Association between leprosy reactions after treatment and bacterial load evaluated using anti PGL-I serology and bacilloscopy

Challenges and advances in serological and molecular tests to aid leprosy diagnosis

Leprosy is a neglected chronic infectious disease caused by obligate intracellular bacilli, Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis. Despite multidrug therapy (MDT) success, leprosy accounts for more than 200,000 new cases yearly. Leprosy diagnosis remains based on the dermato-neurologic examination, but histopathology of skin biopsy and bacilloscopy of intradermal scraping are subsidiary diagnostic tests that require expertise and laboratory infrastructure. This minireview summarizes the state of the art of serologic tests to aid leprosy diagnosis, highlighting enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and point-of-care tests (POCT) biotechnologies. Also, the impact of the postgenomic era on the description of new recombinantly expressed M. leprae-specific protein antigens, such as leprosy Infectious Disease Research Institute (IDRI) diagnostic (LID)-1 is summarized. Highly specific and sensitive molecular techniques to detect M. leprae DNA as the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) are briefly reviewed. Serology studies using phenolic glycolipid-I (PGL-I) semi-synthetic antigens, LID-1 fusion antigen, and the single fusion complex natural disaccharide-octyl (NDO)-LID show high sensitivity in multibacillary (MB) patients. However, serology is not applicable to paucibacillary patients, as they have weak humoral response and robust cell-mediated response, requiring tests for cellular biomarkers. Unlike ELISA-based tests, leprosy-specific POCT based on semi-synthetic PGL-I antigens and NDO-LID 1 antigen is easy to perform, cheaper, equipment-free, and can contribute to early diagnosis avoiding permanent incapacities and helping to interrupt M. leprae transmission. Besides its use to help diagnosis of household contacts or at-risk populations in endemic areas, potential applications of leprosy serology include monitoring MDT efficacy, identification of recent infection, especially in young children, as surrogate markers of disease progression to orient adult chemoprophylaxis and as a predictor of type 2 leprosy reactions. Advances in molecular biology techniques have reduced the complexity and execution time of qPCR confirming its utility to help diagnosis while leprosy-specific LAMP holds promise as an adjunct test to detect M. leprae DNA.

[Factors associated with timing of lepra reactions in a cohort from 2008 to 2016 in Rondônia, Amazon Region, Brazil]

The clinical management of leprosy patients poses a specific challenge, namely lepra reactions. This non-concurrent cohort study aimed to analyze the timing of the first lepra reaction during and after polychemotherapy (PCT) and associated factors. A total of 1,621 patients were assessed (PB = 8.9% and MB = 91.1%) from 2008 to 2016, reported to the System of Reaction States in Leprosy (SisReação/RO) database. Reactions occurred predominantly during PCT (997; 61.5%) and less frequently only after PCT (624; 38.5%). Earliness of the reaction after diagnosis was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier survival curves, with comparison between the PB and MB groups using the Mantel-Cox log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were constructed to identify factors associated with occurrence of lepra reactions (hazard ratio) and the corresponding 95%CI. The multivariate model included variables with p-values < 0.20 in the univariate analysis. PB patients developed reactions earlier than MB patients. Other characteristics were associated with earlier reactions: female gender and negative smear microscopy. In the aggregate period (during and after PCT), PB presented 24% higher risk of lepra reaction than MB patients, and negative smear microscopy increased this risk by 40% compared to positive smear microscopy. During and after PCT, PB presented 1.3 and 1.6 times the risk, respectively, of reactions when compared to MB patients. We thus recommend prioritizing surveillance of lepra reactions during and after PCT as measures to prevent physical disabilities and to improve quality of life for persons with leprosy.

Risk Factors of Type 1 Leprosy Reaction in Leprosy Patients attending Leprosy Division of Dermatology and Venereology Outpatient Clinic of Dr Soetomo General Hospital in 2017–2019: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND: Type 1 leprosy reaction is a delayed hypersensitivity reaction caused by increased response of cellular-mediated immunity to Mycobacterium leprae. Manifestations include skin and nerve lesions, edema, and permanent disabilities. There are several risk factors that should be recognized to prevent disabilities. AIM: The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship of risk factors to the occurrence of type 1 leprosy reaction in leprosy patients treated at the Outpatient Clinic of Dr. Soetomo General Hospital. METHODS: This study was an analytical study with retrospective observational study design. Data were secondary from the medical records of leprosy patients at the Outpatient Clinic of Dr. Soetomo General Hospital from January 2017 to December 2019. RESULTS: Out of 364 patients in the Outpatient Clinic, 190 (52.2%) had leprosy without a reaction and 65 (17.9%) had type 1 reaction. Analysis showed that age, leprosy type, and treatment regimen were significantly associated with the incidence of type 1 reaction (p = 0.023; 0.003 and 0.004, respectively), with the leprosy type as the most dominant risk factor. Age 15–34 years old; leprosy types BB, BL, and BT; and the MB MDTL therapeutic regimen are risk factors for the occurrence of type I leprosy reaction. CONCLUSION: There is a statistically significant correlation between the risk factor and the occurrence of type 1 leprosy reaction in leprosy patient. The risk factor that has significant correlation is age 15–34 years; leprosy types BB, BL, and BT; and the MB MDTL therapeutic regimen. The most significant risk factor for the occurrence of type 1 leprosy reaction from our study is the type of leprosy (BB, BL, and BT).

Immunology of leprosy

Leprosy is a disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae (ML) with diverse clinical manifestations, which are strongly correlated with the host's immune response. Skin lesions may be accompanied by peripheral neural damage, leading to sensory and motor losses, as well as deformities of the hands and feet. Both innate and acquired immune responses are involved, but the disease has been classically described along a Th1/Th2 spectrum, where the Th1 pole corresponds to the most limited presentations and the Th2 to the most disseminated ones. We discuss this dichotomy in the light of current knowledge of cytokines, Th subpopulations and regulatory T cells taking part in each leprosy presentation. Leprosy reactions are associated with an increase in inflammatory activity both in limited and disseminated presentations, leading to a worsening of previous symptoms or the development of new symptoms. Despite the efforts of many research groups around the world, there is still no adequate serological test for diagnosis in endemic areas, hindering the eradication of leprosy in these regions.

Prospects for new leprosy diagnostic tools, a narrative review considering ELISA and PCR assays

Slit skin smear and histopathological examinations are currently the main laboratory tools used to aid the diagnosis of leprosy. However, their sensitivity is low, and many cases are not detected. New methodologies have been studied to develop more accurate tests. This narrative review aims to raise attention to the results of molecular (polymerase chain reaction) and serological (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay) tests applied to the diagnosis of leprosy, and to summarize the available information about the former. Original scientific articles published in indexed international journals, whose study involved aspects of the diagnosis and classification of leprosy cases or home contacts, were selected. The data were extracted independently using a standardized method that dictated the inclusion of the following information: diagnosis in Paucibacillary and Multibacillary cases and in household contacts; sample number; sample type; study design; studied variables; statistical analysis employed; main results; and limitations identified. In clinical practice, the results from molecular and serological tests are assessed separately, with moderate sensitivity and specificity. However, an integrated study of these methodologies has been suggested for greater accuracy in diagnosis.

Leprosy in elderly people and the profile of a retrospective cohort in an endemic region of the Brazilian Amazon

Background

Leprosy has a global presence; more than 180 thousand new cases were registered in 2013, 15% of which were found in the Americas. The elderly are a very susceptible demographic in terms of developing illnesses, mainly because of characteristics natural to the senescence of the human organism. This study’s goals were to analyze leprosy in an elderly population from a hyperendemic region of the Brazilian Amazon in a historical series from 2004 to 2013 and to determine the clinical and epidemiological profile of a series of leprosy cases of elderly people in the period spanning from 2009 to 2013.

Methods

To achieve these goals, an observational, longitudinal, retrospective and descriptive study was put together to analyze leprosy in elderly people from data acquired from the Notification Aggravations Information System. Furthermore, a profile of the disease from a retrospective cohort based on data collected from medical records was developed.

Results

The number of new cases and the leprosy detection rate decreased across the observed period but remained stable among the elderly. The trend for the next ten years indicates decreases in the number of cases and in the detection rate in the general population and an increase in only the elderly. The overall profile was characterized by a predominance of males (64.32%), the multibacillary clinical form (87.57%), Type 1 reaction episodes (37.50%) and some physical incapacity at diagnosis (49.19%). The risk of reaction was greater in the first six months of multidrug therapy, and the positive result from the skin smear was associated with the greater chance of reactional condition development.

Conclusions

The resulting data demonstrate that leprosy amongst the elderly deserves attention because of the increased susceptibility to disability in this age group, with their higher risk of reaction and their greater level of co-morbidity.

Leprosy, despite being an ancient disease, still represents a challenge to public health systems today. There are still just a few studies about it, particularly among the elderly. It is known that they constitute a very heterogeneous group in terms of immune response to infections, alterations to the peripheral nervous system and predisposition to situations of vulnerability and functional dependency. The Amazon region is a hyperendemic region for leprosy and has been trying to address, along with the rest of Brazil, a rapid increase in the population’s life expectancy. This article surveys medical records from elderly people diagnosed with leprosy in a five-year period at the metropolitan region of Belém, state of Pará (Brazil), identifying a predominance of the multibacillary forms of the disease, a high prevalence of leprosy reactions mainly during treatment with multidrug therapy, and the presence of some physical incapacity in most of the people evaluated. It is expected that this study will contribute to knowledge about the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of leprosy among the elderly and stimulate the making of new studies on the theme.

Differential immunoglobulin and complement levels in leprosy prior to development of reversal reaction and erythema nodosum leprosum

Background

Leprosy is a treatable infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae. However, there is additional morbidity from leprosy-associated pathologic immune reactions, reversal reaction (RR) and erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL), which occur in 1 in 3 people with leprosy, even with effective treatment of M. leprae. There is currently no predictive marker in use to indicate which people with leprosy will develop these debilitating immune reactions. Our peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) transcriptome analysis revealed that activation of the classical complement pathway is common to both RR and ENL. Additionally, differential expression of immunoglobulin receptors and B cell receptors during RR and ENL support a role for the antibody-mediated immune response during both RR and ENL. In this study, we investigated B-cell immunophenotypes, total and M. leprae-specific antibodies, and complement levels in leprosy patients with and without RR or ENL. The objective was to determine the role of these immune mediators in pathogenesis and assess their potential as biomarkers of risk for immune reactions in people with leprosy.

Methodology/findings

We followed newly diagnosed leprosy cases (n = 96) for two years for development of RR or ENL. They were compared with active RR (n = 35), active ENL (n = 29), and healthy household contacts (n = 14). People with leprosy who subsequently developed ENL had increased IgM, IgG1, and C3d-associated immune complexes with decreased complement 4 (C4) at leprosy diagnosis. People who developed RR also had decreased C4 at leprosy diagnosis. Additionally, elevated anti-M. leprae antibody levels were associated with subsequent RR or ENL.

Conclusions

Differential co-receptor expression and immunoglobulin levels before and during immune reactions intimate a central role for humoral immunity in RR and ENL. Decreased C4 and elevated anti-M. leprae antibodies in people with new diagnosis of leprosy may be risk factors for subsequent development of leprosy immune reactions.

One in three people with leprosy develop an immune reaction, which worsen quality of life. Reactions occur despite effective treatment of the causative bacteria of leprosy, Mycobacterium leprae, with antibiotics. These reactions cause worsening skin lesions and additional nerve damage. Reactions can be chronic and recurrent, and may necessitate years of treatment with high dose corticosteroids. Our research focuses on why certain people develop these reactions while others do not. We found that people who have higher antibodies to M. leprae when they are diagnosed with leprosy are more likely to develop immune reactions in the two years after diagnosis. Also, we identify that C4 levels in the blood may be useful for monitoring the development and progression of leprosy reactions. These may be ways to identify who is at highest risk for leprosy immune reactions before they occur.

A Systematic Review of Immunological Studies of Erythema Nodosum Leprosum

Erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) is a painful inflammatory complication of leprosy occurring in 50% of lepromatous leprosy patients and 5-10% of borderline lepromatous patients. It is a significant cause of economic hardship, morbidity and mortality in leprosy patients. Our understanding of the causes of ENL is limited. We performed a systematic review of the published literature and critically evaluated the evidence for the role of neutrophils, immune complexes (ICs), T-cells, cytokines, and other immunological factors that could contribute to the development of ENL. Searches of the literature were performed in PubMed. Studies, independent of published date, using samples from patients with ENL were included. The search revealed more than 20,000 articles of which 146 eligible studies were included in this systematic review. The studies demonstrate that ENL may be associated with a neutrophilic infiltrate, but it is not clear whether it is an IC-mediated process or that the presence of ICs is an epiphenomenon. Increased levels of tumor necrosis factor-α and other pro-inflammatory cytokines support the role of this cytokine in the inflammatory phase of ENL but not necessarily the initiation. T-cell subsets appear to be important in ENL since multiple studies report an increased CD4⁺/CD8⁺ ratio in both skin and peripheral blood of patients with ENL. Microarray data have identified new molecules and whole pathophysiological pathways associated with ENL and provides new insights into the pathogenesis of ENL. Studies of ENL are often difficult to compare due to a lack of case definitions, treatment status, and timing of sampling as well as the use of different laboratory techniques. A standardized approach to some of these issues would be useful. ENL appears to be a complex interaction of various aspects of the immune system. Rigorous clinical descriptions of well-defined cohorts of patients and a systems biology approach using available technologies such as genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics could yield greater understanding of the condition.

Leprosy reactions: The predictive value of Mycobacterium leprae-specific serology evaluated in a Brazilian cohort of leprosy patients (U-MDT/CT-BR)

Background

Leprosy reactions, reversal reactions/RR and erythema nodosum leprosum/ENL, can cause irreversible nerve damage, handicaps and deformities. The study of Mycobacterium leprae-specific serologic responses at diagnosis in the cohort of patients enrolled at the Clinical Trial for Uniform Multidrug Therapy Regimen for Leprosy Patients in Brazil/U-MDT/CT-BR is suitable to evaluate its prognostic value for the development of reactions.

Methodology

IgM and IgG antibody responses to PGL-I, LID-1, ND-O-LID were evaluated by ELISA in 452 reaction-free leprosy patients at diagnosis, enrolled and monitored for the development of leprosy reactions during a total person-time of 780,930 person-days, i.e. 2139.5 person-years, with a maximum of 6.66 years follow-up time.

Principal findings

Among these patients, 36% (160/452) developed reactions during follow-up: 26% (119/452) RR and 10% (41/452) had ENL. At baseline higher anti-PGL-I, anti-LID-1 and anti-ND-O-LID seropositivity rates were seen in patients who developed ENL and RR compared to reaction-free patients (p<0.0001). Seroreactivity in reactional and reaction-free patients was stratified by bacilloscopic index/BI categories. Among BI negative patients, higher anti-PGL-I levels were seen in RR compared to reaction-free patients (p = 0.014). In patients with 0<BI<3, (36 RR, 36 reaction-free), higher antibody levels to PGL-I (p = 0.014) and to LID-1 (p = 0.035) were seen in RR while difference in anti-ND-O-LID positivity was borderline (p = 0.052). Patients with BI≥3 that developed ENL had higher levels of anti-LID-1 antibodies (p = 0.028) compared to reaction-free patients. Anti-PGL-I serology had a limited predictive value for RR according to receiver operating curve/ROC analyses (area-under-the-curve/AUC = 0.7). Anti LID-1 serology at baseline showed the best performance to predict ENL (AUC 0.85).

Conclusions

Overall, detection of anti-PGL-I, anti-LID-1 and anti-ND-O-LID antibodies at diagnosis, showed low sensitivity and specificity for RR prediction, indicating low applicability of serological tests for RR prognosis. On the other hand, anti-LID-1 serology at diagnosis has shown prognostic value for ENL development in BI positive patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00669643

Leprosy is a debilitating dermato-neurologic disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae. One of the main difficulties in the clinical management of leprosy patients is the development of leprosy reactions which are immune inflammatory episodes that can cause irreversible handicaps, incapacities and deformities. There are two major types of leprosy reactions: reversal reaction (RR) and erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL). Currently, there is no laboratory test able to predict the emergence of leprosy reactions among recently diagnosed patients. In order to investigate laboratory markers for the occurrence of leprosy reactions, we investigated the prognostic value of serologic responses to M. leprae antigens (PGL-I, LID-1, ND-O-LID) in 452 leprosy patients enrolled at the Clinical Trial for Uniform Multidrug Therapy Regimen for Leprosy Patients in Brazil/U-MDT/CT-BR. At diagnosis higher anti-PGL-I, anti-LID-1 and anti-ND-O-LID seropositivity rates were seen in patients who developed ENL and RR compared to reaction-free patients. The anti-PGL-I serology at diagnosis show low sensitivity to predict RR and anti-LID-1 serology at diagnosis has shown prognostic value for ENL development.

Use of Fine Needle Aspirate from Peripheral Nerves of Pure-neural Leprosy for Cytology and Polymerase Chain Reaction to Confirm the Diagnosis: A Follow-up Study of 4 Years

Background:

Pure neural leprosy (PNL) still remains a diagnostic challenge because of the absence of sine qua non skin lesions of leprosy and a confirmatory diagnostic method. The authors had earlier described a simple yet objective technique of combining fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) coupled with a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in a pilot study, wherein the technique showed promise of a reliable diagnostic tool. In the pursuit of further evidence, the authors carried out a 4-year study with PNL cases to find the efficacy and reliability of the said method in a larger sample size.

Aim:

This study was conducted to find the efficacy, reliability, and reproducibility of FNAC coupled with multiplex PCR and Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) staining in identifying the cases of PNL.

Materials and Methods:

All cases that were suspected to be suffering from PNL, following evaluation by two independent observers were included in the study and were subjected to FNAC from the affected nerve, and the aspirates were evaluated for cytology, ZN staining, and multiplex PCR for Mycobacterium leprae genome. In addition, serum anti-PGL1 levels were also performed in all the study subjects. Fifteen non-PNL cases were also included in the control arm.

Results:

A total of 47 cases were included in the test arm and subjected to FNAC. Conventional ZN staining could demonstrate acid-fast bacilli (AFB) in only 15 out of 47 cases (31.91%) while M. leprae DNA could be elicited in 37 (78.72%) cases by the multiplex PCR. Only 13 (27.65%) out of 47 cases showed anti-PGLI-1 antibody positivity. On cytological examination of the nerve aspirates, only 11 (23.40%) cases showed epithelioid cells whereas nonspecific inflammation was seen in 26 (75.60%) cases.

Conclusion:

The results of this study conducted over a larger sample size corroborate with the findings of our pilot study. In a resource poor set up, FNAC in combination with ZN staining and multiplex PCR is a rapid, simple, and easily performed test, which can give a reproducible and objective diagnosis in cases of PNL.

Can baseline ML Flow test results predict leprosy reactions? An investigation in a cohort of patients enrolled in the uniform multidrug therapy clinical trial for leprosy patients in Brazil

BACKGROUND

The predictive value of the serology to detection of IgM against the Mycobacterium leprae-derived phenolic glycolipid-I/PGL-I to identify leprosy patients who are at higher risk of developing reactions remains controversial. Whether baseline results of the ML Flow test can predict leprosy reactions was investigated among a cohort of patients enrolled in The Clinical Trial for Uniform Multidrug Therapy for Leprosy Patients in Brazil (U-MDT/CT-BR).

METHODS

This was a descriptive study focusing on the main clinical manifestations of leprosy patients enrolled in the U-MDT/CT-BR from March 2007 to February 2012 at two Brazilian leprosy reference centers. For research purposes, 753 leprosy patients were categorized according to a modified Ridley-Jopling (R&J) classification and according to the development of leprosy reactions (reversal reaction/RR and erythema nodosum leprosum/ENL), and whether they had a positive or negative bacillary index/BI.

RESULTS

More than half of the patients (55.5 %) reported leprosy reaction: 18.3 % (138/753) had a RR and 5.4 % (41/753) had ENL. Leprosy reactions were more frequent in the first year following diagnosis, as seen in 27 % (205/753) of patients, while 19 % (142/753) developed reactions during subsequent follow-up. Similar frequencies of leprosy reactions and other clinical manifestations were observed in paucibacillary (PB) and multibacillary (MB) leprosy patients treated with U-MDT and regular MDT (R-MDT) (P = 0.43 and P = 0.61, respectively). Compared with PB patients, leprosy reactions were significantly more frequent in MB patients with a high BI, and more patients developed RR than ENL. However, RR and neuritis were also reported in patients with a negative BI. At baseline, the highest rate of ML Flow positivity was observed in patients with a positive BI, especially those who developed ENL, followed by patients who had neuritis and RR. Among reaction-free patients, 81.9 % were ML Flow positive, however, the differences were not statistically significant compared to reactional patients (P = 0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

MB and PB patients treated with R-MDT and U-MDT showed similar frequencies of RR and other clinical manifestations. Positive ML Flow tests were associated with MB leprosy and BI positivity. However, ML Flow test results at baseline showed limited sensitivity and specificity for predicting the development of leprosy reactions.

Multibacillary leprosy patients with high and persistent serum antibodies to leprosy IDRI diagnostic-1/LID-1: higher susceptibility to develop type 2 reactions

Leprosy inflammatory episodes [type 1 (T1R) and type 2 (T2R) reactions] represent the major cause of irreversible nerve damage. Leprosy serology is known to be influenced by the patient's bacterial index (BI) with higher positivity in multibacillary patients (MB) and specific multidrug therapy (MDT) reduces antibody production. This study evaluated by ELISA antibody responses to leprosy Infectious Disease Research Institute diagnostic-1 (LID-1) fusion protein and phenolic glycolipid I (PGL-I) in 100 paired serum samples of 50 MB patients collected in the presence/absence of reactions and in nonreactional patients before/after MDT. Patients who presented T2R had a median BI of 3+, while MB patients with T1R and nonreactional patients had median BI of 2.5+ (p > 0.05). Anti-LID-1 and anti-PGL-I antibodies declined in patients diagnosed during T1R (p < 0.05). Anti-LID-1 levels waned in MB with T2R at diagnosis and nonreactional MB patients (p < 0.05). Higher anti-LID-1 levels were seen in patients with T2R at diagnosis (vs. patients with T1R at diagnosis, p = 0.008; vs. nonreactional patients, p = 0.020) and in patients with T2R during MDT (vs. nonreactional MB, p = 0.020). In MB patients, high and persistent anti-LID-1 antibody levels might be a useful tool for clinicians to predict which patients are more susceptible to develop leprosy T2R.

Leprosy Reactions in Patients Coinfected with HIV: Clinical Aspects and Outcomes in Two Comparative Cohorts in the Amazon Region, Brazil

Background

Leprosy, caused by Mycobacterium leprae, can lead to scarring and deformities. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), a lymphotropic virus with high rates of replication, leads to cell death in various stages of infection. These diseases have major social and quality of life costs, and although the relevance of their comorbidity is recognized, several aspects are still not fully understood.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Two cohorts of patients with leprosy in an endemic region of the Amazon were observed. We compared 40 patients with leprosy and HIV (Group 1) and 107 leprosy patients with no comorbidity (Group 2) for a minimum of 2 years. Group 1 predominantly experienced the paucibacillary classification, accounting for 70% of cases, whereas Group 2 primarily experienced the multibacillary classification (80.4% of cases). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of leprosy reactions among the two groups (37.5% for Group 1 vs. 56.1% for Group 2), and the most frequent reaction was Type 1. The appearance of Group 1 patients’ reversal reaction skin lesions was consistent with each clinical form: typically erythematous and infiltrated, with similar progression as those patients without HIV, which responded to prednisone. Patients in both groups primarily experienced a single episode (73.3% in Group 1 and 75% in Group 2), and Group 1 had shorter reaction periods (≤3 months; 93.3%), moderate severity (80%), with 93.3% of the patients in the state of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and 46.7% presenting the reaction at the time of the immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome.

Conclusions/Significance

This study used a large sample and makes a significant contribution to the clinical outcomes of patients in the reactive state with comorbid HIV and leprosy. The data indicate that these diseases, although concurrent, have independent courses.

Leprosy and HIV infections, separately, are serious modern public health problems. Many studies have been conducted on these diseases, but knowledge gaps remain. This article provides the first account of important clinical information on a significant sample of patients with leprosy, as well as patients with both leprosy and HIV, who were followed over a period of 24 months. We compared the clinical outcome of both groups, observed the occurrence of reactional episodes, and examined the characteristics of these episodes. The sample consisted of 40 co-infected patients (Group 1) and 107 patients with leprosy only (Group 2). Group 1 was characterized by high levels of paucibacillary leprosy cases (70%) and the borderline tuberculoid clinical form (45%), while Group 2 predominantly exhibited multibacillary leprosy (86%) and the borderline clinical form (40.2%). The Type I reaction was present in 13 and 34 patients of Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The Amazon region, where the study was conducted, is an endemic region for both diseases, which can be useful for conducting studies such as these owing to the generalizability of the results. This study seeks to contribute to the knowledge of the natural history of HIV and leprosy comorbidity.

Understanding the type 1 reactional state for early diagnosis and treatment: a way to avoid disability in leprosy

A type 1 reaction or reversal reaction is expressed clinically by inflammatory exacerbation of the skin lesions and nerve trunks, consequently leading to sensory and motor alterations. It occurs in non-polar forms of leprosy, although it can occur in a small percentage of sub-polar LL treated patients. Disabilities, deformities and morbidity, still present in leprosy, are mainly caused by these acute episodes. The recognition of reactional states is imperative for an early approach and efficient management, to avoid the emergence of disabilities that stigmatize the disease. This review aims to describe the clinical aspects, immunopathogenesis, epidemiology, histopathological features and therapeutics of type 1 reactions.

Identification of clinical, epidemiological and laboratory risk factors for leprosy reactions during and after multidrug therapy

This cross-sectional retrospective study evaluated 440 leprosy patients; 57% (251/440) had leprosy reactions during and/or after multidrug therapy, 80.5% (202/251) of whom presented with multibacillary leprosy. At diagnosis, positive bacterial index (BI) [odds ratio (OR) = 6.39; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.1-10.1)] or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (OR = 9.15; 95% CI: 5.4-15.5) in skin smears, anti-phenolic glycolipid-1 (anti-PGL-1) ELISA (OR = 4.77; 95% CI: 2.9-7.9), leucocytosis (OR = 9.97; 95% CI: 3.9-25.7), thrombocytopenia (OR = 5.72; 95% CI: 2.3-14.0) and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (OR = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.4-4.0) were potential markers for the development of reactions during treatment. After treatment, positive BI (OR = 8.47; 95% CI: 4.7-15.3) and PCR (OR = 6.46; 95% CI: 3.4-12.3) in skin smears, anti-PGL-1 ELISA (OR = 2.25; 95% CI: 1.3-3.9), anaemia (OR = 2.36; 95% CI: 1.2-4.5), leucocytosis (OR = 4.14; 95% CI: 1.5-11.6) and thrombocytopenia (OR = 3.70; 95% CI: 1.3-2.2) were risk factors for the occurrence of reactions during the study period. The identification of groups with an increased risk for developing reactions will allow for the timely development of a treatment plan to prevent nerve damage and, therefore, the appearance of the disabling sequelae associated with the stigma of leprosy.

Erythema nodosum leprosum and reversal reaction in 2 cases of imported leprosy

Leprosy reactions, which are abrupt changes in the clinical condition of patients with immunologically unstable forms of the disease, can mask the cardinal signs of leprosy, delaying both diagnosis and treatment. The main complications that arise from delayed diagnosis reflect the characteristic features of the disease, involving impaired nerve function and both local (ulcers, pyogenic infection, osteomyelitis) and systemic compromise. Through clinical examination, sensory testing, and, where necessary, histopathology and microbiology, are essential when leprosy is suspected. Rapid initiation of anti-inflammatory treatment reduces the risk of functional impairment, the main concern in leprosy. We describe type 1 and type 2 leprosy reactions in 2 patients who had not yet been diagnosed with the disease.

[Leprosy reactions in discharged patients following cure by multidrug therapy]

INTRODUCTION

Reactional states are the main cause of nerve lesions and incapacities provoked by leprosy.

METHODS

Retrospective study aimed at verifying the frequency of leprosy reactions in discharged patients following cure by multidrug therapy (MDT).

RESULTS

Among patients who presented reactions during treatment, 35.5% continued after MDT; of those that did not present during treatment, only 12.7% presented after discharge; 63.4% multibacillary patients presented during and 31.7% after; 27.7% paucibacillary patients presented during and 8.3% after.

CONCLUSIONS

A direct proportional relation exists between the presence of reactions during and after treatment. Multibacillary clinical forms present a greater frequency of reactions during and after cure.