Effectiveness of a resistance exercise program for lower limbs in chronic renal patients on hemodialysis: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Physical inactivity in hemodialysis patients is associated with increased mortality. The objective of this study was evaluated the effect of an intradialytic resistance exercise program on chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on hemodialysis. METHODS: One hundred seven patients were included in the study. They were aged 18-60 years, of both sexes, had undergone hemodialysis treatment for at least 1 year, sedentary. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: stretching (STG) and resistance exercise (REG). Intervention programs were performed for 8 weeks, three times a week. The evaluations were performed before and after the training programs. The primary outcome was functional capacity using the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Secondary outcomes were peripheral muscle strength, respiratory muscle strength, spirometric respiratory function, and laboratory data. FINDINGS: Comparisons between groups revealed the following clinically relevant results in favor of REG: lower limb muscle strength (mean difference [MD] = -1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.77 to -1.21; d = -0.53), distance walked in the 6MWT (MD = -26.27, 95% CI = -45.40 to -7.14; d = -0.46), creatinine (MD = -1.52, 95% CI = -2.49 to -0.54; d = -0.66), and calcium (MD = -0.44, 95% CI = -0.78 to -0.10; d = -0.49). DISCUSSION: CKD patients on hemodialysis have reduced functional capacity compared to healthy sedentary individuals. In turn, this reduction appears to be associated with a lower survival rate and affects the performance of their daily living activities. Thus, resistance exercise performed in the intradialytic phase is an effective therapeutic strategy for CKD patients, mainly because it increases functional capacity and lower limb muscle strength.

BCG vaccine and leprosy household contacts: Protective effect and probability to becoming sick during follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Immunoprophylaxis with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine is still the most effective intervention in the prevention of leprosy among household contacts (HHCs) of leprosy patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using data of 5.061 HHCs for a period of 16 years (follow-up of 7 years per leprosy HHCs), evaluating the occurrence of disease as the main outcome and the presence or absence of BCG scars verified at the first evaluation. Statistical analyzes were performed using the relative risk, hazard ratio and survival curves by Kaplan-Meier test. RESULTS: A total of 92 contacts sickened, of which 41.3% (38/92) in the first year and 58.7% (54/92) in the course of the other years of follow-up. Of those who became sick, 62% (57/92) developed borderline tuberculoid (BT). The additional protective effect occurred for those who had 2 BCG scars at the first follow-up assessment (Relative Risk: 0.41; p = 0.007) when compared to those not previously exposed to the vaccine. The number of BCG scars examined at the first assessment (t0 = time zero) affected the occurrence of the outcome evidenced by the difference in survival curves throughout the follow-up (Log Rank, p = 0.041; Breslow, p = 0.012; Tarone-Ware, p = 0.020). Leprosy HHCs with 0 BCG scar at time zero (t0) have a shorter survival time (average time of 22 months between t0 and outcome) when compared to those with 2 BCG scars (average time of 36 months between t0 and outcome). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination of healthy individuals without signs and symptoms of leprosy is extremely important because BCG vaccine has an additional protective effect in those cases with 2 BCG scars throughout follow-up. Reducing the risk of leprosy HHCs becoming sick depends on preventive actions such as immunoprophylaxis and index cases treatment.

Molecular, immunological and neurophysiological evaluations for early diagnosis of neural impairment in seropositive leprosy household contacts.

BACKGROUND: Household contacts constitute the highest risk group for leprosy development, and despite significant progress in the disease control, early diagnosis remains the primary goals for leprosy management programs. METHODS: We have recruited 175 seropositive and 35 seronegative household contacts from 2014 to 2016, who were subjected to an extensive protocol that included clinical, molecular (peripheral blood qPCR, slit-skin smear qPCR, skin biopsy qPCR) and electroneuromyographic evaluations. RESULTS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The positivity of peripheral blood qPCR of seropositive contacts was 40.6% (71/175) whereas only 8.6% (3/35) were qPCR positive in seronegative contacts (p = 0.0003). For the slit-skin smear, only 4% (7/175) of seropositive contacts presented positive bacilloscopy, whereas the qPCR detected 47.4% (83/175) positivity in this group compared with only 17.1% (6/35) in seronegative contacts (p = 0.0009). In the ENMG evaluation of contacts, 31.4% (55/175) of seropositives presented some neural impairment, and 13.3% (4/35) in seronegatives (p = 0.0163). The presence of neural thickening conferred a 2.94-fold higher chance of ENMG abnormality (p = 0.0031). Seropositive contacts presented a 4.04-fold higher chance of neural impairment (p = 0.0206). The peripheral blood qPCR positivity presented odds 2.08-fold higher towards neural impairment (OR, 2.08; p = 0.028). Contrarily, the presence of at least one BCG vaccine scar demonstrated 2.44-fold greater protection against neural impairment (OR = 0.41; p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: ELISA anti-PGL-I is the most important test in determining the increased chance of neural impairment in asymptomatic leprosy household contacts. The combination of the two assays (ELISA anti-PGL-I and peripheral blood qPCR) and the presence of BCG scar may identify individuals with higher chances of developing leprosy neuropathy, corroborating with the early diagnosis and treatment.

Revisiting primary neural leprosy: Clinical, serological, molecular, and neurophysiological aspects.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy neuropathy is considered the most common peripheral neuropathy of infectious etiology worldwide, representing a public health problem. Clinical diagnosis of primary neural leprosy (PNL) is challenging, since no skin lesions are found and the slit skin smear bacilloscopy is negative. However, there are still controversial concepts regarding the primary-neural versus pure-neural leprosy definition, which will be explored by using multiple clinical-laboratory analyses in this study. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Seventy patients diagnosed with primary neural leprosy from 2014 to 2016 underwent clinical, laboratorial and neurophysiological evaluation. All patients presented an asymmetric neural impairment, with nerve thickening in 58.6%. Electroneuromyography showed a pattern of mononeuropathy in 51.4%. Positivity for ELISA anti-PGL1 was 52.9%, while the qPCR of slit skin smear was 78.6%. The qPCR of nerve biopsies was positive in 60.8%. Patients with multiple mononeuropathy patterns showed lower levels of anti-PGL-1 (p = 0.0006), and higher frequency of neural thickening (p = 0.0008) and sensory symptoms (p = 0.01) than those with mononeuropathy. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: PNL is not a synonym of pure neural leprosy, as this condition may include a generalized immune response and also a skin involvement, documented by molecular findings. Immunological, molecular, and neurophysiological tools must be implemented for diagnosing primary neural leprosy to achieve effective treatment and reduction of its resultant disabilities that still represent a public health problem in several developing nations. Finally, we propose a algorithm and recommendations for the diagnosis of primary neural leprosy based on the combination of the three clinical-laboratorial tools.