Population survey to determine risk factors for Mycobacterium leprae transmission and infection

Background: Not every leprosy patient is equally effective in transmitting Mycobacterium leprae. We studied the spatial distribution of infection (using seropositivity as a marker) in the population to identifity which disease characteristics of leprosy patients are important in transmission. Methods: Clinical data and blood samples for anti-M.leprae ELISA were collected during a cross-sectional survey on five Indonesian islands highly endemic for leprosy. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to define contacts of patients. We investigated spatial clustering of patients and seropositive people and used logist regression to determine risk factors for seropositivity. Results: Of the 3986 people examined for leprosy, 3271 gave blood. Seroprevalence varied between islands (1.7-8.7%) and correlated significantly with leprosy prevalence. Five clusters of patients and two clusters of seropositives were detected. In multivariate analysis, seropositivity significantly differed to be the best discriminator of contact groups with higher seroprevalence: contacts of seropositive patients had an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.75 (95% CI: 0.92-3,31). This increased seroprevalence was strongest for contact groups living _< 75 metres of two seropositive patients (aOR:3.07;95%CI:1.74-5.42). Conclusions: In this highly endemic area for leprosy, not only household contacts of seropositive patients, but also persons living in the vicinity of seropositive patient were more likely to harbour antibodies against M.leprae. Through measuring the serological status of patients and using a broader definition of contacts, higher risk groups can be more specifically identified

Prevention of leprosy using rifampicin as chemoprophylaxis

An intervention study was implemented on five Indinesian island highly endemic for leprosy to determine whether rifampicin can be used as chemoprophylaxis to prevent leprosy. The population was actively screened before the intervention and subsequently once a year for three years. In the control group, no chemoprophylaxis was given. In the contact group, chemoprophylaxis was only given to contacts of leprosy patients and in the blanket group to all aligible persons. The cohort consited of 3,965 persons. The yearly incidence rate in the control group was 39/10,000; the cumulative incidence after three years was significantly lower in the blanket group (P=0.031). No difference was found between the contact and the control groups (P=0.93). Whether this apparent reduced leprosy incidence in the first three years in the blanket group is due to a delayed development of leprosy or a complete clearence of infections needs to be determined