the responsiveness of the ENLIST ENL Severity Scale in detecting clinical change in patients with ENL. METHODS: Participants, recruited from seven centres in six leprosy endemic countries, were assessed using the ENLIST ENL Severity Scale by two researchers, one of whom categorised the severity of ENL. At a subsequent visit a further assessment using the scale was made and both participant and physician rated the change in ENL using the subjective categories of "Much better", "somewhat better", "somewhat worse" and "much worse" compared with "No change" or "about the same". RESULTS: 447 participants were assessed with the ENLIST ENL Severity Scale. The Cronbach alpha of the scale and each item was calculated to determine the internal consistency of the scale. The ENLIST ENL Severity Scale had good internal consistency and this improved following removal of six items to give a Cronbach's alpha of 0.77. The cut off between mild ENL and more severe disease was 9 determined using ROC curves. The minimal important difference of the scale was determined to be 5 using both participant and physician ratings of change. CONCLUSIONS: The 10-item ENLIST ENL Severity Scale is the first valid, reliable and responsive measure of ENL severity and improves our ability to assess and compare patients and their treatments in this severe and difficult to manage complication of leprosy. The ENLIST ENL Severity Scale will assist physicians in the monitoring and treatment of patients with ENL. The ENLIST ENL Severity Scale is easy to apply and will be useful as an outcome measure in treatment studies and enable the standardisation of other clinical and laboratory ENL research.
Asunto(s)
Eritema Nudoso/patología , Lepra Lepromatosa/patología , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Leprosy Type 1 (T1R) reactions are immune-mediated events leading to nerve damage and preventable disability affecting hands, feet and eyes. Type 1 Reactions are treated with oral corticosteroids. There is little evidence on alternative treatments for patients who do not respond to steroids or experience steroid adverse effects. We report the results of a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy and adverse effect profile of ciclosporin and prednisolone (CnP) in comparison to prednisolone only (P) in patients with new T1R in Ethiopia. Ciclosporin is a potent immunosuppressant. Outcomes were measured using a clinical severity score, recurrence rate, adverse events and quality of life. RESULTS: Seventy three patients with new T1R were randomized to receive CnP or P for 20 weeks. Recovery rates in skin signs was similar in both groups (91% vs 88%). Improvements in nerve function both, new and old, sensory (66% vs 49%) and motor (75% vs 74%) loss were higher (but not significantly so) in the patients on CnP. Recurrences rates of T1R (85%) were high in both groups, and recurrences occurred significantly earlier (8 weeks) in patients CnP, who needed 10% more additional prednisolone. Serious major and minor adverse events rates were similar in patients in the two treatment arms of the study. Both groups had a significant improvement in their quality of life after the study, measured by the SF-36. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first double-blind RCT assessing ciclosporin, in the management of T1R in Africa. Ciclosporin could be a safe alternative second-line drug for patients with T1R who are not improving with prednisolone or are experiencing adverse events related to prednisolone. This study illustrates the difficulty in switching off leprosy inflammation. Better treatment agents for leprosy patients with reactions and nerve damage are needed.
Asunto(s)
Antiinflamatorios/uso terapéutico , Ciclosporina/uso terapéutico , Inmunosupresores/uso terapéutico , Lepra/tratamiento farmacológico , Lepra/inmunología , Enfermedades del Sistema Nervioso Periférico/tratamiento farmacológico , Prednisolona/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Antiinflamatorios/administración & dosificación , Antiinflamatorios/efectos adversos , Ciclosporina/administración & dosificación , Ciclosporina/efectos adversos , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Método Doble Ciego , Esquema de Medicación , Etiopía , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunosupresores/administración & dosificación , Inmunosupresores/efectos adversos , Lepra/complicaciones , Lepra/microbiología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Enfermedades del Sistema Nervioso Periférico/diagnóstico , Enfermedades del Sistema Nervioso Periférico/etiología , Enfermedades del Sistema Nervioso Periférico/microbiología , Prednisolona/administración & dosificación , Prednisolona/efectos adversos , Prednisolona/metabolismo , Calidad de Vida , Recurrencia , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Erythema Nodosum Leprosum (ENL) is a serious complication of leprosy. It is normally treated with high dose steroids, but its recurrent nature leads to prolonged steroid usage and associated side effects. There is little evidence on the efficacy of alternative treatments for ENL, especially for patients who have become steroid resistant or have steroid side effects. These two pilot studies compare the efficacy and side effect profile of ciclosporin plus prednisolone against prednisolone alone in the treatment of patients with either new ENL or chronic and recurrent ENL. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirteen patients with new ENL and twenty patients with chronic ENL were recruited into two double-blinded randomised controlled trials. Patients were randomised to receive ciclosporin and prednisolone or prednisolone treatment only. Patients with acute ENL had a delay of 16 weeks in the occurrence of ENL flare-up episode, with less severe flare-ups and decreased requirements for additional prednisolone. Patients with chronic ENL on ciclosporin had the first episode of ENL flare-up 4 weeks earlier than those on prednisolone, as well as more severe ENL flare-ups requiring 2.5 times more additional prednisolone. Adverse events attributable to prednisolone were more common that those attributable to ciclosporin. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first clinical trial on ENL management set in the African context, and also the first trial in leprosy to use patients' assessment of outcomes. Patients on ciclosporin showed promising results in the management of acute ENL in this small pilot study. But ciclosporin, did not appear to have a significant steroid-sparing effects in patients with chronic ENL, which may have been due to the prolonged use of steroids in these patients in combination with a too rapid decrease of steroids in patients given ciclosporin. Further research is needed to determine whether the promising results of ciclosporin in acute ENL can be reproduced on a larger scale.