Active search strategies, clinicoimmunobiological determinants and training for implementation research confirm hidden endemic leprosy in inner São Paulo, Brazil.

Background This study evaluates implementation strategies for leprosy diagnosis based on responses to a Leprosy Suspicion Questionnaire (LSQ), and analyzes immunoepidemiological aspects and follow-up of individuals living in a presumptively nonendemic area in Brazil. Methodology/principal findings Q...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Main Authors: Fred Bernardes Filho, Claudia Maria Lincoln Silva, Glauber Voltan, Marcel Nani Leite, Ana Laura Rosifini Alves Rezende, Natália Aparecida de Paula, Josafá Gonçalves Barreto, Norma Tiraboschi Foss, Marco Andrey Cipriani Frade
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009495
https://doaj.org/article/d49ef47559274b40b30a4e01b04bee52
Description
Summary:Background This study evaluates implementation strategies for leprosy diagnosis based on responses to a Leprosy Suspicion Questionnaire (LSQ), and analyzes immunoepidemiological aspects and follow-up of individuals living in a presumptively nonendemic area in Brazil. Methodology/principal findings Quasi-experimental study based on LSQ throughout Jardinópolis town by community health agents, theoretical-practical trainings for primary care teams, dermatoneurological examination, anti-PGL-I serology, RLEP-PCR, and spatial epidemiology. A Leprosy Group (LG, n = 64) and Non-Leprosy Group (NLG, n = 415) were established. Overall, 3,241 LSQs were distributed; 1,054 (32.5%) LSQ were positive for signs/symptoms (LSQ+). Among LSQ+ respondents, Q2-Tingling (pricking)? (11.8%); Q4-Spots on the skin? (11.7%); Q7-Pain in the nerves? (11.6%); Q1-Numbness in your hands and/or feet? (10.7%) and Q8-Swelling of hands and feet? (8.5%) were most frequently reported symptoms. We evaluated 479 (14.8%) individuals and diagnosed 64 new cases, a general new case detection rate (NCDR) of 13.4%; 60 were among 300 LSQ+ (NCDR-20%), while 4 were among 179 LSQ negative (NCDR-2.23%). In LG, Q7(65%), Q2(60%), Q1(45%), Q4(40%) and Q8(25%) were most frequent. All 2x2 crossings of these 5 questions showed a relative risk for leprosy ranging from 3 to 5.8 compared with NLG. All patients were multibacillary and presented hypochromatic macules with loss of sensation. LG anti-PGL-I titers were higher than NLG, while 8.9% were positive for RLEP-PCR. The leprosy cases and anti-PGL-I spatial mappings demonstrated the disease spread across the town. Conclusions/significance Implementation actions, primarily LSQ administration focused on neurological symptoms, indicate hidden endemic leprosy in a nonendemic Brazilian state.