RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The difficulties related to the bacilloscopic diagnosis of leprosy, providing a more reliable classification of cases, in 1995 led the WHO to recommend the use of a new classification, in endemic countries, based on clinical criteria alone, in order to simplify the poly-chemotherapeutic regimens. According to our experience in the Marchoux Institute, this classification may lead to errors in diagnosis through overzealous or mis-interpretation of the two forms of leprosy. The aim of our study was to evaluate the concordance between this clinical classification and that based on a bacilloscopic examination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive study of new cases of leprosy seen at the Marchoux Institute, without distinction in gender or age, from January to December 2000. All the patients included underwent clinical examination and a bacilloscopic exploration to provide a double classification. The concordance between the two classifications was assessed using the Kappa test.RESULTS: Two hundred new cases of leprosy were included. Out of 126 clinically multi-bacillary cases, 61 were confirmed bacteriologically, and 65 were false positives. Out of 74 clinical cases with few bacilli, 2 were bacteriologically multi-bacilli. The concordance between the two classifications was average (Kappa=0.40). There was a significant difference between the percentages of multi-bacilli observed in both classifications (p<10(-8)). DISCUSSION: The clinical classification may well overestimate the multi-bacillary form. In the absence of a reliable bacilloscopic apparatus, a more detailed clinical classification of leprosy forms must be developed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: One of the weak points in the strategy for eliminating leprosy is the poor quality of screening. To overcome this, the World Health Organization (WHO) encourages endemic countries to run campaigns for the elimination of leprosy by circulating educational messages and mobilizing the medical community for early screening of cases. The aim of our study was to identify the motives for consultation with high predictive value for the diagnosis of leprosy and to determine the late diagnosis factors and hence assist the staff on site to improve the results of their leprosy elimination campaigns. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study consisted, during the second trimester of 1999, in interviewing all the patients consulting for the first time the Marchoux Institute or the units screening for leprosy in the Bamako area. The interview recorded the motives for consultation, the delay before consulting and the reasons for late consulting. To assess their positive predictive value, the motives for consultation were related to the diagnosis retained (leprosy or not). RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and seventy seven patients were interviewed. The motive for consulting, "suspected leprosy", scored the highest positive predictive value (PPV) (80 p. 100): 12 cases of leprosy were diagnosed by 15 consultants having suspected leprosy. Neurological problems were the second motive for consultation (PPV=61.9 p. 100). The most frequent motive for consultation was spots or "macules" (20 p. 100 of consultations), but only provided a positive predictive value of 19 p. 100. Prior consultations and non-specialized treatments were identified as factors of delay in diagnosing leprosy (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of leprosy cannot be based on the motives for dermatological consultation alone. The macules are the most apparent signs, but of low predictive value. Nevertheless, they are an early but non-specific sign of leprosy and are often neglected by the patient. Other than macules, attention must be paid to the neurological signs (dysesthesia, motor disorders) when screening for leprosy. These signs may appear early on, or be observed at a late stage in the progression of the disease.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Practice of multidrug therapy in leprosy (combination Dapsone + Rifampicine + Clofazimine) established since 1981, has significantly reduced the incidence of the disease. However, immunosuppression due to treatment of multi-drugs therapy induced adverse reactions with glucocorticoid and the change in host immune response due to the leprosy itself, might increase the risk of parasitic infections. To test this hypothesis, we carried out a case-control study at the "Institut Marchoux" in Bamako. Stool and urine samples from all patients included in the study were examined for parasites identification. In addition, we performed thick and thin blood film to identify malaria infection and skin biopsy (snip) to detect onchocerciasis. A total of 121 cases of leprosy and 219 controls aged 10-84 years old were included in the study from March 1999 to February 2000. Sixty two percent (n = 121) of cases were treated with glucocorticoid. The prevalence of infection due to Entamoeba coli and Entamoeba histolytica were higher in cases than in controls (p = 0.02). The prevalence of infection due to hookworms was higher in cases than in controls. There was no difference of the infections to the other intestinal parasites. Three cases of cryptosporidiosis and one case of isosporosis were observed in leprosy group vs none in the control group. There was no significant difference between cases and controls with regard to prevalence of Schistosoma haematobium, Trichomonas vaginalis and Onchocera volvulus. The prevalence of Plasmodium falciparum was 4.9% (6/121) in the leprosy case and 7.8% (17/219) in the control group. In conclusion, despite the corticotherapy and immunosuppression due to leprosy, there was no difference in prevalence of pathogenic parasites. Entomoeba coli, Entamoeba histolytica which have significantly higher prevalence among the cases were not pathogen therefore there was no higher risk of severe intestinal parasitosis among the cases of leprosy. Treatment with glycocorticoid in patients with leprosy did not suggest any impact on the prevalence of this parasitic infections. In addition, multidrug therapy did not show any effect on the carriage of Plasmodium falciparum.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)