8 research outputs found

    Combination chemoprophylaxis and immunoprophylaxis in reducing the incidence of leprosy

    No full text
    Malcolm S Duthie,1 Marivic F Balagon2 1Infectious Disease Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA; 2Cebu Skin Clinic, Leonard Wood Memorial Center for Leprosy Research, Cebu City, the Philippines Abstract: Leprosy is a complex infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae that is a leading cause of nontraumatic peripheral neuropathy. Current control strategies, with a goal of early diagnosis and treatment in the form of multidrug therapy, have maintained new case reports at ~225,000 per year. Diagnostic capabilities are limited and even with revisions to multidrug therapy regimen, treatment can still require up to a year of daily drug intake. Although alternate chemotherapies or adjunct immune therapies that could provide shorter or simpler treatment regimen appear possible, only a limited number of trials have been conducted. More proactive strategies appear necessary in the drive to elimination. As a prevention strategy, most chemoprophylaxis campaigns to date have provided about a 2-year protective window. Vaccination, in the form of a single bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) immunization, generally provides ~50% reduction in leprosy cases. Adapting control strategies to provide both chemoprophylaxis and immunoprophylaxis has distinct appeal, with chemoprophylaxis theoretically buttressed by vaccination to generate immediate protection that can be sustained in the long term. We also discuss simple assays measuring biomarkers as surrogates for disease development or replacements for invasive, but not particularly sensitive, direct measures of M. leprae infection. Such assays could facilitate the clinical trials required to develop these new chemoprophylaxis, immunoprophylaxis strategies, and transition into wider use. Keywords: mycobacteria, treatment, antibiotics, T-cell, vaccine, prevention Hansen's diseas

    Early diagnosis of relapse in borderline leprosy: two case reports

    No full text
    Two cases of relapse in borderline leprosy were reported. Despite the late-reversal, reaction-like feature, the suspicion of relapse in both was based on persistent and slow-developing skin lesions and an absence of acute neuritis or reaction during one year of follow-up. The authors have considered this possible occurrence in lepromatous borderline-treated patients after their immune cellular restoration and defend that not all Type 1 reactions would be an inflammatory answer to persistent Mycobacterium leprae, but that they could be. Therefore, a relapse diagnosis could be applied and it is more advisable, as one year of Multi-Drug Therapy (MDT) is less dangerous and more efficient for these cases than one year of corticosteroids

    The role of human T cell lymphotrophic virus type 1, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus coinfections in leprosy

    No full text
    Leprosy spectrum and outcome is associated with the host immune response against Mycobacterium leprae. The role of coinfections in leprosy patients may be related to a depression of cellular immunity or amplification of inflammatory responses. Leprosy remains endemic in several regions where human T cell lymphotrophic virus type 1 (HTLV-1), hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) are also endemic. We have evaluated the evidence for the possible role of these viruses in the clinical manifestations and outcomes of leprosy. HTLV-1, HBV and HCV are associated with leprosy in some regions and institutionalization is an important risk factor for these viral coinfections. Some studies show a higher prevalence of viral coinfection in lepromatous cases. Although HBV and HCV coinfection were associated with reversal reaction in one study, there is a lack of information about the consequences of viral coinfections in leprosy. It is not known whether clinical outcomes associated with leprosy, such as development of reactions or relapses could be attributed to a specific viral coinfection. Furthermore, whether the leprosy subtype may influence the progression of the viral coinfection is unknown. All of these important and intriguing questions await prospective studies to definitively establish the actual relationship between these entities
    corecore