Friday, May 17, 2019

(LML) WHO Goodwill Ambassador's Newsletter No.93 Issue

Leprosy Mailing List – May 17,  2019

Ref.:    (LML) WHO Goodwill Ambassador's Newsletter No.93 Issue

From:  Takahiro Nanri, Tokyo, Japan


Dear Dr. Schreuder and Friends,

 

Warm greetings from Sasakawa Health Foundation in Tokyo. 

We have uploaded our latest edition of  "WHO Goodwill Ambassador's Newsletter No.93 Issue" to our website. 

Please visit 

https://www.shf.or.jp/information/5118?lang=en    

to obtain electronic version of this issue. 

In this issue we feature articles about ...

・Message: Changing the Narrative 

・Report: Somalia refocuses on leprosy

・Spotlight: Case-finding in the Philippines

・Focus: A committee to help immigrants with leprosy

・Feature: A former hospital colony gets a make-over

・Ambassador's Journal: Bangladesh, Myanmar

・News: People's assemblies

  ・ From The editor

We hope you enjoy our latest Newsletter No.94 !!

 Takahiro NANRI, Ph.D.

 Executive Director


LML - S Deepak, B Naafs, S Noto and P Schreuder

LML blog link: http://leprosymailinglist.blogspot.it/

Contact: Dr Pieter Schreuder << editorlml@gmail.com


(LML) Protection of cured LLp patients

Leprosy Mailing List – May 17, 2019

Ref.:    (LML) Protection of cured LLp patients

From:  Joel Almeida, London and Munbai


Dear Pieter,

For the purpose of matching Shandong's success in interrupting transmission, I had written:

"Provide anti-microbial protection to persons with LL disease after the standard duration of MDT, in endemic areas. Monthly doses of 2 or 3 highly bactericidal drugs in combination are likely to work well, after the standard duration of MDT."


Once we do this in endemic countries, we are likely to match Shandong's achievement of a 15% annual decline in the new case detection rate of MB disease. We, too, can ensure that this rate of decline continues relentlessly until near zero transmission. We will keep tweaking our approach and adding helpful elements to accelerate the decline. But we can start now.


The key element in Shandong's success was prolonged anti-microbial protection for LL patients. Others too received similar protection in Shandong. That is irrelevant from an epidemiological point of view. LL patients were given prolonged protection - that is what counts for interrupting transmission at source. Those are the people we most need to protect after their cure. That is currently the biggest gap in our defences against the bacillus.


Shandong also used skin smears at every stage. So could we.


Once we go to the world with this demonstrably realistic prospect of interrupting transmission within a reasonable time frame, our financing is likely to get a huge boost. There will be enough money for histopathology as a routine, and for developing even more rapid and effective tools. But we can start right away, using classification based on clinical observation backed by slit skin smears. The endemic does not wait for us. We cannot afford to drag our heels.


We will still value new tools that might help accelerate the decline beyond the impressive rate achieved in Shandong.



I had the privilege of participating in the WHO HQ team that defined game-changing interventions in TB. We also multiplied financing for TB control. That transformation of TB from a neglected disease to a well financed effort relied on careful analysis of epidemiological clues from the front lines, understanding of the underlying biology, demonstration of measurable outcomes on the ground using the newly defined interventions, and clear messages about the macroeconomics of health. We, too, can do that. Then we will no longer fight over financial crumbs or take self-serving positions. We will all have enough resources to do our job well.


Dr. Saunderson seems keen to promote Lepvax. That is a separate matter. The development of Lepvax by IDRI was financed by American Leprosy Missions (ALM) to the tune of over 5 million USD, as publicly acknowledged. Dr. Saunderson is employed by ALM. Lepvax's measured efficacy in animal models, compared to other vaccines, can be reviewed in a separate contribution at another time. However, it is not necessary to delay Shandong-type success (interruption of transmission) merely in order to promote an ALM-financed product. Nor would ALM want that, as far as I know.


We need to bring our best and most noble selves to this effort, setting aside self-serving motives. There is a moral (and possibly legal) imperative to protect cured LL patients against re-infection and other perils. The socio-economic plight of many cured LL patients can be dealt with in another contribution. Cured LL patients can increasingly be protected against destitution, homelessness, under-nutrition and ostracism too.


Protecting cured LL patients is not only the right thing to do, but also the most effective thing to do, epidemiologically. That's because it closes the major hole in our current defences against the bacillus. Monthly doses of 2 or 3 highly bactericidal drugs in combination are likely to work well in LL patients, in endemic countries, after the standard duration of MDT. Shandong achieved victory using prolonged anti-microbial protection for LL patients. So, probably, can all of us.


Regards,


Joel Almeida


LML - S Deepak, B Naafs, S Noto and P Schreuder

LML blog link: http://leprosymailinglist.blogspot.it/

Contact: Dr Pieter Schreuder << editorlml@gmail.com


(LML) Chronic aspects of leprosy

            Leprosy Mailing List – May 17,  2019

Ref.:    (LML) Chronic aspects of leprosy

From:  Joseph N Chukwu, Enugu, Nigeria


Dear Pieter,

In yesterday's LML post on 'chronic aspects of leprosy', Prof. Diana Lockwood notes inter alia," assessing nerve damage and treating patients with steroids in leprosy programmes needs to be strengthened". She goes on to say, "the World Health Organization has a successful programme for supplying antibiotics for treating leprosy infection to national leprosy programmes. They should take responsibility for providing steroids to national programmes since this is a core part of the treatment for >66% of multibacillary patients".

Professor Lockwood puts a finger on one of the weakest parts of leprosy services in many of our countries, certainly in Nigeria. While General Health Workers can hand out MDT to the patient, many are unable or unwilling to take pains to carry out standard voluntary muscle and sensory testing as required by the national guidelines. It is also our experience that the clearly stated course of prednisolone in the field manuals is often not followed, resulting in untoward consequences for the patient. In essence, I would argue that while providing steroids is part of system strengthening, getting health workers to regularly assess patients for (recent) nerve function impairment and take appropriate action, is the larger issue.

Here in Nigeria, one standard 24-week course of prednisolone costs about eight (8) US Dollars. The in-country ILEP members gladly provide all the steroid needed by the programme. In our experience, it is far cheaper to procure the tablets locally. If WHO were to purchase them centrally and ship (as for loose clofazimine, for instance) the total costs would be much higher, It would be preferable, if the 'savings' could be invested in supporting national programmes to train and retrain staff in prevention of disabilities as well as in supervision/monitoring.

It cannot be stressed enough that a good leprosy programme is one which not only 'cures' its patients but strives to ensure they leave with little or no residual impairments/disability.

 

Best wishes,

Joseph N. Chukwu

Medical Adviser

German Leprosy and TB Relief Association

Enugu, Nigeria

Email: joseph.chukwu@dahw.org; Cell: +234 803 667 8024


LML - S Deepak, B Naafs, S Noto and P Schreuder

LML blog link: http://leprosymailinglist.blogspot.it/

Contact: Dr Pieter Schreuder << editorlml@gmail.com


Thursday, May 16, 2019

(LML) Protecting cured LLp patients

Leprosy Mailing List – May 16, 2019

Ref.:   (LML) Protecting cured LLp patients

From:  Paul Saunderson, Alesund, Norway


Dear Pieter,


I would like to respond to Joel Almeida's recent posting (May 12th) about protecting cured LLp patients.


The hypothesis that anergic people remain at high risk of being reinfected with leprosy and of becoming 'super-spreaders' of disease, who are then largely responsible for maintaining the epidemic, is fairly plausible, but difficult to prove.  Mention is made of different parts of the world where leprosy has remained endemic despite control efforts, while other areas have seen a decline in cases, progressing to local eradication.  Joel focuses on Shandong Province in China, where there is good evidence that leprosy has been locally eradicated.


As I understand it, Joel proposes that the anergic LL patients in Shandong were managed in a way that could be emulated today with specific interven-tions.  However, on reading the paper (Li HY, et al 1985) describing the program in Shandong, it is clear that they undertook leprosy control measures that were standard practice in those days, with no special attention to LL patients.  They were using dapsone monotherapy and all MB patients were treated with 100mg daily until clinically cured, then with 50mg daily for another 5 years, after which they were examined annually for 5 years.  Variations of this approach were practiced throughout the world in the pre-MDT era.  So, what can we do differently to address this situation today?


I am personally hopeful that LepVax (1), the vaccine being developed by IDRI (the Infectious Disease Research Institute is a non-profit organization based in Seattle, in the United States, and which conducts global health research on infectious diseases), could be the intervention we're looking for, although it's still an open question as to how this small group of anergic patients will respond to it - will it be possible to stimulate a protective immune response in them?  We'll have to wait and see!


In the meantime, although I don't believe that the Shandong experience gives us clear guidance, I would be interested to hear from Joel about what specific and practical measures he may suggest to better identify and manage this small group of patients.  I agree with him that they remain an important potential source of infection.


With kind regards,


Paul

 

References:

1.    Malcolm F. Duthie et al.  LepVax, a defined subunit vaccine that provides effective pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis of M. Leprae infection. npj Vaccines volume 3, Article number: 12 (2018)


LML - S Deepak, B Naafs, S Noto and P Schreuder

LML blog link: http://leprosymailinglist.blogspot.it/

Contact: Dr Pieter Schreuder << editorlml@gmail.com


(LML) Chronic aspects of leprosy

Leprosy Mailing List – May 16,  2019

Ref.: (LML)    Chronic aspects of leprosy

From:  Diana Lockwood, London, UK


Dear Pieter,

 

I have recently published a review on the chronic aspects of leprosy that I would like to share with readers of LML. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2019; 00: 1–5. Chronic aspects of leprosy—neglected but important


Abstract:

"The chronic aspects of leprosy are discussed here. They are a consequence of the peripheral nerve damage that affects many patients during their lifetime with leprosy. The peripheral nerve damage leaves people unable to feel and with weakness in their hands and feet. They are at risk of damaging their hands and feet, causing the disabilities and deformities that characterise late leprosy.

More than 200 000 new leprosy patients are diagnosed globally each year. Better data are needed from cohort studies to estimate the number of patients developing nerve damage and modelling studies are needed to estimate the number of patients who develop disabilities. For some of them, this will be a lifelong disability.

Nerve damage is caused by inflammation in leprosy-affected nerves. Patients with nerve damage of<6-mo duration need treatment with steroids. About 66% of multibacillary patients will develop nerve damage. Plastic graded monofilaments can be used to detect nerve damage in leprosy and diabetic clinics. Assessing nerve damage and treating patients with steroids in leprosy programmes needs to be strengthened.

The World Health Organization has a successful programme for supplying antibiotics for treating leprosy infection to national leprosy programmes. They should take responsibility for providing steroids to national programmes since this is a core part of the treatment for >66% of multibacillary patients. Patients need to be asked about neuropathic pain symptoms and treated if necessary.

Treated leprosy patients are at risk of developing ulcers in their feet. Treatment and prevention need to be improved through health education, providing protective footwear and patient empowerment."


Given the important role steroids have in preventing nerve damage it is important that this aspect of drug provision is considered by WHO.  It can be argued that they should take a lead role in providing or at least securing steroid treatment for patients with reactions.

I also think there is important work to be done in modelling the numbers of leprosy patients with disability and I hope that a modeller will take up this challenge 

Best wishes,

Diana

Professor Diana Lockwood

Professor of Tropical Medicine

Department of Clinical Research

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

London WC1E 7HT

Tel 0207 -927 -2457

Visit my blog dnjtravels@blogspot.com


LML - S Deepak, B Naafs, S Noto and P Schreuder

LML blog link: http://leprosymailinglist.blogspot.it/

Contact: Dr Pieter Schreuder << editorlml@gmail.com

 


Tuesday, May 14, 2019

(LML) Beware of Procrustean bed

Leprosy Mailing List – May 14,  2019

Ref.:    (LML) Beware of Procrustean bed

From:  Ajit P, Maharashtra, India


Respected Sir,


Procrustes ''the stretcher'' refers to a character from Greek mythology. He was a robber who lived near Eleusis in Attica. Feigning hospitality to travellers, he would offer them a bed that would fit them perfectly. What Procrustes would not tell them was if they were too long, he would cut off their limbs to fit the bed. If they were too short, he would stretch them until they fit. The term ''Procrustean bed'' can be paraphrased as an arbitrary standard to which conformity is forced. (1)


This "one size fits all" approach is what is at the root of the problem in leprosy control.


Till such time, we individualise care for highly bacillated cases like histoid leprosy, our control efforts will not bear fruition.


Thanks,


Dr Ajit.


References

1) Baskerville JR. Observer and subject bias: lessons from procrustes. Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Sep;17(9):1032. 


LML - S Deepak, B Naafs, S Noto and P Schreuder

LML blog link: http://leprosymailinglist.blogspot.it/

Contact: Dr Pieter Schreuder << editorlml@gmail.com