Search

Some anti‐mycobacterial drugs are known to cause QT interval prolongation, potentially leading to life‐threatening ventricular arrhythmia. However, the highest leprosy and tuberculosis burden occurs in settings where electrocardiographic monitoring is challenging. The feasibility and accuracy of alternative strategies, such as the use of automated measurements or a mobile electrocardiogram (mECG) device, have not been evaluated in this context. As part of the phase II randomized controlled BE‐PEOPLE trial evaluating the safety of bedaquiline‐enhanced post‐exposure prophylaxis (bedaquiline and rifampicin, BE‐PEP, versus rifampicin, SDR‐PEP) for leprosy, all participants had corrected QT intervals (QTc) measured at baseline and on the day after receiving post‐exposure prophylaxis. The accuracy of mECG measurements as well as automated 12L‐ECG measurements was evaluated. In total, 635 mECGs from 323 participants were recorded, of which 616 (97%) were of sufficient quality for QTc measurement. Mean manually read QTc on 12L‐ECG and mECG were 394 ± 19 and 385 ± 18 ms, respectively (p < 0.001), with a strong correlation (r = 0.793). The mean absolute QTc difference between both modalities was 11 ± 10 ms. Mean manual and automated 12L‐ECG QTc were 394 ± 19 and 409 ± 19 ms, respectively (n = 636; p < 0.001), corresponding to moderate agreement (r = 0.655). The use of a mECG device for QT interval monitoring was feasible and yielded a median absolute QTc error of 8 ms. Automated QTc measurements were less accurate, yielding longer QTc intervals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In India, leprosy clusters at hamlet level but detailed information is lacking. We aim to identify high-incidence hamlets to be targeted for active screening and post-exposure prophylaxis. Methodology: We paid home visits to a cohort of leprosy patients registered between April 1st, 2020, and March 31st, 2022. Patients were interviewed and household members were screened for leprosy. We used an open-source app(ODK) to collect data on patients' mobility, screening results of household members, and geographic coordinates of their households. Clustering was analysed with Kulldorff's spatial scan statistic(SaTScan). Outlines of hamlets and population estimates were obtained through an open-source high-resolution population density map(https://data.humdata.org), using kernel density estimation in QGIS, an open-source software. Results: We enrolled 169 patients and screened 1,044 household contacts in Bisfi and Benipatti blocks of Bihar. Median number of years of residing in the village was 17, interquartile range(IQR)12-30. There were 11 new leprosy cases among 658 household contacts examined(167 per 10,000), of which seven had paucibacillary leprosy, one was a child under 14 years, and none had visible disabilities. We identified 739 hamlets with a total population of 802,788(median 163, IQR 65–774). There were five high incidence clusters including 12% of the population and 46%(78/169) of the leprosy cases. One highly significant cluster with a relative risk (RR) of 4.7(p<0.0001) included 32 hamlets and 27 cases in 33,609 population. A second highly significant cluster included 32 hamlets and 24 cases in 33,809 population with a RR of 4.1(p<0.001). The third highly significant cluster included 16 hamlets and 17 cases in 19,659 population with a RR of 4.8(p<0.001). High-risk clusters still need to be screened door-to-door. Conclusions: We found a high yield of active household contact screening. Our tools for identifying high-incidence hamlets appear effective. Focusing labour-intensive interventions such as door-to-door screening on such hamlets could increase efficiency. Author summary: India is the highest-burden country in the world where leprosy is known to cluster in hamlets. As no geographical data about hamlets is available, we develop a system to outline them using a high-resolution population density map. Then, using the household coordinates of 169 new leprosy cases enrolled in two hyperendemic blocks of Bihar, we screened household contacts and assessed clustering at hamlet level. The patients interviewed had lived in their current villages for a median of seventeen years at the moment of the survey. We found 11 new cases among 658 contacts examined equivalent to 16.7 per 1,000 population. There were three statistically significant clusters among five at the hamlet level and three including 78 cases in 98,623 population. Our results can be used to guide targeted and more efficient active case finding and post-exposure prophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cavaliero and colleagues [[1]] describe a high yield of retrospective active case finding for leprosy in Cambodia, which has a fairly low level of endemicity. On Anjouan, in addition to mini campaigns, household contacts of leprosy patients diagnosed are either visited in their homes by nurses trained in leprosy or invited to present to Primary Health Care (PHC) facilities for leprosy screening. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Human tuberculosis (TB) in West Africa is not only caused by M. tuberculosis but also by bacteria of the two lineages of M. africanum. For instance, in The Gambia, 40% of TB is due to infections with M. africanum West African 2. This bacterial lineage is associated with HIV infection, reduced ESAT-6 immunogenicity and slower progression to active disease. Although these characteristics suggest an attenuated phenotype of M. africanum, no underlying mechanism has been described. From the first descriptions of M. africanum in the literature in 1969, the time to a positive culture of M. africanum on solid medium was known to be longer than the time to a positive culture of M. tuberculosis. However, the delayed growth of M. africanum, which may correlate with the less virulent phenotype in the human host, has not previously been studied in detail. Methodology/Principal Findings: We compared the growth rates of M. tuberculosis and M. africanum isolates from The Gambia in two liquid culture systems. M. africanum grows significantly slower than M. tuberculosis, not only when grown directly from sputa, but also in growth experiments under defined laboratory conditions. We also sequenced four M. africanum isolates and compared their whole genomes with the published M. tuberculosis H37Rv genome. M. africanum strains have several non-synonymous SNPs or frameshift mutations in genes that were previously associated with growth-attenuation. M. africanum strains also have a higher mutation frequency in genes crucial for transport of sulphur, ions and lipids/fatty acids across the cell membrane into the bacterial cell. Surprisingly, 5 of 7 operons, recently described as essential for intracellular survival of H37Rv in the host macrophage, showed at least one non-synonymously mutated gene in M. africanum. Conclusions/Significance: The altered growth behaviour of M. africanum might indicate a different survival strategy within host cells. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We report leprosy prevalence and clustering from an extensive population dataset. • Of 455 leprosy patients, 44% belonged to high prevalent clusters. • In new leprosy patients, 38% resided ≤25 m of another leprosy patient. • Leprosy risk decreased progressively with distance to the nearest leprosy patient. • Risk ratios varied from 7.3 in residents at the same household and 1.7 at 75–<100 m. To identify patterns of spatial clustering of leprosy. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]