Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Leprosy in Ecuador (clinical cases)


Leprosy Mailing List – October 5th, 2011 
Ref.:   Leprosy in Ecuador (clinical cases)
From: G. Warren, Sydney,  Australia

Dear Dr Verduga,
What an excellent collection of photos (LML September 27th, 2011), and the variety of Borderline manifestations and reactions is a lovely example for others who live in areas where natural skin colours vary. 
Cases 1 and 2 (see attachment) which are on slightly darker skin and show excellently the extra erythema and swelling that so often occurs is the reactive phase. 
In case 1 the central immune area can be missed on the arm but is evident on the back of the elbow.
Case 2 also shows how definite can be the inner edge of the lesions in BB. Here the true borderline rings with their central immune area can be appreciated.
The case number 3 is obviously a lighter skin initially and the leprosy lesions are not really reactive and so show a lot less than the lesions in cases 1 and 2 which are on slightly darker skin
What a lovely teaching slides.  In all cases the severity of reaction needs to be watched carefully so that if there is any evidence of acute nerve involvement steroids can be given in adequate dosage.  However case 3 needs to be watched as carefully as those already in reaction, when therapy is started.
I normally do not give steroids for all BB in reaction unless the lesions are on the face or there is definite evidence of nerve damage.  When lesions are on the face and particularly around the eye the underline facial nerve and its branches are at risk and, I do not want to produce a facial palsy.
The beginning of the treatment with rifampicin and dapsone may well precipitate acute nerve deterioration as the drugs kill more bacilli and so cause a rapid rise in the amount of the immune response to the antigen freed from the dead bacilli.  This in  turn increases the swelling inside the nerve sheath and so the risk of nerve damage.  This response stimulates more reaction and hence swelling in the skin lesions as well as possibly a neural deficit. 
I like to give clofazimine initially as it has an anti-reaction effect as well it as bacteriostatic and bactericidal effect.  It is generally taught that clofazimine is effective in preventing Type 2 ( ENL) reaction.  Yes that is correct, that is where it is most used.  But when doing the initial drug trials we often used it in patients with Type 1 reaction as well and it also is helpful for that.  It may not be as bactericidal as some other drugs but it is adequate to prevent increasing numbers of bacilli as it is bacteriostatic.  What is significant is that many BL/BB  type patients develop both Type 1 and Type 2 reaction.  Especially when inter-current infections and or anaemia and other metabolic diseases are dealt with.  So with patients who have those unstable forms of  BL/BB  leprosy it is worth giving clofazimine alone till the other medical problems are dealt with so that as the Bodies natural destruction of M. leprae  occurs the rise in T sensitised lymphocytes will not result in a Type 1. reaction. 
In  a patient with BL/BB leprosy the lesions may appear very vague initially and so it is difficult to tell if there is a borderline element.  In these patients (and in some others) it is most likely that once the patient’s own ability to fight the disease rises, and the number of dead bacilli rises, so the number of leprosy antigens rises- the body will produce both “T and “B” lymphocytes.  The development of clinical evidence of Type 1 or type 2 reaction will depend on, many factors.  It was fascinating to see that patients with BL/BB leprosy with some evidence of Type 1 reaction would, if given an anti-smalll pox vaccination, go into Type 2 reaction!  Yes that was in the late 1960s when we needed to give the smallpox but I hated doing it as so many patients of all immune levels, went into reaction.  But the use of clofazimine for these patients improved their ability to cope.  So this is just one of the reasons why I like any patient whom I suspect of being Reaction prone, to start on clofazimine alone for the first 6-8 weeks.  It certainly reduced the problems in the lighter skinned patients with other medical problems as well.
Again commenting about the case number 3 (see attachment) it shows very well BL lesions that could well go into reaction on full MDT- the nerve damage can still occur so we need to watch but please do not give steroids for many months duration - should not be needed.
These are the patients I found did excellently on clofazimine initially and then once the tendency to reaction has settled put onto full MDT.  Yes, by all means give MDT in full dose once things look more stable.
Cases number 4 and 5 have a reported smear of 3+.  Case number 5 is typical, a lovely one of nodules on ear lobes, I would love to see pictures of this body or limbs as often the nodules on the ears precede obvious lesions elsewhere and are missed are being LL. 
I find clofazimine the best to start treatment as rifampicin does seem to speed up the development of ENL!  Patients with a high bacteriological index (BI) and especially a high morphological index (MI)  need more than the 12 month multi-bacillary multi-drug therapy (MB-MDT) suggested by WHO.  Sorry but the number of BL and LL patients I have seen who are still very active after 12 months MDT tells me that they are those who must have these drugs for longer than recommended if we are to prevent the disease reappearing in a few years time.
My long term experience shows that even with two or three drugs the patients with severe LL/BL leprosy need more than 12 months to be really cleared.  The bacilli live in the nerves and even rifampicin cannot get at them there. 
You asked for comments.  Fine I do not mind and hope this helps you in your general programme.  I have been treating leprosy including the reconstructive surgery since 1959 and if I can help by email please feel you can write to me.<grace.warren@levelthirteen.net>.  I was Medical Superintendent of the Hong Kong leprosy Hospital from 1960 to 1975 when it closed and after that taught in many countries round the world.
With Best wishes in your programme,
Grace Warren.

BI and MI results in BB, BL and LL leprosy


Leprosy Mailing List – October 4th, 2011
Ref.:    BI and MI results in BB, BL and LL leprosy
From:  L Duncan, Peebles, Scotland, UK


Thanks Salvatore,
I would like commenting on Dr Verduga and Barreto’s letters dated respectively LML 27th Sept. and 2nd Oct. 2011.  About Dr Verduga’s clinical cases (see attachment) I would agree that the last 2 slides (cases 4 and 5) should have been with a bacteriological index of 5+ and with a positive morphological index (MI) as well.  The mid borderline (BB) ones are often more difficult to get as positives but again should have been positive with a positive MI.
Dr Barreto’s letter commenting on the methodology for taking the smears is well made ... as was the second point about the strength of alcohol-acid to decolourise ...
I am sure that you will find in many countries the over-simplification of methodology to diagnose and treat leprosy, together with inadequacy of follow up - so many people with leprosy are told 'Here is your treatment, 'MDT Cure' and you do not need to come back to see us for check-up'' has added to the present apparent resurgence of leprosy in many countries.
The failure to teach about the risk of pregnancy for the woman with leprosy and the need to check her during and after delivery, and to follow up for at least a year after delivery also has to be addressed.
I recently saw one such woman who did all that she was told, was not supervised after delivery and was bedridden with severe reaction and neuritis for a year after delivery.  By the grace of God she was seen unofficially / accidentally (!) by someone who recognised the problem and gave her appropriate treatment and advice for the babe.
Lysbeth Duncan

lists of suitable labs for slit-skin smear examination in leprosy


Leprosy Mailing List – October 3rd, 2011
Ref.:    It would be advisable to provide, lists of suitable labs for slit-skin smear examination in leprosy.From:  Warren G, Sidney, Australia

Dear Dr Noto,
I am very pleased to read the comments on slit skin smears made by Dr Barreto (LML Oct. 2nd 2011).  Many times I have found that smears were reported as negative and when rechecked it was found that the stain was not correctly done.
Yes, M. leprae is difficult to stain and easily over decolourised by the use of the wrong acid-alcohol mixture.  This is particularly a problem when slides are sent for acid fast bacilli (AFB) examination to a good lab that does not do M. leprae as a routine.  So I must confess that if I diagnose leprosy and feel the patients ought to have a positive smear I often also send a suitable slide to an experienced lab to be sure, if it is said to be negative by the first lab.
I have had some very embarrassing experiences with laboratory personnel, whom one would think would be reliable, giving negative diagnosis on a patient who is clinically clearly positive.  It is even more embarrassing when pathologists cannot diagnose from a fairly typical biopsy as happened with one patient with a definite red line (typical of BB) where the anaesthesia started – and when we looked at the stained biopsy a relatively inexperienced pathologist spotted the AFB at once but the Professor at the first institute had not seen them and had stated emphatically it was not leprosy.
It is important that we hone our ability to diagnose so that patients with leprosy are not deprived of MDT and the possibility of recovery without deformity.  I have seen many “primary persistent neuritic leprosy” patients who have early ulnar nerve lesions (clawing of fingers) but NO skin lesions and are dismissed by WHO personnel as “not leprosy” because no anaesthetic skin lesion.  Yet in S E Asia these are common and a biopsy of the nerve will prove AFB etc. present - but many places do not have those facilities.  In fact many clinics in third world countries have no facilities to do slit skin smears and may even have no suitable place to send slides on for examination.  We must hone our ability to diagnose by clinical signs and history.
Would it be advisable to provide, lists of the suitable labs who would check slit skin smears and/or biopsies for those who need it and may be make sure all the labs have full detailed instructions of the correct methods and strengths of stains to get reliable results.
Grace Warren  
Previously adviser for the Leprosy Mission in Asia.

Leprosy in Ecuador and slit-skin smear examination


Leprosy Mailing List – October 2nd, 2011
Ref.:   Leprosy in Ecuador and slit-skin smear examinationFrom: J A Barreto, Bauru, SP, Brazil

Dear Drs Noto and Verduga,
Thank you very much to Dr Verduga for sharing with us these very interesting cases (see the attachment to LML Sept. 27th, 2011).  Here in Brazil, where leprosy is highly endemic we also see similar cases quite commonly.  I would like do some comments, particularly about the skin smear technique.
The bacteriological index (BI) in lepromatous (LL) leprosy is usually 5+-6+, mainly when the smears are collected from nodules.  According to the Ridley & Jopling classification the BI ranges in a logarithmic scale from 0 to 6+, from tuberculoid (TT) to the LL forms of the disease.  Nevertheless, BI in skin smears commonly are 1+ lower than in biopsy bacteriological index (BBI).
I refer to your case number 5; LL leprosy with BI 3+ [you do not give information about the morphological index (MI)].  I have three points to comment about and, they are in relation with the apparently low BI (3+):-
1. How the smear was collected?  Was the dermis scraped after incision of the epidermis?  In Brazil, many physicians do not know that this must be done, becauseM. leprae is an intracellular parasite, and does not "flow in the lymph".
2. What was the concentration of Ziehl's fucsin: 1% or 0.3%?  In Brazil, I found that most laboratory technicians think that this is not important, what is wrong, because the resistance to distaining of the cell wall of M. leprae is weaker than M. tuberculosis, and therefore the use of the lower concentration (0.3%) of Ziehl's fucsin can lead to false negative results in cases of borderline leprosy, mainly when smears are not collected from lesions.
3. What was the concentration of alcohol-acid used to distaining the smear?  As well as the problem I have found above, and for the same reason, many laboratory technicians also do not know that the concentration must be lower, i.e., 1%, or this will lead to false negative results, even in lepromatous cases.
For many years, unfortunately, bacilloscopy, an important tool for the diagnosis, classification and follow up of leprosy was neglected by many leprosy control programmes in the world, and now many health professionals just don`t have knowledge about it.  Many even are afraid to become infected when collecting smears.
I hope that these comments be useful and I will be happy to know what other labororatories/programmes do.
Best regards,
Jaison A. Barreto
Dermatologist and Leprologist
Instituto Lauro de Souza Lima
Bauru, SP

Leprosy in Ecuador


Leprosy Mailing List – September 27th, 2011

Ref.:   Leprosy in Ecuador
From: Verduga F M, Guayaquil, Guayas, Ecuador


Dear Dr Noto,
In attachment are some clinical cases from Ecuador.  I would be happy to receive comments from the LML members.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Ms Fanny Verduga,
Leprosy control programme, Guayas, Ecuador

Meeting with President of India


Leprosy Mailing List – September 21st, 2011

Ref.:   Meeting with President of India
From: Thakar U. H., Mumbay Maharashtra, India

Dear Dr Noto,
Please find herewith in attachment a paper about the “Meeting with President of India”. Thank you for circulating it on the leprosy mailing list.
Yours sincerely,
Uday Thakar
Mr. U.H. Thakar, Secretary, Hind Kusht Nivaran Sangh

ILEP Guidelines to reduce stigma


Leprosy Mailing List – September 14th, 2011

Ref.:   ILEP Guidelines to reduce stigma
From: Soutar D, London, UK 

Dear Salvatore,
I am attaching a news item I would like to ask you to post on the LML. 
Many thanks and warmest regards,
Doug
Douglas Soutar

Douglas Soutar
General Secretary
International Federation of Anti-Leprosy Associations
Tel: 44 (0) 207 602 69 25 – Fax:  44 (0) 207 371 16 21 – Website: www.ilep.org.uk
E-mail: doug.soutar(at)ilep.org.uk