Patients with skin smear positive leprosy in Bangladesh are the main risk factor for leprosy development: 21-year follow-up in the household contact study (COCOA)

Background Leprosy transmission is ongoing; globally and within Bangladesh. Household contacts of leprosy cases are at increased risk of leprosy development. Identification of household contacts at highest risk would optimize this process. Methods The temporal pattern of new case presentation amongst household contacts was documented in the COCOA (Contact Cohort Analysis) study. The COCOA study actively examined household contacts of confirmed leprosy index cases identified in 1995, and 2000–2014, to provide evidence for timings of contact examination policies. Data was available on 9527 index cases and 38303 household contacts. 666 household contacts were diagnosed with leprosy throughout the follow-up (maximum follow-up of 21 years). Risk factors for leprosy development within the data analysed, were identified using Cox proportional hazard regression. Findings The dominant risk factor for household contacts developing leprosy was having a highly skin smear positive index case in the household. As the grading of initial slit skin smear of the index case increased from negative to high positive (4–6), the hazard of their associated household contacts developing leprosy increases by 3.14 times (p
Author summary The number of newly detected leprosy cases worldwide has remained stable over the last ten years. Household contacts of leprosy cases are at increased risk of leprosy development. Household contact examinations and case detection are critical aspects of control. Specific risk factors (recognizable by field staff) for leprosy development need to be identified to aid these control efforts. Targeted household examinations could increase early case detection: this is important because untreated leprosy cases are sustaining transmission. This is the largest, most comprehensive study of development of leprosy in household contacts conducted recently with a maximum follow-up of 21 years. We found a single dominant risk factor for the development of leprosy in the household setting, namely slit skin smear positivity in the index case. This is important for leprosy control because household contact examinations can be focused on contacts at highest risk. Implementation would be simple as the risk factor is identified by leprosy staff in the field. Prioritising households known to be at highest risk of leprosy development would allow efficient allocation of resources. Our results cast doubt on the success of administering the recommended prophylactic intervention for contacts; the use of this intervention needs to be re-evaluated.