Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
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
2.
Sci Rep ; 14(1): 8640, 2024 04 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38622161

ABSTRACT

The incidence rate of tuberculosis in prisons is estimated to be 8 times greater than that in the general population in Madagascar. Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis and HIV infection among prisoners and to identify risk factors associated with tuberculosis. We conducted a cross-sectional study at the central prison of Antananarivo from March to July 2021. Individual male and female inmates aged ≥ 13 years who had lived in the prison for at least three months prior to the study period were included as participants. Acid-fast bacilli detection by microscopy and/or culture, an intradermal tuberculin test, a chest X-ray, and a rapid diagnostic orientation test for HIV were performed. Among 748 participants, 4 (0.5%) were confirmed to have pulmonary tuberculosis. Overall, 14 (1.9%) patients had "confirmed" or "probable" tuberculosis [0.90-2.84, 95% CI]. The proportion of participants with latent tuberculosis infection was 69.6% (517/743) based on a positive tuberculin test without clinical symptoms or radiography images indicating tuberculosis. Out of 745 HIV screening tests, three showed reactive results (0.4%). Age (OR = 4.4, 95% CI [1.4-14.0]) and prior tuberculosis treatment (or episodes) were found to be associated with confirmed and probable tuberculosis.


Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Prisoners , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary , Tuberculosis , Humans , Male , Female , HIV Infections/epidemiology , Prevalence , Cross-Sectional Studies , Madagascar/epidemiology , Tuberculosis/epidemiology , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary/diagnosis , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary/epidemiology , Risk Factors
3.
Int J Infect Dis ; 108: 96-101, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33991682

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To identify patterns of spatial clustering of leprosy. DESIGN: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.


Subject(s)
Leprosy , Cluster Analysis , Comoros , Humans , Leprosy/diagnosis , Leprosy/epidemiology , Leprosy/prevention & control , Madagascar/epidemiology , Spatial Analysis
4.
Front Microbiol ; 11: 711, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32477280

ABSTRACT

Human settlement of Madagascar traces back to the beginning of the first millennium with the arrival of Austronesians from Southeast Asia, followed by migrations from Africa and the Middle East. Remains of these different cultural, genetic, and linguistic legacies are still present in Madagascar and other islands of the Indian Ocean. The close relationship between human migration and the introduction and spread of infectious diseases, a well-documented phenomenon, is particularly evident for the causative agent of leprosy, Mycobacterium leprae. In this study, we used whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and molecular dating to characterize the genetic background and retrace the origin of the M. leprae strains circulating in Madagascar (n = 30) and the Comoros (n = 3), two islands where leprosy is still considered a public health problem and monitored as part of a drug resistance surveillance program. Most M. leprae strains (97%) from Madagascar and Comoros belonged to a new genotype as part of branch 1, closely related to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) type 1D, named 1D-Malagasy. Other strains belonged to the genotype 1A (3%). We sequenced 39 strains from nine other countries, which, together with previously published genomes, amounted to 242 genomes that were used for molecular dating. Specific SNP markers for the new 1D-Malagasy genotype were used to screen samples from 11 countries and revealed this genotype to be restricted to Madagascar, with the sole exception being a strain from Malawi. The overall analysis thus ruled out a possible introduction of leprosy by the Austronesian settlers and suggests a later origin from East Africa, the Middle East, or South Asia.

5.
BMC Infect Dis ; 19(1): 1033, 2019 Dec 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31805862

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.


Subject(s)
Leprostatic Agents/therapeutic use , Leprosy/prevention & control , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis/methods , Rifampin/therapeutic use , Child, Preschool , Comoros/epidemiology , Family Characteristics , Female , Humans , Incidence , Leprostatic Agents/administration & dosage , Leprosy/epidemiology , Madagascar/epidemiology , Male , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Rifampin/administration & dosage
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...