Can different stages of leprosy treatment influence the profile of oral health? Oral status in leprosy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of study was to evaluate the oral health status, salivary flow and halitosis among individuals diagnosed with leprosy as compared with healthy subjects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sample of 160 individuals was allocated into four groups, as follows: (G1) individuals with complete leprosy treatment; (G2) individuals diagnosed with leprosy and under multi-drug therapy; (G3) individuals diagnosed with leprosy not yet under treatment; and (G4) healthy individuals. Then individuals were submitted to periodontal clinical examination (visible plaque index, bleeding index, depth of probing and clinical attachment level); DMFT index (decayed-missing-filled teeth index); evaluation of salivary flow and halitosis using a halimeter equipment (Interscan Corp, Chatsworth, CA, USA). RESULTS: The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. The mean DMFT was found to be higher than 6.6, which is considered very high, with no significant difference between groups (P>0.05). As for salivary flow, 76.2% of the subjects presented normal flow rates, while 10% and 13.7% showed low and very low salivary flow rates, respectively, with hyposalivation being mostly observed in Groups 1 and 2. The highest prevalence of noticeable odor was found in healthy individuals (G4), and the most prevalent periodontal diagnosis was gingivitis (63.1%) in Group 3 (individuals with leprosy not yet under multi-drug therapy) followed by periodontitis (25%) in Group 1 (individuals who had completed leprosy treatment). CONCLUSIONS: It was observed that individuals with a history of leprosy present poor oral health similar to that of systemically healthy individuals.

Infection-related and -unrelated malignancies, HIV and the aging population.

OBJECTIVES: HIV-positive people have increased risk of infection-related malignancies (IRMs) and infection-unrelated malignancies (IURMs). The aim of the study was to determine the impact of aging on future IRM and IURM incidence. METHODS: People enrolled in EuroSIDA and followed from the latest of the first visit or 1 January 2001 until the last visit or death were included in the study. Poisson regression was used to investigate the impact of aging on the incidence of IRMs and IURMs, adjusting for demographic, clinical and laboratory confounders. Linear exponential smoothing models forecasted future incidence. RESULTS: A total of 15 648 people contributed 95 033 person-years of follow-up, of whom 610 developed 643 malignancies [IRMs: 388 (60%); IURMs: 255 (40%)]. After adjustment, a higher IRM incidence was associated with a lower CD4 count [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) CD4 count < 200 cells/µL: 3.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.59, 5.51; compared with ≥ 500 cells/µL], independent of age, while a CD4 count < 200 cells/µL was associated with IURMs in people aged < 50 years only (aIRR: 2.51; 95% CI 1.40-4.54). Smoking was associated with IURMs (aIRR: 1.75; 95% CI 1.23, 2.49) compared with never smokers in people aged ≥ 50 years only, and not with IRMs. The incidences of both IURMs and IRMs increased with older age. It was projected that the incidence of IRMs would decrease by 29% over a 5-year period from 3.1 (95% CI 1.5-5.9) per 1000 person-years in 2011, whereas the IURM incidence would increase by 44% from 4.1 (95% CI 2.2-7.2) per 1000 person-years over the same period. CONCLUSIONS: Demographic and HIV-related risk factors for IURMs (aging and smoking) and IRMs (immunodeficiency and ongoing viral replication) differ markedly and the contribution from IURMs relative to IRMs will continue to increase as a result of aging of the HIV-infected population, high smoking and lung cancer prevalence and a low prevalence of untreated HIV infection. These findings suggest the need for targeted preventive measures and evaluation of the cost-benefit of screening for IURMs in HIV-infected populations.