Protocol, rationale and design of PEOPLE (Post ExpOsure Prophylaxis for LEprosy in the Comoros and Madagascar): a cluster randomized trial on effectiveness of different modalities of implementation of post-exposure prophylaxis of leprosy contacts

Safety of single-dose bedaquiline combined with rifampicin for leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis: A Phase 2 randomized non-inferiority trial in the Comoros Islands

BACKGROUND

To reduce leprosy risk in contacts of patients with leprosy by around 50%, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) using single-dose rifampicin (SDR). Results from a cluster randomized trial in the Comoros and Madagascar suggest that PEP with a double dose of rifampicin led to a similar reduction in incident leprosy, prompting the need for stronger PEP. The objective of this Phase 2 trial was to assess safety of a bedaquiline-enhanced PEP regimen (intervention arm, bedaquiline 800 mg with rifampicin 600 mg, BE-PEP), relative to the WHO recommended PEP with rifampicin 600 mg alone (control arm, SDR-PEP).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

From July 2022 to January 2023, consenting participants were screened for eligibility, including a heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTc) <450 ms and liver enzyme tests (ALT/AST) below 3× the upper limit of normal (ULN), before they were individually randomized 1:1 in an open-label design. Recruitment was sequential, by age group. Pediatric dosages were weight adjusted. Follow-up was done at day 1 post-dose (including ECG) and day 14 (including ALT/AST), with repeat of ALT/AST on the last follow-up at day 30 in case of elevation on day 14. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of BE-PEP based on a <10 ms difference in QTc 24 h after treatment administration, both unadjusted and adjusted for baseline QTc. Of 408 screened participants, 313 were enrolled, starting with 187 adults, then 38 children aged 13 to 17 years, and finally 88 children aged 5 to 12 years, of whom 310 (99%) completed all visits. Across all ages, the mean QTc change on BE-PEP was from 393 ms to 396 ms, not significantly different from the change from 392 ms to 394 ms on SDR-PEP (difference between arms 1.8 ms, 95% CI -1.8, 5.3, p = 0.41). No individual's QTc increased by >50 ms or exceeded 450 ms after PEP administration. Per protocol, all children were analyzed together, with no significant difference in mean QTc increase for BE-PEP compared to SDR-PEP, although non-inferiority of BE-PEP in children was not demonstrated in unadjusted analysis, as the upper limit of the 95% CI of 10.4 ms exceeded the predefined margin of 10 ms. Adjusting for baseline QTc, the regression coefficient and 95% CI (3.3; -1.4, 8.0) met the 10 ms non-inferiority margin. No significant differences in ALT or AST levels were noted between the intervention and control arms, although a limitation of the study was false elevation of ALT/AST during adult recruitment due to a technical error. In both study arms, one serious adverse event was reported, both considered unlikely related to the study drugs. Dizziness, nausea, headache, and diarrhea among adults, and headaches in children, were nonsignificantly more frequently observed in the BE-PEP group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that safety of single-dose bedaquiline 800 mg in combination with rifampicin is comparable to rifampicin alone, although non-inferiority of QTc changes was demonstrated in children only after adjusting for the baseline QTc measurements. A Phase 3 cluster randomized efficacy trial is currently ongoing in the Comoros.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05406479.

Post-exposure prophylaxis in leprosy (PEOPLE): a cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) using single-dose rifampicin reduces progression from infection with Mycobacterium leprae to leprosy disease. We compared effectiveness of different administration modalities, using a higher (20 mg/kg) dose of rifampicin-single double-dose rifampicin (SDDR)-PEP.

METHODS

We did a cluster randomised study in 16 villages in Madagascar and 48 villages in Comoros. Villages were randomly assigned to four study arms and inhabitants were screened once a year for leprosy, for 4 consecutive years. All permanent residents (no age restriction) were eligible to participate and all identified patients with leprosy were treated with multidrug therapy (SDDR-PEP was provided to asymptomatic contacts aged ≥2 years). Arm 1 was the comparator arm, in which no PEP was provided. In arm 2, SDDR-PEP was provided to household contacts of patients with leprosy, whereas arm 3 extended SDDR-PEP to anyone living within 100 m. In arm 4, SDDR-PEP was offered to household contacts and to anyone living within 100 m and testing positive to anti-phenolic glycolipid-I. The main outcome was the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of leprosy between the comparator arm and each of the intervention arms. We also assessed the individual protective effect of SDDR-PEP and explored spatial associations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03662022, and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 11, 2019, and Jan 16, 2023, we enrolled 109 436 individuals, of whom 95 762 had evaluable follow-up data. Our primary analysis showed a non-significant reduction in leprosy incidence in arm 2 (IRR 0·95), arm 3 (IRR 0·80), and arm 4 (IRR 0·58). After controlling for baseline prevalence, the reduction in arm 3 became stronger and significant (IRR 0·56, p=0·0030). At an individual level SDDR-PEP was also protective with an IRR of 0·55 (p=0·0050). Risk of leprosy was two to four times higher for those living within 75 m of an index patient at baseline.

INTERPRETATION

SDDR-PEP appears to protect against leprosy but less than anticipated. Strong spatial associations were observed within 75 m of index patients. Targeted door-to-door screening around index patients complemented by a blanket SDDR-PEP approach will probably have a substantial effect on transmission.

FUNDING

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.

TRANSLATION

For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

The role of CXCL10 as a biomarker for immunological response among patients with leprosy: a systematic literature review

Introduction

Involvement of a chemokine known as C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10 or CXCL10 in the immunopathology of leprosy has emerged as a possible immunological marker for leprosy diagnosis and needed to be investigate further. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess CXCL10's potential utility as a leprosy diagnostic tool and evaluation of therapy.

Methods

This systematic review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020. A thorough search was carried out to find relevant studies only in English and limited in humans published up until September 2023 using PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Wiley Online Library database with keywords based on medical subject headings (MeSH) and no exclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized for quality assessment, while the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS) was utilized for assessing the risk of bias. Additionally, a narrative synthesis was conducted to provide a comprehensive review of the results.

Results

We collected a total of 115 studies using defined keywords and 82 studies were eliminated after titles and abstracts were screened. We assessed the eligibility of the remaining 26 reports in full text and excluded four studies due to inappropriate study design and two studies with incomplete outcome data. There were twenty included studies in total with total of 2.525 samples. The included studies received NOS quality evaluation scores ranging from 6 to 8. The majority of items in the risk bias assessment, using RoBANS, across all included studies yielded low scores. However, certain items related to the selection of participants and confounding variables showed variations. Most of studies indicate that CXCL10 may be a helpful immunological marker for leprosy diagnosis, particularly in leprosy reactions as stated in seven studies. The results are better when paired with other immunological markers. Its effectiveness in field-friendly diagnostic tools makes it one of the potential biomarkers used in diagnosing leprosy patients. Additionally, CXCL10 may be utilized to assess the efficacy of multidrug therapy (MDT) in leprosy patients as stated in three studies.

Conclusion

The results presented in this systematic review supports the importance of CXCL10 in leprosy diagnosis, particularly in leprosy responses and in tracking the efficacy of MDT therapy. Using CXCL10 in clinical settings might help with leprosy early diagnosis. Yet the findings are heterogenous, thus more investigation is required to determine the roles of CXCL10 in leprosy while taking into account for additional confounding variables.

Target product profiles: leprosy diagnostics

The World Health Organization (WHO) aims to reduce new leprosy cases by 70% by 2030, necessitating advancements in leprosy diagnostics. Here we discuss the development of two WHO's target product profiles for such diagnostics. These profiles define criteria for product use, design, performance, configuration and distribution, with a focus on accessibility and affordability. The first target product profile outlines requirements for tests to confirm diagnosis of leprosy in individuals with clinical signs and symptoms, to guide multidrug treatment initiation. The second target product profile outlines requirements for tests to detect Mycobacterium leprae or M. lepromatosis infection among asymptomatic contacts of leprosy patients, aiding prophylactic interventions and prevention. Statistical modelling was used to assess sensitivity and specificity requirements for these diagnostic tests. The paper highlights challenges in achieving high specificity, given the varying endemicity of M. leprae, and identifying target analytes with robust performance across leprosy phenotypes. We conclude that diagnostics with appropriate product design and performance characteristics are crucial for early detection and preventive intervention, advocating for the transition from leprosy management to prevention.

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.

Predicted Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Hormonal Contraception and Single or Intermittently Dosed Rifampicin

The scale-up of rifampicin-based prevention regimens is an essential part of the global leprosy strategy. Daily rifampicin may reduce the effectiveness of the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but little is known about the effects of rifampicin at the less frequent dosing intervals used for leprosy prophylaxis. As many women of reproductive age rely on OCP for family planning, evaluating the interaction with less-than-daily rifampicin regimens would enhance the scalability and acceptability of leprosy prophylaxis. Using a semi-mechanistic pharmacokinetic model of rifampicin induction, we simulated predicted changes in OCP clearance when coadministered with varying rifampicin dosing schedules. Rifampicin given as a single dose (600 or 1200 mg) or 600 mg every 4 weeks was not predicted to result in a clinically relevant interaction with OCP, defined as a >25% increase in clearance. Simulations of daily rifampicin were predicted to increase OCP clearance within the range of observed changes previously reported in the literature. Therefore, our findings suggest that OCP efficacy will be maintained when coadministered with rifampicin-based leprosy prophylaxis regimens of 600 mg once, 1200 mg once, and 600 mg every 4 weeks. This work provides reassurance to stakeholders that leprosy prophylaxis can be used with OCP without any additional recommendations for contraception prevention.

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.

A Review of the Ring Trial Design for Evaluating Ring Interventions for Infectious Diseases

In trials of infectious disease interventions, rare outcomes and unpredictable spatiotemporal variation can introduce bias, reduce statistical power, and prevent conclusive inferences. Spillover effects can complicate inference if individual randomization is used to gain efficiency. Ring trials are a type of cluster-randomized trial that may increase efficiency and minimize bias, particularly in emergency and elimination settings with strong clustering of infection. They can be used to evaluate ring interventions, which are delivered to individuals in proximity to or contact with index cases. We conducted a systematic review of ring trials, compare them with other trial designs for evaluating ring interventions, and describe strengths and weaknesses of each design. Of 849 articles and 322 protocols screened, we identified 26 ring trials, 15 cluster-randomized trials, 5 trials that randomized households or individuals within rings, and 1 individually randomized trial. The most common interventions were postexposure prophylaxis (n = 23) and focal mass drug administration and screening and treatment (n = 7). Ring trials require robust surveillance systems and contact tracing for directly transmitted diseases. For rare diseases with strong spatiotemporal clustering, they may have higher efficiency and internal validity than cluster-randomized designs, in part because they ensure that no clusters are excluded from analysis due to zero cluster incidence. Though more research is needed to compare them with other types of trials, ring trials hold promise as a design that can increase trial speed and efficiency while reducing bias.

Implementation approaches for leprosy prevention with single-dose rifampicin: A support tool for decision making

BACKGROUND

In the past 15 years, the decline in annually detected leprosy patients has stagnated. To reduce the transmission of Mycobacterium leprae, the World Health Organization recommends single-dose rifampicin (SDR) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for contacts of leprosy patients. Various approaches to administer SDR-PEP have been piloted. However, requirements and criteria to select the most suitable approach were missing. The aims of this study were to develop an evidence-informed decision tool to support leprosy programme managers in selecting an SDR-PEP implementation approach, and to assess its user-friendliness among stakeholders without SDR-PEP experience.

METHODOLOGY

The development process comprised two phases. First, a draft tool was developed based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews with experts from various countries, organisations and institutes. This led to: an overview of existing SDR-PEP approaches and their characteristics; understanding the requirements and best circumstances for these approaches; and, identification of relevant criteria to select an approach. In the second phase the tool's usability and applicability was assessed, through interviews and a focus group discussion with intended, inexperienced users; leprosy programme managers and non-governmental organization (NGO) staff.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Five SDR-PEP implementation approaches were identified. The levels of endemicity and stigma, and the accessibility of an area were identified as most relevant criteria to select an approach. There was an information gap on cost-effectiveness, while successful implementation depends on availability of resources. Five basic requirements, irrespective of the approach, were identified: stakeholder support; availability of medication; compliant health system; trained health staff; and health education. Two added benefits of the tool were identified: its potential value for advocacy and for training.

CONCLUSION

An evidence-informed SDR-PEP decision tool to support the selection of implementation approaches for leprosy prevention was developed. While the tool was evaluated by potential users, more research is needed to further improve the tool, especially health-economic studies, to ensure efficient and cost-effective implementation of SDR-PEP.

BCG-induced immunity profiles in household contacts of leprosy patients differentiate between protection and disease

Leprosy is an infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae leading to irreversible disabilities along with social exclusion. Leprosy is a spectral disease for which the clinical outcome after M. leprae infection is determined by host factors. The spectrum spans from anti-inflammatory T helper-2 (Th2) immunity concomitant with large numbers of bacteria as well as antibodies against M. leprae antigens in multibacillary (MB) leprosy, to paucibacillary (PB) leprosy characterised by strong pro-inflammatory, Th1 as well as Th17 immunity. Despite decades of availability of adequate antibiotic treatment, transmission of M. leprae is unabated. Since individuals with close and frequent contact with untreated leprosy patients are particularly at risk to develop the disease themselves, prophylactic strategies currently focus on household contacts of newly diagnosed patients. It has been shown that BCG (re)vaccination can reduce the risk of leprosy. However, BCG immunoprophylaxis in contacts of leprosy patients has also been reported to induce PB leprosy, indicating that BCG (re)vaccination may tip the balance between protective immunity and overactivation immunity causing skin/nerve tissue damage. In order to identify who is at risk of developing PB leprosy after BCG vaccination, amongst individuals who are chronically exposed to M. leprae, we analyzed innate and adaptive immune markers in whole blood of household contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients in Bangladesh, some of which received BCG vaccination. As controls, individuals from the same area without known contact with leprosy patients were similarly assessed. Our data show the added effect of BCG vaccination on immune markers on top of the effect already induced by M. leprae exposure. Moreover, we identified BCG-induced markers that differentiate between protective and disease prone immunity in those contacts.

PEP4LEP study protocol: integrated skin screening and SDR-PEP administration for leprosy prevention: comparing the effectiveness and feasibility of a community-based intervention to a health centre-based intervention in Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania

INTRODUCTION

Leprosy, or Hansen's disease, remains a cause of preventable disability. Early detection, treatment and prevention are key to reducing transmission. Post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (SDR-PEP) reduces the risk of developing leprosy when administered to screened contacts of patients. This has been adopted in the WHO leprosy guidelines. The PEP4LEP study aims to determine the most effective and feasible method of screening people at risk of developing leprosy and administering chemoprophylaxis to contribute to interrupting transmission.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PEP4LEP is a cluster-randomised implementation trial comparing two interventions of integrated skin screening combined with SDR-PEP distribution to contacts of patients with leprosy in Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania. One intervention is community-based, using skin camps to screen approximately 100 community contacts per leprosy patient, and to administer SDR-PEP when eligible. The other intervention is health centre-based, inviting household contacts of leprosy patients to be screened in a local health centre and subsequently receive SDR-PEP when eligible. The mobile health (mHealth) tool SkinApp will support health workers' capacity in integrated skin screening. The effectiveness of both interventions will be compared by assessing the rate of patients with leprosy detected and case detection delay in months, as well as feasibility in terms of cost-effectiveness and acceptability.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the national ethical committees of Ethiopia (MoSHE), Mozambique (CNBS) and Tanzania (NIMR/MoHCDEC). Study results will be published open access in peer-reviewed journals, providing evidence for the implementation of innovative leprosy screening methods and chemoprophylaxis to policymakers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL7294 (NTR7503).

Detection of anti-M. leprae antibodies in children in leprosy-endemic areas: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Leprosy elimination primarily targets transmission of Mycobacterium leprae which is not restricted to patients' households. As interruption of transmission is imminent in many countries, a test to detect infected asymptomatic individuals who can perpetuate transmission is required. Antibodies directed against M. leprae antigens are indicative of M. leprae infection but cannot discriminate between active and past infection. Seroprevalence in young children, however, reflects recent M. leprae infection and may thus be used to monitor transmission in an area. Therefore, this literature review aimed to evaluate what has been reported on serological tests measuring anti-M. leprae antibodies in children without leprosy below the age of 15 in leprosy-endemic areas.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A literature search was performed in the databases Pubmed, Infolep, Web of Science and The Virtual Health Library. From the 724 articles identified through the search criteria, 28 full-text articles fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Two additional papers were identified through snowballing, resulting in a total of 30 articles reporting data from ten countries. All serological tests measured antibodies against phenolic glycolipid-I or synthetic derivatives thereof, either quantitatively (ELISA or UCP-LFA) or qualitatively (ML-flow or NDO-LID rapid test). The median seroprevalence in children in endemic areas was 14.9% and was stable over time if disease incidence remained unchanged. Importantly, seroprevalence decreased with age, indicating that children are a suitable group for sensitive assessment of recent M. leprae infection. However, direct comparison between areas, solely based on the data reported in these studies, was impeded by the use of different tests and variable cut-off levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative anti-PGL-I serology in young children holds promise as a screening test to assess M. leprae infection and may be applied as a proxy for transmission and thereby as a means to monitor the effect of (prophylactic) interventions on the route to leprosy elimination.

Efficacy of chemoprophylaxis and immunoprophylaxis in leprosy prevention: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Vaccination and single-dose rifampin are the main proven effective intervention types for preventing leprosy among contacts of Mycobacterium leprae endemic areas. Currently, no high-quality evidence is available regarding the best prophylactic intervention.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary study aim is to detect the most effective prophylactic intervention for the prevention of leprosy.

METHODS

In May 2019, 12 databases were searched systematically. Updated search terms were developed in March 2020 to complete an updated search. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the different types of chemoprophylactic and immunoprophylactic interventions in leprosy prevention were included. Our participants were contacts of patients with leprosy or people residing in leprosy endemic communities. We searched for different types of chemoprophylactic and immunoprophylactic interventions used in leprosy prevention. We used network meta-analysis and meta-analysis. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane Risk of Bias for included RCTs, in which all included RCTs were rated to be low to moderate risk. We registered our protocol in Prospero with ID CRD42019143207.

RESULTS

Among 11 included studies (326 264 patients) from original and updated search terms, eight were eligible for network meta-analysis (NMA) while four were eligible for MA. Findings suggest that Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination was the most effective intervention compared to placebo (risk ratios (RRs) 0.49 (0.30, 0.80), p 0.77), followed by combined BCG vaccination and single-dose rifampicin (SDR) with similarly low values (RR 48%, p 0.77). BCG revaccination was the least effective intervention compared to placebo (RR 1.08 (0.36, 3.22), p 0.26).

CONCLUSION

Compared to placebo, the BCG vaccine was the most effective prophylactic intervention. The combination of BCG vaccination + SDR had nearly the same efficacy as BCG vaccination alone, while BCG revaccination was the least effective. Thus, vaccination proved to be a more effective treatment than SDR alone. A well-designed multicenter RCT is warranted to evaluate the safety of these vaccines.

Exploring clustering of leprosy in the Comoros and Madagascar: A geospatial analysis

OBJECTIVES

To identify patterns of spatial clustering of leprosy.

DESIGN

We performed a baseline survey for a trial on post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy in Comoros and Madagascar. We screened 64 villages, door-to-door, and recorded results of screening, demographic data and geographic coordinates. To identify clusters, we fitted a purely spatial Poisson model using Kulldorff's spatial scan statistic. We used a regular Poisson model to assess the risk of contracting leprosy at the individual level as a function of distance to the nearest known leprosy patient.

RESULTS

We identified 455 leprosy patients; 200 (44.0%) belonged to 2735 households included in a cluster. Thirty-eight percent of leprosy patients versus 10% of the total population live ≤25 m from another leprosy patient. Risk ratios for being diagnosed with leprosy were 7.3, 2.4, 1.8, 1.4 and 1.7, for those at the same household, at 1-<25 m, 25-<50 m, 50-<75 m and 75-<100 m as/from a leprosy patient, respectively, compared to those living at ≥100 m.

CONCLUSIONS

We documented significant clustering of leprosy beyond household level, although 56% of cases were not part of a cluster. Control measures need to be extended beyond the household, and social networks should be further explored.

Prototype multi-biomarker test for point-of-care leprosy diagnostics

To end the decade-long, obstinately stagnant number of new leprosy cases, there is an urgent need for field-applicable diagnostic tools that detect infection with Mycobacterium leprae, leprosy's etiologic agent. Since immunity against M. leprae is characterized by humoral and cellular markers, we developed a lateral flow test measuring multiple host proteins based on six previously identified biomarkers for various leprosy phenotypes. This multi-biomarker test (MBT) demonstrated feasibility of quantitative detection of six host serum proteins simultaneously, jointly allowing discrimination of patients with multibacillary and paucibacillary leprosy from control individuals in high and low leprosy endemic areas. Pilot testing of fingerstick blood showed similar MBT performance in point-of-care (POC) settings as observed for plasma and serum. Thus, this newly developed prototype MBT measures six biomarkers covering immunity against M. leprae across the leprosy spectrum. The MBT thereby provides the basis for immunodiagnostic POC tests for leprosy with potential for other (infectious) diseases as well.

•

Prototype MBT that quantitatively detects six host-derived biomarkers is developed

•

The immunopathological spectrum of leprosy is ideally suited to evaluate the MBT

•

MBT discriminated patients with leprosy from controls in a high and non-endemic area

•

Application of the MBT using low invasive fingerstick blood is technically feasible

The State of Affairs in Post-Exposure Leprosy Prevention: A Descriptive Meta-Analysis on Immuno- and Chemo-Prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE

Annually, over 200,000 people are diagnosed with leprosy, also called Hansen's disease. This number has been relatively stable over the past years. Progress has been made in the fields of chemoprophylaxis and immunoprophylaxis to prevent leprosy, with a primary focus on close contacts of patients. In this descriptive meta-analysis, we summarize the evidence and identify knowledge gaps regarding post-exposure prophylaxis against leprosy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was conducted by searching the medical scientific databases Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed/MEDLINE, Research Gate, Scopus and Web of Science on Jan. 22, 2020, using a combination of synonyms for index terms in four languages: "leprosy" and "population" or "contacts" and "prevention" or "prophylaxis." Subsequently, Infolep.org and Google Scholar were searched and the "snowball method" was used to retrieve other potentially relevant literature. The found articles were screened for eligibility using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

After deduplication, 1,515 articles were screened, and 125 articles were included in this descriptive meta-analysis. Immunoprophylaxis by bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination is known to provide protection against leprosy. The protection it offers is higher in household contacts of leprosy patients compared with the general population and is seen to decline over time. Contact follow-up screening is important in the first period after BCG administration, as a substantial number of new leprosy patients presents three months post-vaccination. Evidence for the benefit of re-vaccination is conflicting. The World Health Organization (WHO) included BCG in its Guidelines for the Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention of Leprosy by stating that BCG at birth should be maintained in at least all leprosy high-burden regions. Literature shows that several vaccination interventions with other immunoprophylactic agents demonstrate similar or slightly less efficacy in leprosy risk reduction compared with BCG. However, most of these studies do not exclusively focus on post-exposure prophylaxis. Two vaccines are considered future candidates for leprosy prophylaxis: Mycobacterium indicus pranii (MiP) and LepVax. For chemoprophylaxis, trials were performed with dapsone/acedapsone, rifampicin, and ROM, a combination of rifampicin, ofloxacin, and minocycline. Single-dose rifampicin is favored as post-exposure prophylaxis, abbreviated as SDR-PEP. It demonstrated a protective effect of 57% in the first two years after administration to contacts of leprosy patients. It is inexpensive, and adverse events are rare. The risk of SDR-PEP inducing rifampicin resistance is considered negligible, but continuous monitoring in accordance with WHO policies should be encouraged. The integration of contact screening and SDR-PEP administration into different leprosy control programs was found to be feasible and well accepted. Since 2018, SDR-PEP is included in the WHO Guidelines for the Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention of Leprosy.

CONCLUSION

Progress has been made in the areas of chemoprophylaxis and immunoprophylaxis to prevent leprosy in contacts of patients. Investing in vaccine studies, like LepVax and MiP, and increasing harmonization between tuberculosis (TB) and leprosy research groups is important. SDR-PEP is promising as a chemoprophylactic agent, and further implementation should be promoted. More chemoprophylaxis research is needed on: enhanced medication regimens; interventions in varying (epidemiological) settings, including focal mass drug administration (fMDA); specific approaches per contact type; combinations with screening variations and field-friendly rapid tests, if available in the future; community and health staff education; ongoing antibiotic resistance surveillance; and administering chemoprophylaxis with SDR-PEP prior to BCG administration. Additionally, both leprosy prophylactic drug registration nationally and prophylactic drug availability globally at low or no cost are important for the implementation and further upscaling of preventive measures against leprosy, such as SDR-PEP and new vaccines.