Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
Add more filters











Language
Publication year range
1.
Clin Transl Sci ; 17(8): e13861, 2024 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39075882

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Diarylquinolines , Electrocardiography , Feasibility Studies , Leprosy , Rifampin , Humans , Diarylquinolines/administration & dosage , Diarylquinolines/adverse effects , Male , Adult , Female , Leprosy/drug therapy , Leprosy/diagnosis , Rifampin/administration & dosage , Rifampin/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Leprostatic Agents/adverse effects , Leprostatic Agents/administration & dosage , Long QT Syndrome/chemically induced , Long QT Syndrome/diagnosis , Young Adult , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods
2.
Lancet Glob Health ; 12(6): e1017-e1026, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38762282

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) using single-dose rifampicin reduces progression from infection with Mycobacterium leprae to leprosy disease. We compared effectiveness of different administration modalities, using a higher (20 mg/kg) dose of rifampicin-single double-dose rifampicin (SDDR)-PEP. METHODS: We did a cluster randomised study in 16 villages in Madagascar and 48 villages in Comoros. Villages were randomly assigned to four study arms and inhabitants were screened once a year for leprosy, for 4 consecutive years. All permanent residents (no age restriction) were eligible to participate and all identified patients with leprosy were treated with multidrug therapy (SDDR-PEP was provided to asymptomatic contacts aged ≥2 years). Arm 1 was the comparator arm, in which no PEP was provided. In arm 2, SDDR-PEP was provided to household contacts of patients with leprosy, whereas arm 3 extended SDDR-PEP to anyone living within 100 m. In arm 4, SDDR-PEP was offered to household contacts and to anyone living within 100 m and testing positive to anti-phenolic glycolipid-I. The main outcome was the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of leprosy between the comparator arm and each of the intervention arms. We also assessed the individual protective effect of SDDR-PEP and explored spatial associations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03662022, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2019, and Jan 16, 2023, we enrolled 109 436 individuals, of whom 95 762 had evaluable follow-up data. Our primary analysis showed a non-significant reduction in leprosy incidence in arm 2 (IRR 0·95), arm 3 (IRR 0·80), and arm 4 (IRR 0·58). After controlling for baseline prevalence, the reduction in arm 3 became stronger and significant (IRR 0·56, p=0·0030). At an individual level SDDR-PEP was also protective with an IRR of 0·55 (p=0·0050). Risk of leprosy was two to four times higher for those living within 75 m of an index patient at baseline. INTERPRETATION: SDDR-PEP appears to protect against leprosy but less than anticipated. Strong spatial associations were observed within 75 m of index patients. Targeted door-to-door screening around index patients complemented by a blanket SDDR-PEP approach will probably have a substantial effect on transmission. FUNDING: European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
Leprostatic Agents , Leprosy , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis , Rifampin , Humans , Leprosy/prevention & control , Leprosy/drug therapy , Leprosy/epidemiology , Male , Female , Adult , Rifampin/administration & dosage , Rifampin/therapeutic use , Leprostatic Agents/therapeutic use , Leprostatic Agents/administration & dosage , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis/methods , Middle Aged , Adolescent , Young Adult , Madagascar/epidemiology , Child , Cluster Analysis , Incidence , Mycobacterium leprae
3.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 10: 1238914, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37859857

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Leprosy, one of the oldest known human diseases, continues to pose a global challenge for disease control due to an incomplete understanding of its transmission pathways. Ticks have been proposed as a potential contributor in leprosy transmission due to their importance as vectors for other infectious diseases. Methods: In 2010, a sampling of ticks residing on cattle was conducted on the islands Grande Comore, Anjouan, and Mohéli which constitute the Union of the Comoros where leprosy remains endemic. To investigate the potential role of ticks as a vector in transmission of leprosy disease, molecular analyses were conducted. Results: Out of the 526 ticks analysed, none were found to harbour Mycobacterium leprae DNA, as determined by a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay targeting a family of dispersed repeats (RLEP) specific to M. leprae. Discussion: Therefore, our results suggest that in the Union of the Comoros, ticks are an unlikely vector for M. leprae.

4.
EBioMedicine ; 93: 104649, 2023 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37327675

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Expansion of antimicrobial resistance monitoring and epidemiological surveillance are key components of the WHO strategy towards zero leprosy. The inability to grow Mycobacterium leprae in vitro precludes routine phenotypic drug susceptibility testing, and only limited molecular tests are available. We evaluated a culture-free targeted deep sequencing assay, for mycobacterial identification, genotyping based on 18 canonical SNPs and 11 core variable-number tandem-repeat (VNTR) markers, and detection of rifampicin, dapsone and fluoroquinolone resistance-associated mutations in rpoB/ctpC/ctpI, folP1, gyrA/gyrB, respectively, and hypermutation-associated mutations in nth. METHODS: The limit of detection (LOD) was determined using DNA of M. leprae reference strains and from 246 skin biopsies and 74 slit skin smears of leprosy patients, with genome copies quantified by RLEP qPCR. Sequencing results were evaluated versus whole genome sequencing (WGS) data of 14 strains, and versus VNTR-fragment length analysis (FLA) results of 89 clinical specimens. FINDINGS: The LOD for sequencing success ranged between 80 and 3000 genome copies, depending on the sample type. The LOD for minority variants was 10%. All SNPs detected in targets by WGS were identified except in a clinical sample where WGS revealed two dapsone resistance-conferring mutations instead of one by Deeplex Myc-Lep, due to partial duplication of the sulfamide-binding domain in folP1. SNPs detected uniquely by Deeplex Myc-Lep were missed by WGS due to insufficient coverage. Concordance with VNTR-FLA results was 99.4% (926/932 alleles). INTERPRETATION: Deeplex Myc-Lep may help improve the diagnosis and surveillance of leprosy. Gene domain duplication is an original putative drug resistance-related genetic adaptation in M. leprae. FUNDING: EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union (grant number RIA2017NIM-1847 -PEOPLE). EDCTP, R2Stop: Effect:Hope, The Mission To End Leprosy, the Flemish Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek.


Subject(s)
Leprosy , Mycobacterium tuberculosis , Humans , Mycobacterium leprae/genetics , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Genotype , Drug Resistance, Bacterial/genetics , Leprosy/diagnosis , Leprosy/drug therapy , Leprosy/epidemiology , Dapsone , Biopsy , Drug Resistance, Multiple
5.
s.l; s.n; 2023. 14 p. tab, graf.
Non-conventional in English | Sec. Est. Saúde SP, HANSEN, Hanseníase Leprosy, SESSP-ILSLPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP, SESSP-ILSLACERVO, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1444218

ABSTRACT

Background Expansion of antimicrobial resistance monitoring and epidemiological surveillance are key components of the WHO strategy towards zero leprosy. The inability to grow Mycobacterium leprae in vitro precludes routine phenotypic drug susceptibility testing, and only limited molecular tests are available. We evaluated a culture-free targeted deep sequencing assay, for mycobacterial identification, genotyping based on 18 canonical SNPs and 11 core variable-number tandem-repeat (VNTR) markers, and detection of rifampicin, dapsone and fluoroquinolone resistance-associated mutations in rpoB/ctpC/ctpI, folP1, gyrA/gyrB, respectively, and hypermutation-associated mutations in nth. Methods The limit of detection (LOD) was determined using DNA of M. leprae reference strains and from 246 skin biopsies and 74 slit skin smears of leprosy patients, with genome copies quantified by RLEP qPCR. Sequencing results were evaluated versus whole genome sequencing (WGS) data of 14 strains, and versus VNTR-fragment length analysis (FLA) results of 89 clinical specimens. Findings The LOD for sequencing success ranged between 80 and 3000 genome copies, depending on the sample type. The LOD for minority variants was 10%. All SNPs detected in targets by WGS were identified except in a clinical sample where WGS revealed two dapsone resistance-conferring mutations instead of one by Deeplex Myc-Lep, due to partial duplication of the sulfamide-binding domain in folP1. SNPs detected uniquely by Deeplex Myc-Lep were missed by WGS due to insufficient coverage. Concordance with VNTR-FLA results was 99.4% (926/932 alleles). Interpretation Deeplex Myc-Lep may help improve the diagnosis and surveillance of leprosy. Gene domain duplication is an original putative drug resistance-related genetic adaptation in M. leprae.


Subject(s)
Humans , Drug Resistance, Bacterial/genetics , Leprosy/diagnosis , Leprosy/therapy , Leprosy/epidemiology , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Drug Resistance, Multiple , Genotype , Leprosy/pathology
6.
Lancet Microbe ; 3(9): e693-e700, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35850123

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite strong leprosy control measures, including effective treatment, leprosy persists in the Comoros. As of May, 2022, no resistance to anti-leprosy drugs had been reported, but there are no nationally representative data. Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with rifampicin is offered to contacts of patients with leprosy. We aimed to conduct a countrywide drug resistance survey and investigate whether PEP led to the emergence of drug resistance in patients with leprosy. METHODS: In this observational, deep-sequencing analysis we assessed Mycobacterium leprae genomes from skin biopsies of patients in Anjouan and Mohéli, Comoros, collected as part of the ComLep (NCT03526718) and PEOPLE (NCT03662022) studies. Skin biopsies that had sufficient M leprae DNA (>2000 bacilli in 2 µl of DNA extract) were assessed for the presence of seven drug resistance-associated genes (ie, rpoB, ctpC, ctpI, folP1, gyrA, gyrB, and nth) using Deeplex Myc-Lep (targeted next generation deep sequencing), with a limit of detection of 10% for minority M leprae bacterial populations bearing a polymorphism in these genes. All newly registered patients with leprosy for whom written informed consent was obtained were eligible for inclusion in the survey. Patients younger than 2 years or with a single lesion on the face did not have biopsies taken. The primary outcome of our study was the proportion of patients with leprosy (ie, new cases, patients with relapses or reinfections, patients who received single (double) dose rifampicin-PEP, or patients who lived in villages where PEP was distributed) who were infected with M leprae with a drug-resistant mutation for rifampicin, fluoroquinolone, or dapsone in the Comoros. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2017, and Dec 31, 2020, 1199 patients with leprosy were identified on the basis of clinical criteria, of whom 1030 provided a skin biopsy. Of these 1030 patients, 755 (73·3%) tested positive for the M leprae-specific repetitive element-quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay. Of these 755 patients, 260 (34·4%) were eligible to be analysed using Deeplex Myc-Lep. 251 (96·5%) were newly diagnosed with leprosy, whereas nine (3·4%) patients had previously received multidrug therapy. 45 (17·3%) patients resided in villages where PEP had been administered in 2015 or 2019, two (4·4%) of whom received PEP. All seven drug resistance-associated targets were successfully sequenced in 216 samples, 39 samples had incomplete results, and five had no results. No mutations were detected in any of the seven drug resistance-related genes for any patient with successfully sequenced results. INTERPRETATION: This drug resistance survey provides evidence to show that M leprae is fully susceptible to rifampicin, fluoroquinolones, and dapsone in the Comoros. Our results also show, for the first time, the applicability of targeted sequencing directly on skin biopsies from patients with either paucibacillary or multibacillary leprosy. These data suggest that PEP had not selected rifampicin-resistant strains, although further support for this finding should be confirmed with a larger sample size. FUNDING: Effect:Hope, The Mission To End Leprosy, the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, the EU.


Subject(s)
Leprosy , Mycobacterium leprae , Comoros , Dapsone/pharmacology , Drug Resistance, Bacterial/genetics , Drug Therapy, Combination , Humans , Leprostatic Agents/pharmacology , Leprosy/drug therapy , Mycobacterium leprae/genetics , Rifampin/pharmacology
7.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis ; 15(11): e0009924, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34758041

ABSTRACT

The World Health Organization (WHO) endorsed diagnosis of leprosy (also known as Hansen's disease) entirely based on clinical cardinal signs, without microbiological confirmation, which may lead to late or misdiagnosis. The use of slit skin smears is variable, but lacks sensitivity. In 2017-2018 during the ComLep study, on the island of Anjouan (Union of the Comoros; High priority country according to WHO, 310 patients were diagnosed with leprosy (paucibacillary = 159; multibacillary = 151), of whom 263 were sampled for a skin biopsy and fingerstick blood, and 260 for a minimally-invasive nasal swab. In 74.5% of all skin biopsies and in 15.4% of all nasal swabs, M. leprae DNA was detected. In 63.1% of fingerstick blood samples, M. leprae specific antibodies were detected with the quantitative αPGL-I test. Results show a strong correlation of αPGL-I IgM levels in fingerstick blood and RLEP-qPCR positivity of nasal swabs, with the M. leprae bacterial load measured by RLEP-qPCR of skin biopsies. Patients with a high bacterial load (≥50,000 bacilli in a skin biopsy) can be identified with combination of counting lesions and the αPGL-I test. To our knowledge, this is the first study that compared αPGL-I IgM levels in fingerstick blood with the bacterial load determined by RLEP-qPCR in skin biopsies of leprosy patients. The demonstrated potential of minimally invasive sampling such as fingerstick blood samples to identify high bacterial load persons likely to be accountable for the ongoing transmission, merits further evaluation in follow-up studies.


Subject(s)
Leprosy/diagnosis , Mycobacterium leprae/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Child , Comoros/epidemiology , DNA, Bacterial/genetics , Disability Evaluation , Female , Humans , Leprosy/epidemiology , Leprosy/microbiology , Male , Mycobacterium leprae/classification , Mycobacterium leprae/genetics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL