Epidemiological, Serological, and Entomological Investigation of New Visceral Leishmaniasis Foci in Nepal.

The aim of this study was to explore epidemiological, serological, entomological, and social aspects of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in new foci in Nepal. The study was conducted in 11 villages of five districts that had been previously free of VL but that reported new cases between 2019 and 2021. We screened 1,288 inhabitants using rK39 tests and investigated the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 12 recent VL cases. A total of 182 community members were interviewed about knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding VL. They then underwent an awareness training; 40 of them had a second interview at 6 months to assess the training impact. Vector surveys were conducted in six houses per village to assess sandfly density and infection rates. The prevalence of VL infection was 0.5% and 3.2% among screened populations in Dolpa and Kavre districts, respectively, while the other districts had no rK39-positive cases. No association between travel history and VL infection was found. Phlebotomus argentipes sandflies were collected in three districts at high altitudes (from 1,084 to 4,450 m). None of the sandflies captured had Leishmania donovani DNA. People in new foci were not aware of VL symptoms, vectors, or preventive measures. The training significantly improved their knowledge and practice in seeking medical care in case of illness. The epidemiological, serological, and entomological investigations suggest indigenous focal transmission of VL. An integrated package of strategic interventions should be implemented by the national VL elimination program in districts with new VL foci.

Evaluating active leprosy case identification methods in six districts of Nepal.

BACKGROUND: Nepal has achieved and sustained the elimination of leprosy as a public health problem since 2009, but 17 districts and 3 provinces with 41% (10,907,128) of Nepal's population have yet to eliminate the disease. Pediatric cases and grade-2 disabilities (G2D) indicate recent transmission and late diagnosis, respectively, which necessitate active and early case detection. This operational research was performed to identify approaches best suited for early case detection, determine community-based leprosy epidemiology, and identify hidden leprosy cases early and respond with prompt treatment. METHODS: Active case detection was undertaken in two Nepali provinces with the greatest burden of leprosy, Madhesh Province (40% national cases) and Lumbini Province (18%) and at-risk prison populations in Madhesh, Lumbini and Bagmati provinces. Case detection was performed by (1) house-to-house visits among vulnerable populations (n = 26,469); (2) contact examination and tracing (n = 7608); in Madhesh and Lumbini Provinces and, (3) screening prison populations (n = 4428) in Madhesh, Lumbini and Bagmati Provinces of Nepal. Per case direct medical and non-medical costs for each approach were calculated. RESULTS: New case detection rates were highest for contact tracing (250), followed by house-to-house visits (102) and prison screening (45) per 100,000 population screened. However, the cost per case identified was cheapest for house-to-house visits [Nepalese rupee (NPR) 76,500/case], followed by contact tracing (NPR 90,286/case) and prison screening (NPR 298,300/case). House-to-house and contact tracing case paucibacillary/multibacillary (PB:MB) ratios were 59:41 and 68:32; female/male ratios 63:37 and 57:43; pediatric cases 11% in both approaches; and grade-2 disabilities (G2D) 11% and 5%, respectively. Developing leprosy was not significantly different among household and neighbor contacts [odds ratios (OR) = 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.24-5.85] and for contacts of MB versus PB cases (OR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.26-2.0). Attack rates were not significantly different among household contacts of MB cases (0.32%, 95% CI 0.07-0.94%) and PB cases (0.13%, 95% CI 0.03-0.73) (χ2 = 0.07, df = 1, P = 0.9) and neighbor contacts of MB cases (0.23%, 0.1-0.46) and PB cases (0.48%, 0.19-0.98) (χ2 = 0.8, df = 1, P = 0.7). BCG vaccination with scar presence had a significant protective effect against leprosy (OR = 0.42, 0.22-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The most effective case identification approach here is contact tracing, followed by house-to-house visits in vulnerable populations and screening in prisons, although house-to-house visits are cheaper. The findings suggest that hidden cases, recent transmission, and late diagnosis in the community exist and highlight the importance of early case detection.

Follow-up assessment of visceral leishmaniasis treated patients and the impact of COVID-19 on control services in Nepal.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up assessment of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) treated cases is important to monitor the long term effectiveness of treatment regimens. The main objective of this study was to identify the gaps and challenges in the follow-up of treated VL cases, to monitor treatment outcome and to assess the impact of COVID-19 on VL elimination services and activities. METHODS: Clinicians treating VL patients, district focal persons for VL, and patients treated for VL in seven high endemic districts in Nepal during 2019-2022 were interviewed to collect data on challenges in the follow-up of VL treated patients as per national strategy. RESULTS: Follow up status was poor in two districts with the largest number of reported cases. The majority of cases were children under 10 years of age (44.2%). Among 104 VL treated cases interviewed, 60.6% mentioned that clinicians had called them for follow-up but only 37.5% had complied. Among 112 VL treated cases followed up, 8 (7.14%) had relapse and 2 (1.8%) had PKDL. Among 66 cases who had VL during the COVID-19 lock down period, 32 (48.5%) were diagnosed within 1 week; however, 10 (15.1%) were diagnosed only after 4 weeks or more. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no active search for VL because of budget constraints and lack of diagnostic tests, and no insecticide spraying was done. CONCLUSION: Relapses and PKDL are challenges for VL elimination and a matter of concern. Successful implementation of the national strategy for follow up of treated VL cases requires addressing elements related to patients (awareness, transport, communication) clinicians (compliance) and organization of service delivery (local health worker training and deployment). COVID-19 did not have much impact on VL diagnosis and treatment; however, public health programmes including active case detection and insecticide spraying for vector control were severely reduced.

Prevalence of post kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) and treatment seeking behavior of PKDL patients in Nepal.

BACKGROUND: In Nepal, the burden of post kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) is not known since there is no active case detection of PKDL by the national programme. PKDL patients could pose a challenge to sustain visceral leishmaniasis (VL) elimination. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of PKDL and assess PKDL patients' knowledge on VL and PKDL, and stigma associated with PKDL. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Household surveys were conducted in 98 VL endemic villages of five districts that reported the highest number of VL cases within 2018-2021. A total of 6,821 households with 40373 individuals were screened for PKDL. Cases with skin lesions were referred to hospitals and examined by dermatologists. Suspected PKDL cases were tested with rK39 and smear microscopy from skin lesions. An integrated diagnostic approach was implemented in two hospitals with a focus on management of leprosy cases where cases with non-leprosy skin lesions were tested for PKDL with rK39. Confirmed PKDL patients were interviewed to assess knowledge and stigma associated with PKDL, using explanatory model interview catalogue (EMIC) with maximum score of 36. Among 147 cases with skin lesions in the survey, 9 (6.12%) were confirmed as PKDL by dermatologists at the hospital. The prevalence of PKDL was 2.23 per 10,000 population. Among these 9 PKDL cases, 5 had a past history of VL and 4 did not. PKDL cases without a past history of VL were detected among the "new foci", Surkhet but none in Palpa. None of the cases negative for leprosy were positive for PKDL. There was very limited knowledge of PKDL and VL among PKDL cases. PKDL patients suffered to some degree from social and psychological stigma (mean ± s.d. score = 17.89 ± 12.84). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Strengthening the programme in PKDL case detection and management would probably contribute to sustenance of VL elimination. Awareness raising activities to promote knowledge and reduce social stigma should be conducted in VL endemic areas.