1
|
ter Ellen F, Tielens K, Fenenga C, Mieras L, Schoenmakers A, Arif MA, Veldhuijzen N, Peters R, Ignotti E, Kasang C, Quao B, Steinmann P, Banstola NL, Oraga J, Budiawan T. Implementation approaches for leprosy prevention with single-dose rifampicin: A support tool for decision making. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2022; 16:e0010792. [PMID: 36251696 PMCID: PMC9612816 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010792] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2022] [Revised: 10/27/2022] [Accepted: 09/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
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. The chance of contacts of leprosy patients developing leprosy can be reduced by providing a single dose of rifampicin. The implementation of this type of post-exposure prophylaxis can be done in various ways. This study led to the development of the SDR-PEP decision support tool to select the most suitable approach. It was developed in two phases; first, a tool was drafted based on a literature review and expert interviews, this was followed by phase 2 in which interviews and a focus group discussion with intended users of the tool were held. Five SDR-PEP implementation approaches that have been developed so far were identified. Apart from the characteristics of these approaches, the tool lists five basic requirements for the successful implementation of any approach, and criteria that help to select the best approach in a given context. A flowchart supports the selection process. The study found that the tool can also be used for lobby and advocacy, to clarify SDR-PEP implementation and the choice for an approach, and in training on SDR-PEP implementation. Information about costs and cost-effectiveness of the approaches is limited. Further research will help to continue to improve the tool.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Benedict Quao
- National Leprosy Control Programme, Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana
| | - Peter Steinmann
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Allschwil Switzerland, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Leprosy: A Review of Epidemiology, Clinical Diagnosis, and Management. J Trop Med 2022; 2022:8652062. [PMID: 35832335 PMCID: PMC9273393 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8652062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2022] [Revised: 05/20/2022] [Accepted: 06/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Leprosy is a neglected infectious disease caused by acid-fast bacillus Mycobacterium leprae. It primarily affects the skin and then progresses to a secondary stage, causing peripheral neuropathy with potential long-term disability along with stigma. Leprosy patients account for a significant proportion of the global disease burden. Previous efforts to improve diagnostic and therapeutic techniques have focused on leprosy in adults, whereas childhood leprosy has been relatively neglected. This review aims to update the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations for adult and childhood leprosy. This review summarizes the clinical, bacteriological, and immunological approaches used in the diagnosis of leprosy. As strategies for the diagnosis and management of leprosy continue to develop better and more advanced knowledge, control and prevention of leprosy are crucial.
Collapse
|
3
|
Richardus JH, Tiwari A, Barth-Jaeggi T, Arif MA, Banstola NL, Baskota R, Blaney D, Blok DJ, Bonenberger M, Budiawan T, Cavaliero A, Gani Z, Greter H, Ignotti E, Kamara DV, Kasang C, Manglani PR, Mieras L, Njako BF, Pakasi T, Pandey BD, Saunderson P, Singh R, Smith WCS, Stäheli R, Suriyarachchi ND, Tin Maung A, Shwe T, van Berkel J, van Brakel WH, Vander Plaetse B, Virmond M, Wijesinghe MSD, Aerts A, Steinmann P. Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (LPEP): an international feasibility programme. LANCET GLOBAL HEALTH 2021; 9:e81-e90. [DOI: 10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30396-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2020] [Revised: 08/31/2020] [Accepted: 09/01/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
4
|
Abstract
Nepal has long been known as a leprosy endemic country. However, in 2010, the application of World Health Organization guidelines in Nepal led to the misleading determination that leprosy had been 'eliminated' there. This misnomer has contributed to the current situation in which leprosy is on the increase. A national active case finding program is urgently required.
Collapse
|
5
|
Tiwari A, Blok DJ, Arif M, Richardus JH. Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis in the Indian health system: A cost-effectiveness analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2020; 14:e0008521. [PMID: 32750059 PMCID: PMC7428216 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008521] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2020] [Revised: 08/14/2020] [Accepted: 06/23/2020] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
India has the highest burden of leprosy in the world. Following a recent WHO guideline, the Indian National Leprosy Programme is introducing post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (SDR-PEP) in all high-endemic districts of the country. The aim of this study is to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of SDR-PEP in different leprosy disability burden situations. We used a stochastic individual-based model (SIMCOLEP) to simulate the leprosy new case detection rate trend and the impact of implementing contact screening and SDR-PEP from 2016 to 2040 (25 years) in the Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli (DNH) in India. Effects of the intervention were expressed as disability adjusted life years (DALY) averted under three assumption of disability prevention: 1) all grade 1 disability (G1D) cases prevented; 2) G1D cases prevented in PB cases only; 3) no disability prevented. Costs were US$ 2.9 per contact. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%. The incremental cost per DALY averted by SDR-PEP was US$ 210, US$ 447, and US$ 5,673 in the 25th year under assumption 1, 2, and 3, respectively. If prevention of G1D was assumed, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 1.0 at the threshold of US$ 2,000, which is equivalent to the GDP per capita of India. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.6, if no disability prevention was assumed. The cost per new leprosy case averted was US$ 2,873. Contact listing, screening and the provision of SDR-PEP is a cost-effective strategy in leprosy control in both the short (5 years) and long term (25 years). The cost-effectiveness depends on the extent to which disability can be prevented. As the intervention becomes increasingly cost-effective in the long term, we recommend a long-term commitment for its implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anuj Tiwari
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - David J. Blok
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jan Hendrik Richardus
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Chambers ST, Ioteba N, Timeon E, Rimon E, Murdoch H, Green J, Trowbridge E, Buckingham J, Cunanan A, Williman J, Priest P. Surveillance of Leprosy in Kiribati, 1935-2017. Emerg Infect Dis 2020; 26:833-840. [PMID: 32308192 PMCID: PMC7181941 DOI: 10.3201/eid2605.181746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
In Kiribati, unlike most countries, high and increasing numbers of cases of leprosy have been reported despite the availability of multidrug therapy and efforts to improve case finding and management. Historic records show that 28 cases had been identified by 1925. A systematic population survey in 1997 identified 135 new cases; the mean incidence rate for 1993–1997 was 7.4/10,000 population. After administering mass chemoprophylaxis, the country reached the elimination threshold (prevalence <1/10,000), but case numbers have rebounded. The mean annualized rate of new cases in 2013–2017 was 15/10,000 population, with the highest new case rates (>20/10,000 population) in the main population centers of South Tarawa and Betio. Spread is expected to continue in areas where crowding and poor socioeconomic conditions persist and may accelerate as sea levels rise from climate change. New initiatives to improve social conditions are needed, and efforts such as postexposure chemoprophylaxis should be implemented to prevent spread.
Collapse
|
7
|
Evaluation of Immunodiagnostic Tests for Leprosy in Brazil, China and Ethiopia. Sci Rep 2018; 8:17920. [PMID: 30560920 PMCID: PMC6298962 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-36323-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2018] [Accepted: 11/10/2018] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Leprosy remains persistently endemic in several low- or middle income countries. Transmission is still ongoing as indicated by the unabated rate of leprosy new case detection, illustrating the insufficiency of current prevention methods. Therefore, low-complexity tools suitable for large scale screening efforts to specifically detect M. leprae infection and diagnose disease are required. Previously, we showed that combined detection of cellular and humoral markers, using field-friendly lateral flow assays (LFAs), increased diagnostic potential for detecting leprosy in Bangladesh compared to antibody serology alone. In the current study we assessed the diagnostic performance of similar LFAs in three other geographical settings in Asia, Africa and South-America with different leprosy endemicity. Levels of anti-PGL-I IgM antibody (humoral immunity), IP-10, CCL4 and CRP (cellular immunity) were measured in blood collected from leprosy patients, household contacts and healthy controls from each area. Combined detection of these biomarkers significantly improved the diagnostic potential, particularly for paucibacillary leprosy in all three regions, in line with data obtained in Bangladesh. These data hold promise for the use of low-complexity, multibiomarker LFAs as universal tools for more accurate detection of M. leprae infection and different phenotypes of clinical leprosy.
Collapse
|
8
|
Tiwari A, Blok DJ, Suryawanshi P, Raikwar A, Arif M, Richardus JH. Leprosy services in primary health care in India: comparative economic cost analysis of two public-health settings. Trop Med Int Health 2018; 24:155-165. [PMID: 30444947 PMCID: PMC7379621 DOI: 10.1111/tmi.13182] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
Objectives The WHO recommends inclusion of post‐exposure chemoprophylaxis with single‐dose rifampicin in national leprosy control programmes. The objective was to estimate the cost of leprosy services at primary care level in two different public‐health settings. Methods Ingredient‐based costing was performed in eight primary health centres (PHCs) purposively selected in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DNH) and the Umbergaon block of Valsad district, Gujarat, India. All costs were bootstrapped, and to estimate the variation in total cost under uncertainty, a univariate sensitivity analysis was performed. Results The mean annual cost of providing leprosy services was USD 29 072 in the DNH PHC (95% CI: 22 125–36 020) and USD 11 082 in Umbergaon (95% CI: 8334–13 830). The single largest cost component was human resources: 79% in DNH and 83% in Umbergaon. The unit cost for screening the contact of a leprosy patient was USD 1 in DNH (95% CI: 0.8–1.2) and USD 0.3 in Umbergaon (95% CI: 0.2–0.4). In DNH, the unit cost of delivering single‐dose of rifampicin (SDR) as chemoprophylaxis for contacts was USD 2.9 (95% CI: 2.5–3.7). Conclusions The setting with an enhanced public‐health financing system invests more in leprosy services than a setting with fewer financial resources. In terms of leprosy visits, the enhanced public‐health system is hardly more expensive than the non‐enhanced public‐health system. The unit cost of contact screening is not high, favouring its sustainability in the programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anuj Tiwari
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - David J Blok
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Akash Raikwar
- Netherlands Leprosy Relief, India Country Office, New Delhi, India
| | - Mohammad Arif
- Netherlands Leprosy Relief, India Country Office, New Delhi, India
| | - Jan Hendrik Richardus
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Duthie MS, Casper C, Reed SG. Second coming: the re-emergence and modernization of immunotherapy by vaccines as a component of leprosy control. Future Microbiol 2018; 13:1449-1451. [PMID: 30311780 DOI: 10.2217/fmb-2018-0186] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Malcolm S Duthie
- From the Infectious Disease Research Institute, 1616 Eastlake Ave E, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98102, USA
| | - Corey Casper
- From the Infectious Disease Research Institute, 1616 Eastlake Ave E, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98102, USA
| | - Steven G Reed
- From the Infectious Disease Research Institute, 1616 Eastlake Ave E, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98102, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Abstract
The global leprosy situation has changed significantly over the last four decades after the introduction of multidrug therapy (MDT) in 1982 with a reduction in prevalence from over 5 million cases in the mid-1980s to less than 200,000 at the end of 2016. The programme in India also saw a reduction from a prevalence rate of 57.8/10,000 in 1983 to less than 1/10,000 by the end of 2005 when India declared to have reached the World Health Organization (WHO) target of elimination as a public health problem. Post 2005, major changes in the programme were made by the National leprosy eradication programme (NLEP) and the global leprosy programme, which may have affected the new case detection (NCD), disability, and child leprosy trends, which continue to show no appreciable regression. This article reviews the current global and Indian leprosy scenario to bring out its achievements and successes, including the impact of Leprosy Case Detection Campaigns (LCDC) on leprosy numbers. The basis and expected benefits of recent introduction of chemo and immune-prophylaxis in the programme are also discussed. It also discusses the shortcomings, the areas of concern, and the need for an inclusive strategy in the Indian leprosy programme that includes an intersectoral collaboration within the country for reaching the desired goal of leprosy eradication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Narasimha Rao
- Comprehensive Dermatology Clinic, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
| | - Sujai Suneetha
- Codewel-Nireekshana, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
| |
Collapse
|