1
|
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
|
2
|
Schoenmakers A, Mieras L, Budiawan T, van Brakel WH. The State of Affairs in Post-Exposure Leprosy Prevention: A Descriptive Meta-Analysis on Immuno- and Chemo-Prophylaxis. Res Rep Trop Med 2020; 11:97-117. [PMID: 33117053 PMCID: PMC7573302 DOI: 10.2147/rrtm.s190300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2020] [Accepted: 07/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
3
|
Lenz SM, Collins JH, Ray NA, Hagge DA, Lahiri R, Adams LB. Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) efficacy of rifampin, rifapentine, moxifloxacin, minocycline, and clarithromycin in a susceptible-subclinical model of leprosy. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2020; 14:e0008583. [PMID: 32936818 PMCID: PMC7494095 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008583] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2020] [Accepted: 07/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Subclinical infection with Mycobacterium leprae is one potential source of leprosy transmission, and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) regimens have been proposed to control this source. Because PEP trials require considerable investment, we applied a sensitive variation of the kinetic mouse footpad (MFP) screening assay to aid in the choice of drugs and regimens for clinical trials. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Athymic nude mice were inoculated in the footpad (FP) with 6 x 103 viable M. leprae and treated by gastric gavage with a single dose of Rifampin (SDR), Rifampin + Ofloxacin + Minocycline (SD-ROM), or Rifapentine + Minocycline + Moxifloxacin (SD-PMM) or with the proposed PEP++ regimen of three once-monthly doses of Rifampin + Moxifloxacin (RM), Rifampin + Clarithromycin (RC), Rifapentine + Moxifloxacin (PM), or Rifapentine + Clarithromycin (PC). At various times post-treatment, DNA was purified from the FP, and M. leprae were enumerated by RLEP quantitative PCR. A regression analysis was calculated to determine the expected RLEP value if 99.9% of the bacilli were killed after the administration of each regimen. SDR and SD-ROM induced little growth delay in this highly susceptible murine model of subclinical infection. In contrast, SD-PMM delayed measurable M. leprae growth above the inoculum by 8 months. The four multi-dose regimens delayed bacterial growth for >9months post-treatment cessation. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE The delay in discernable M. leprae growth post-treatment was an excellent indicator of drug efficacy for both early (3-4 months) and late (8-9 months) drug efficacy. Our data indicates that multi-dose PEP may be required to control infection in highly susceptible individuals with subclinical leprosy to prevent disease and decrease transmission.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jaymes H. Collins
- Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, National Hansen’s Disease Programs–Laboratory Research Branch, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America
| | - Nashone A. Ray
- Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, National Hansen’s Disease Programs–Laboratory Research Branch, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America
| | - Deanna A. Hagge
- Mycobacterial Research Laboratories, Anandaban Hospital, The Leprosy Mission Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal
| | - Ramanuj Lahiri
- Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, National Hansen’s Disease Programs–Laboratory Research Branch, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America
| | - Linda B. Adams
- Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, National Hansen’s Disease Programs–Laboratory Research Branch, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ortuno-Gutierrez N, Younoussa A, Randrianantoandro A, Braet S, Cauchoix B, Ramboarina S, Baco A, Mzembaba A, Salim Z, Amidy M, Grillone S, Richardus JH, de Jong BC, Hasker E. 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. BMC Infect Dis 2019; 19:1033. [PMID: 31805862 PMCID: PMC6896699 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-4649-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2019] [Accepted: 11/22/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Leprosy is an ancient infectious disease with a global annual incidence that has plateaued above 200,000 new cases since over a decade. New strategies are required to overcome this stalemate. Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with a single dose of Rifampicin (SDR) has conditionally been recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), based on a randomized-controlled-trial in Bangladesh. More evidence is required. The Post ExpOsure Prophylaxis for Leprosy (PEOPLE) trial will assess effectiveness of different modalities of PEP on the Comoros and Madagascar. Methods PEOPLE is a cluster-randomized trial with villages selected on previous leprosy-incidence and randomly allocated to four arms. Four annual door-to-door surveys will be performed in all arms. All consenting permanent residents will be screened for leprosy. Leprosy patients will be treated according to international guidelines and eligible contacts will be provided with SDR-PEP. Arm-1 is the comparator in which no PEP will be provided. In arms 2, 3 and 4, SDR-PEP will be provided at double the regular dose (20 mg/kg) to eligible contacts aged two years and above. In arm 2 all household-members of incident leprosy patients are eligible. In arm 3 not only household-members but also neighbourhood contacts living within 100-m of an incident case are eligible. In arm 4 such neighbourhood contacts are only eligible if they test positive to anti-PGL-I, a serological marker. Incidence rate ratios calculated between the comparator arm 1 and each of the intervention arms will constitute the primary outcome. Discussion Different trials on PEP have yielded varying results. The pivotal COLEP trial in Bangladesh showed a 57% reduction in incidence over a two-year period post-intervention without any rebound in the following years. A study in a high-incidence setting in Indonesia showed no effect of PEP provided to close contacts but a major effect of PEP provided as a blanket measure to an entire island population. High background incidence could be the reason of the lack of effect of PEP provided to individual contacts. The PEOPLE trial will assess effectiveness of PEP in a high incidence setting and will compare three different approaches, to identify who benefits most from PEP. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.Gov. NCT03662022. Initial Protocol Version 1.2, 27-Aug-2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nimer Ortuno-Gutierrez
- Projects Department, Damien Foundation, Boulevard Leopold II, 263, PO B-1081, Brussels, Belgium.
| | - Assoumani Younoussa
- National Tuberculosis and Leprosy control Program, Moroni, Union of the Comoros
| | | | - Sofie Braet
- Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium
| | | | | | - Abdallah Baco
- National Tuberculosis and Leprosy control Program, Moroni, Union of the Comoros
| | - Aboubacar Mzembaba
- National Tuberculosis and Leprosy control Program, Moroni, Union of the Comoros
| | - Zahara Salim
- National Tuberculosis and Leprosy control Program, Moroni, Union of the Comoros
| | - Mohamed Amidy
- National Tuberculosis and Leprosy control Program, Moroni, Union of the Comoros
| | - Saverio Grillone
- National Tuberculosis and Leprosy control Program, Moroni, Union of the Comoros
| | | | | | - Epco Hasker
- Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Tiwari A, Dandel S, Djupuri R, Mieras L, Richardus JH. Population-wide administration of single dose rifampicin for leprosy prevention in isolated communities: a three year follow-up feasibility study in Indonesia. BMC Infect Dis 2018; 18:324. [PMID: 29996781 PMCID: PMC6042242 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-018-3233-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2017] [Accepted: 07/03/2018] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Indonesia ranking third in the world, regarding leprosy burden. Chemoprophylaxis is effective in reducing risk of developing leprosy among contacts. 'Blanket approach' is an operational strategy for leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis in which all members of an isolated community, high endemic for leprosy are screened and given a single dose of rifampicin (SDR) in the absence of signs and symptoms of leprosy. The objective is to assess the operational feasibility of a population-wide 'blanket' administration of SDR for leprosy prevention in isolated communities in a remote island. METHODS A prospective follow-up study was conducted in the year 2014, 2015 and 2016 in Lingat village of Selaru Island, Indonesia. During the first two visits, screening and SDR were provided, whereas only screening was conducted during the third visit. The demographic and clinical data were used for a descriptive analysis of the project coverage and leprosy epidemiology. RESULTS During the first two visits, 1671 persons (88%) were screened, 1499 (79%) received SDR, and 213 (11%) were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. During the first two visits, 43 (2.6%) cases were diagnosed with leprosy with a rate of 2263 per 100,000 population. The prevalence was highest in the age groups 15-24 and 25-49 years. Total, 14 (33%) cases had MB and 29 (67%) PB leprosy. Two cases (5%) had grade 2 disability. During the third visit, 10 new leprosy cases, with no grade 2 disability, were detected out of 1481 screened persons at the rate of 484 cases per 100,000 population (n = 2065 population in 2016). Among those screened during the third visit, there was a 50% reduction of leprosy among those who had previously received SDR compared to those who had not. CONCLUSION With adequate planning and some additional investment, it is feasible to implement a blanket approach of chemoprophylaxis in a remote island of Indonesia, although effort needs to be made to cover as many people as possible in the first visit. Contingency plans need to be made to actively follow this village closely in the coming years and continue leprosy elimination efforts until no new cases are found any more.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anuj Tiwari
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O.Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Rita Djupuri
- Subdirectorate Tropical Disease of Leprosy and Yaws, Ministry of Health Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
| | | | - Jan Hendrik Richardus
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O.Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Barth-Jaeggi T, Steinmann P, Mieras L, van Brakel W, Richardus JH, Tiwari A, Bratschi M, Cavaliero A, Vander Plaetse B, Mirza F, Aerts A. Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme: study protocol for evaluating the feasibility and impact on case detection rates of contact tracing and single dose rifampicin. BMJ Open 2016; 6:e013633. [PMID: 27856484 PMCID: PMC5128948 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013633] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2016] [Revised: 10/14/2016] [Accepted: 10/21/2016] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The reported number of new leprosy patients has barely changed in recent years. Thus, additional approaches or modifications to the current standard of passive case detection are needed to interrupt leprosy transmission. Large-scale clinical trials with single dose rifampicin (SDR) given as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to contacts of newly diagnosed patients with leprosy have shown a 50-60% reduction of the risk of developing leprosy over the following 2 years. To accelerate the uptake of this evidence and introduction of PEP into national leprosy programmes, data on the effectiveness, impact and feasibility of contact tracing and PEP for leprosy are required. The leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) programme was designed to obtain those data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The LPEP programme evaluates feasibility, effectiveness and impact of PEP with SDR in pilot areas situated in several leprosy endemic countries: India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. Complementary sites are located in Brazil and Cambodia. From 2015 to 2018, contact persons of patients with leprosy are traced, screened for symptoms and assessed for eligibility to receive SDR. The intervention is implemented by the national leprosy programmes, tailored to local conditions and capacities, and relying on available human and material resources. It is coordinated on the ground with the help of the in-country partners of the International Federation of Anti-Leprosy Associations (ILEP). A robust data collection and reporting system is established in the pilot areas with regular monitoring and quality control, contributing to the strengthening of the national surveillance systems to become more action-oriented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethical approval has been obtained from the relevant ethics committees in the countries. Results and lessons learnt from the LPEP programme will be published in peer-reviewed journals and should provide important evidence and guidance for national and global policymakers to strengthen current leprosy elimination strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tanja Barth-Jaeggi
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland
- University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Peter Steinmann
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland
- University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Jan Hendrik Richardus
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anuj Tiwari
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Martin Bratschi
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland
- University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | | | | | - Ann Aerts
- Novartis Foundation, Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Duthie MS, Balagon MF. Combination chemoprophylaxis and immunoprophylaxis in reducing the incidence of leprosy. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2016; 9:43-53. [PMID: 27175099 PMCID: PMC4854245 DOI: 10.2147/rmhp.s76058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Leprosy is a complex infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae that is a leading cause of nontraumatic peripheral neuropathy. Current control strategies, with a goal of early diagnosis and treatment in the form of multidrug therapy, have maintained new case reports at ~225,000 per year. Diagnostic capabilities are limited and even with revisions to multidrug therapy regimen, treatment can still require up to a year of daily drug intake. Although alternate chemotherapies or adjunct immune therapies that could provide shorter or simpler treatment regimen appear possible, only a limited number of trials have been conducted. More proactive strategies appear necessary in the drive to elimination. As a prevention strategy, most chemoprophylaxis campaigns to date have provided about a 2-year protective window. Vaccination, in the form of a single bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) immunization, generally provides ~50% reduction in leprosy cases. Adapting control strategies to provide both chemoprophylaxis and immunoprophylaxis has distinct appeal, with chemoprophylaxis theoretically buttressed by vaccination to generate immediate protection that can be sustained in the long term. We also discuss simple assays measuring biomarkers as surrogates for disease development or replacements for invasive, but not particularly sensitive, direct measures of M. leprae infection. Such assays could facilitate the clinical trials required to develop these new chemoprophylaxis, immunoprophylaxis strategies, and transition into wider use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Marivic F Balagon
- Cebu Skin Clinic, Leonard Wood Memorial Center for Leprosy Research, Cebu City, the Philippines
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Duthie MS, Saunderson P, Reed SG. The potential for vaccination in leprosy elimination: new tools for targeted interventions. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 2013; 107 Suppl 1:190-6. [PMID: 23283471 DOI: 10.1590/s0074-02762012000900027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2012] [Accepted: 07/17/2012] [Indexed: 05/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Despite the huge effort and massive advances toward the elimination of leprosy over the last two decades, the disease has proven stubborn; new case detection rates have stabilised over the last few years and leprosy remains endemic in a number of localised regions. The American Leprosy Missions and Infectious Disease Research Institute have undertaken a large research effort aimed at developing new tools and a vaccine to continue the push for leprosy elimination. In this paper, we outline our strategy for the integration of rapid diagnostic tests and lab-based assays to facilitate the detection of early or asymptomatic leprosy cases, as well as the efficient and focused implementation of chemoprophylaxis and immunisation to intervene in leprosy development and transmission.
Collapse
|
9
|
Duthie MS, Gillis TP, Reed SG. Advances and hurdles on the way toward a leprosy vaccine. HUMAN VACCINES 2011; 7:1172-83. [PMID: 22048122 DOI: 10.4161/hv.7.11.16848] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
Prevalence rates for leprosy have declined sharply over the past 20 y, with this decline generally attributed to the WHO multi-drug therapy (MDT) campaign to provide free-of-charge treatment to all diagnosed leprosy patients. The success of this program appears to have reached its nadir, however, as evidenced by the stalled decreases in both global prevalence and new case detection rates of leprosy. Mass BCG vaccination for the prevention of tuberculosis (TB) at national levels has had a positive effect on leprosy decline and is often overlooked as an important factor in current leprosy control programs. Because BCG provides incomplete protection against both TB and leprosy, newer more effective TB vaccines are being developed. The impact that application of these vaccines will have on current leprosy control programs is unclear. In this review, we assess the need for vaccines within leprosy control programs. We summarize and discuss leprosy vaccine strategies that have been deployed previously and discuss those strategies that are currently being developed to augment recent breakthroughs in leprosy control.
Collapse
|
10
|
Prasad PVS, Kaviarasan PK. Leprosy therapy, past and present: can we hope to eliminate it? Indian J Dermatol 2010; 55:316-24. [PMID: 21430881 PMCID: PMC3051288 DOI: 10.4103/0019-5154.74528] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Leprosy remains an important problem globally. Timely detection of new cases and prompt treatment with MDT continue to be the main intervention strategies. We review the various issues related to classification, treatment, drug resistance and the possible steps to eliminate the disease in the near future. The need for newer anti leprosy agents has been felt and various agents like fluroquinolones, macrolides and minocycline have all been tried in various combinations and duration. Uniform MDT in all leprosy patients might be a logical one too. Drug resistance can be identified by PCR based DNA sequence analysis which saves much time. Drugs like thalidomide analogues, pentoxifylline, selective cytokine inhibitory drugs have proved effective in controlling type-2 reaction in leprosy patients. New drugs for leprosy reactions are still needed. Far from being eliminated as a public health problem, leprosy still causes a considerable long term morbidity in both developing and developed world. New treatment and the optimal length of MDT requires further research. We need genome based technology to address the unresolved issues of transmission of M. leprae.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P V S Prasad
- Department of Dermatology Venereology and Leprosy, Rajah Muthiah Medical College & Hospital, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - P K Kaviarasan
- Department of Dermatology Venereology and Leprosy, Rajah Muthiah Medical College & Hospital, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu, India
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
McBride WJH. Chemoprophylaxis of Tropical Infectious Diseases. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2010; 3:1561-1575. [PMID: 27713318 PMCID: PMC4033997 DOI: 10.3390/ph3051561] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2010] [Revised: 04/28/2010] [Accepted: 05/10/2010] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Travelers to tropical countries are at risk for a variety of infectious diseases. In some cases effective vaccinations are available, but for other infections chemoprophylaxis can be offered. Malaria prevention has become increasingly complex as Plasmodium species become resistant to available drugs. In certain high risk settings, antibiotics can be used to prevent leptospirosis, scrub typhus and other infections. Post-exposure prophylaxis is appropriate for selected virulent infections. In this article the evidence for chemoprophylaxis will be reviewed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William J H McBride
- School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Cairns Base Hospital campus, The Esplanade, Cairns, Queensland 4870, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|