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.

Genomic Diversity of Burkholderia pseudomallei Isolates, Colombia.

We report an analysis of the genomic diversity of isolates of Burkholderia pseudomallei, the cause of melioidosis, recovered in Colombia from routine surveillance during 2016-2017. B. pseudomallei appears genetically diverse, suggesting it is well established and has spread across the region.

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 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).

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).

Melioidosis after Hurricanes Irma and Maria, St. Thomas/St. John District, US Virgin Islands, October 2017.

We report 2 cases of melioidosis in women with diabetes admitted to an emergency department in the US Virgin Islands during October 2017. These cases emerged after Hurricanes Irma and Maria and did not have a definitively identified source. Poor outcomes were observed when septicemia and pulmonary involvement were present.

CNS Melioidosis in a Traveler Returning from Cabo, Mexico.

Melioidosis is caused by the gram-negative bacillus Burkholderia pseudomallei, endemic to northern Australia and Southeast Asia. We present a patient who traveled to Mexico, returned to the United States, and developed progressive manifestations of melioidosis, culminating as central nervous system disease. Standard therapy was contraindicated, and a prolonged intensive phase was employed.

Melioidosis is in the Americas: A Call to Action for Diagnosing and Treating the Disease.

Melioidosis, a disease caused by the pathogen Burkholderia pseudomallei, is a significant underreported endemic disease found in tropical countries worldwide. Recent studies have demonstrated that human melioidosis cases have been increasingly recognized in the Americas. Therefore, the first Scientific Reunion of Melioidosis in the Americas was organized in Colombia, with the participation of health authorities of 11 Latin American countries and the United States. This report summarizes the topics reviewed during the meeting, including how to identify human infections and properly diagnose them, with the goal of increasing recognition of the disease in the Americas.

A Review of Melioidosis Cases in the Americas.

Melioidosis is a bacterial infection caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei, a gram-negative saprophytic bacillus. Cases occur sporadically in the Americas with an increasing number of cases observed among people with no travel history to endemic countries. To better understand the incidence of the disease in the Americas, we reviewed the literature, including unpublished cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of 120 identified human cases, occurring between 1947 and June 2015, 95 cases (79%) were likely acquired in the Americas; the mortality rate was 39%. Burkholderia pseudomallei appears to be widespread in South, Central, and North America.

Melioidosis Cases and Selected Reports of Occupational Exposures to Burkholderia pseudomallei--United States, 2008-2013.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Melioidosis is an infection caused by the Gram-negative bacillus Burkholderia pseudomallei, which is naturally found in water and soil in areas endemic for melioidosis. Infection can be severe and sometimes fatal. The federal select agent program designates B. pseudomallei as a Tier 1 overlap select agent, which can affect both humans and animals. Identification of B. pseudomallei and all occupational exposures must be reported to the Federal Select Agent Program immediately (i.e., within 24 hours), whereas states are not required to notify CDC's Bacterial Special Pathogens Branch (BSPB) of human infections. PERIOD COVERED: 2008-2013. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: The passive surveillance system includes reports of suspected (human and animal) melioidosis cases and reports of incidents of possible occupational exposures. Reporting of suspected cases to BSPB is voluntary. BSPB receives reports of occupational exposure in the context of a request for technical consultation (so that the system does not include the full complement of the mandatory and confidential reporting to the Federal Select Agent Program). Reporting sources include state health departments, medical facilities, microbiologic laboratories, or research facilities. Melioidosis cases are classified using the standard case definition adopted by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists in 2011. In follow up to reports of occupational exposures, CDC often provides technical assistance to state health departments to identify all persons with possible exposures, define level of risk, and provide recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis and health monitoring of exposed persons. RESULTS: During 2008-2013, BSPB provided technical assistance to 20 U.S. states and Puerto Rico involving 37 confirmed cases of melioidosis (34 human cases and three animal cases). Among those with documented travel history, the majority of reported cases (64%) occurred among persons with a documented travel history to areas endemic for melioidosis. Two persons did not report any travel outside of the United States. Separately, six incidents of possible occupational exposure involving research activities also were reported to BSPB, for which two incidents involved occupational exposures and no human infections occurred. Technical assistance was not required for these incidents because of risk-level (low or none) and appropriate onsite occupational safety response. Of the 261 persons at risk for occupational exposure to B. pseudomallei while performing laboratory diagnostics, 43 (16%) persons had high-risk exposures, 130 (50%) persons had low-risk exposures, and 88 (34%) persons were classified as having undetermined or unknown risk. INTERPRETATION: A small number of U.S. cases of melioidosis have been reported among persons with no travel history outside of the United States, whereas the majority of cases have occurred in persons with a travel history to areas endemic for melioidosis. If the number of travelers continues to increase in countries where the disease is endemic, the likelihood of identifying imported melioidosis cases in the United States might also increase. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS: Reporting of melioidosis cases can improve the ability to monitor the incidence and prevalence of the disease in the United States. To improve prevention and control of melioidosis, CDC recommends that (1) physicians consider melioidosis in the differential diagnosis of patients with acute febrile illnesses, risk factors for melioidosis, and compatible travel or exposure history; (2) personnel at risk for occupational exposure (e.g., laboratory workers or researchers) follow proper safety practices, which includes using appropriate personal protective equipment when working with unknown pathogens; and (3) all possible occupational exposures to B. pseudomallei be reported voluntarily to BSPB.

Contact investigation of melioidosis cases reveals regional endemicity in Puerto Rico.

BACKGROUND: Melioidosis results from infection with Burkholderia pseudomallei and is associated with case-fatality rates up to 40%. Early diagnosis and treatment with appropriate antimicrobials can improve survival rates. Fatal and nonfatal melioidosis cases were identified in Puerto Rico in 2010 and 2012, respectively, which prompted contact investigations to identify risk factors for infection and evaluate endemicity. METHODS: Questionnaires were administered and serum specimens were collected from coworkers, neighborhood contacts within 250 m of both patients' residences, and injection drug user (IDU) contacts of the 2012 patient. Serum specimens were tested for evidence of prior exposure to B. pseudomallei by indirect hemagglutination assay. Neighborhood seropositivity results guided soil sampling to isolate B. pseudomallei. RESULTS: Serum specimens were collected from contacts of the 2010 (n = 51) and 2012 (n = 60) patients, respectively. No coworkers had detectable anti-B. pseudomallei antibody, whereas seropositive results among neighborhood contacts was 5% (n = 2) for the 2010 patient and 23% (n = 12) for the 2012 patient, as well as 2 of 3 IDU contacts for the 2012 case. Factors significantly associated with seropositivity were having skin wounds, sores, or ulcers (odds ratio [OR], 4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-17.8) and IDU (OR, 18.0; 95% CI, 1.6-194.0). Burkholderia pseudomallei was isolated from soil collected in the neighborhood of the 2012 patient. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, isolation of B. pseudomallei from a soil sample and high seropositivity among patient contacts suggest at least regional endemicity of melioidosis in Puerto Rico. Increased awareness of melioidosis is needed to enable early case identification and early initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy.