Saturday, November 16, 2019

FW: (LML) What really happened in Shandong?


 

 

Leprosy Mailing List – November 16,  2019

Ref.:  (LML)   What really happened in Shandong?

From:  Joel Almeida, London and Mumbai


 

Dear Pieter and colleagues,

 

Thanks to Prof. Fine (LML 8 Nov 2019) for his contribution on this topic. The view expressed there is  "that Shandong was similar to many populations in the world which have undergone considerable socio-economic improvement and in which leprosy declined to vanishingly low levels – even before the advent of any chemotherapy." Is this particular view about Shandong available on the evidence? 

 

The evidence

 

Per capita GDP over time in Shandong and Yunnan, respectively, is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. New case detection rates of HD over time in Weifang/Shandong and Wenshan/Yunnan are shown in Fig. 3. 


 

 

Figure 1. GDP per capita in Shandong, 1952 to 2018 (source: CEIC data)


 

 

Figure 2. GDP per capita in Yunnan, 1949-2018 (source: CEIC data)

 

 

Figure 3. New cases detected over time in Wenshan/Yunnan (upper line) and Weifang/Shandong (lower line). (based on ref. 1) Both areas used periodic surveys for case detection.

 

Prof. Fine quotes from Li et al (1) as follows: "since 1978…. Weifang has experienced rapid growth of average annual income…" However,  Li et al (1) actually wrote: "With the reform and open-door policy in China since 1978, Weifang has experienced a rapid growth of average annual income (AIC) and gross prefectural product per capita (GNP) since 1985" (emphasis added). Further, Prof. Fine states that ""organised control" began in Shandong with dapsone in the 1960s". However, Li et al (2) state that "In 1949, when New China was founded, a preliminary investigation in six counties found that the prevalence was approximately 1 per 1000. A provincial leprosy control program was initiated in 1955." (emphasis added) Therefore the facts are not as Prof. Fine believed them to be.

 

It is helpful, for the purposes of reliable inference, to look at evidence as carefully as we can. Otherwise we might accidentally gloss over clues and unintentionally mislead ourselves. This topic is of some importance, given the implications if Shandong did indeed achieve near-zero transmission owing to a particular way of using anti-microbial chemotherapy. Nerves, limbs, eyes, minds, livelihoods and relationships are at stake.

 

The inferences

 

The evidence shows that Shandong before the 1980s had little socio-economic improvement, as measured in GDP per capita. Yet, it showed a relatively rapid decline in incidence rate during that time, starting from about 50 new cases per 100,000 population/year. At all times since 1955 Shandong used prolonged anti-microbial protection (at first with dapsone monotherapy and eventually from 1986 with prolonged MDT). Therefore Prof. Fine's view quoted at the start is contradicted by the evidence. In Shandong, prolonged anti-microbial protection contributed importantly to a relatively rapid decline of HD, ending in near-zero transmission. This argues strongly for expansion of that success to other endemic areas.

 

It seems important also not to disregard the evidence from Wenshan/Yunnan, nor from pre-1986 vs post-1986 in Shandong and Yunnan.(1) The stagnation in the new case detection rate in Yunnan after 1986 is shown in Figure 3. The accompanying dramatic increase in per capita GDP in Yunnan after 1986 (Fig. 2) proved insufficient to maintain the preceding decline in new cases. Yunnan's observed levelling-off in the decline of new cases after 1986 can reasonably be linked to Yunnan's reported 1986 switch from prolonged anti-microbial protection to fixed-duration MDT. Further, Yunnan's earlier steady decline in new cases from 1960 to 1986 preceded its eventual dramatic increase in per capita GDP. That decline prior to 1986, as with Shandong, can reasonably be linked to the prolonged anti-microbial protection available in Yunnan prior to 1986. Here, again, prolonged anti-microbial protection seems to play an important role in the decline of HD.

 

The decline of HD in Shandong accelerated in 1986, unlike in Yunnan. In Shandong, 1986 was the year when prolonged dapsone monotherapy was replaced by prolonged MDT. 

 

 

The TableTrend in new cases detected/year in two parts of China, by time period

 


Pre-1986 low income

Post-1986 increasing income

Weifang/Shandong maintained prolonged anti-microbial protection, first with dapsone and then from 1986 with prolonged MDT

decline

faster decline

Wenshan/Yunnan replaced prolonged anti-microbial protection with fixed-duration MDT in 1986

decline

stagnation

 

This improbable constellation of trends, especially given the counter-intuitive observation in Yunnan post-1986, can reasonably be attributed to prolonged anti-microbial protection having a greater impact than either income level or income increases, on new HD cases/year. The stagnation in Yunnan after 1986 is likely to be explained in part by the demonstrably important risk of recurrence (endogenous relapse or exogenous re-infection) among LLp patients 6 or more years after withdrawal of anti-microbial protection (For evidenced discussion of 20-year recurrence rates following 24 months of MDT, see LML 2 June 2019).

 

In summary, prolonged anti-microbial protection prior to 1986 contributed to a reasonably rapid decline in new cases in both provinces even without dramatic increases in per capita GDP. By contrast, even dramatic increases in per capita GDP in Yunnan after 1986 failed to maintain the preceding decline in new cases in Yunnan. 1986 was when prolonged anti-microbial protection was withdrawn in Yunnan and replaced by only 24 months anti-microbial protection for LL patients (among others).

 

Socio-economic development and even social safety nets are pursued by many governments for reasons much wider and weightier than HD control alone. We could add our voices to those of the socially-minded citizens who advocate such policies and practices. However, the evidence indicates strongly that Shandong's use of prolonged anti-microbial protection for LL patients (and incidentally others) contributed importantly to a rapid decline of HD leading to near-zero transmission.

 

 

 

 

India

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. GDP per capita in India, 1958 to 2019 (source: CEIC data)

 

 

 

Figure 5. GDP per capita over time in China (top) and India (bottom) (source: World Bank)

 

India has the world's largest number of new cases/year. GDP per capita is increasing. However, it will be small consolation to the people of India that socio-economic improvements are hypothetically sufficient to ensure a relatively rapid decline in new HD cases/year, even without any anti-microbial chemotherapy at all. There has been stagnation (or worse) in the new cases/year in India. Nor is the impact of socio-economic improvement entirely predictable. Chandigarh (India) in 2011 was the richest administrative unit in India (source: CEIC data) but had a higher newly detected prevalence of HD than Bihar, (3) the poorest state (source: CEIC data). Anti-microbials seem necessary not only to protect individuals, but also for reducing the main source of concentrated viable bacilli in India. That main source is untreated LL patients. This includes neglected previously treated LL patients with recurrent disease (owing to endogenous relapse or exogenous re-infection).

 

Unidentified sources of transmission are hypothesised. However, it is doubtful whether a yet-unknown source could match the overwhelmingly high concentration of viable bacilli available from untreated patients with undiagnosed or recurrent LL disease, or from anergic armadillos (the latter in the Americas only). This can be discussed in more detail at another time. For now, however, it seems wise to focus narrowly on the implications for action arising from the evidence above. The outcomes we seek, including an end to HD, ultimately depend on effective action.

 

Action implications

 

We can add prolonged anti-microbial protection of LL patients to the socio-economic development and social safety nets being pursued by the governments of several endemic countries. In so doing, we have a good chance of matching Shandong's 20%/year decline in incidence rate leading to near-zero transmission. LL patients are, in any case, entitled to such competent case management under Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They should not have to search for well-informed private practitioners in order to access such prolonged protection, which might sometimes sink their household financially. Instead, even the poorest LL patient deserves such prolonged protection free of charge at even the most humble government-financed health facility. 

 

We have unwittingly been emulating post-1986 Yunnan by withdrawing anti-microbial protection from even LLp patients. This unhelpful fashion has been enforced in publicly financed systems despite the demonstrably important risk of recurrent disease among LLp patients 6 or more years after release from MDT. It is better to emulate Shandong, by ensuring prolonged anti-microbial protection for all LL patients (eg., using monthly post-MDT chemoprophylaxis with 3 bactericidal drugs). Such protection will close a major gap in our defences against the bacilli, in addition to protecting vulnerable individuals. It is like closing a hole in a water levee (dyke). If this hole is left unattended, HD bacilli in high concentrations keep flooding the land. (For discussion of the importance of previously treated LLp patients relative to undiagnosed LL patients, see LML 12 May 2019 ). 

 

Post-MDT chemoprophylaxis for LL patients is crucial if we wish to match Shandong's achievement of a 20%/year decline in incidence rate leading to near-zero transmission. Even if rapid expansion of income and social security was guaranteed in every endemic country, we would still need to use MDT and post-MDT chemoprophylaxis. In real life, such guarantees are not always available. Brazil illustrates this.

 

 

 

Figure 6. Brazil GDP per capita, 1962 to 2019 (source: CEIC data)

 

This makes post-MDT chemoprophylaxis for LL patients all the more essential if we want to treat patients humanely and end HD relatively rapidly. The example protocol for safely interrupting transmission (LML 4 Nov 2019) took into account this evidence along with other relevant evidence. In TB we (at WHO HQ) carefully analysed evidence, drew on demonstrable success, and developed a highly practical strategy that has since transformed outcomes and saved tens of millions of lives. It can be our dream similarly to transform outcomes in HD. The key in TB was to build on the foundation of Dr. Styblo's demonstrable success in saving lives at the front-lines in Tanzania. Shandong achieved a 20%/year decline in HD incidence leading to near-zero transmission, using prolonged anti-microbial protection for LL patients. That is the demonstrable success on which we can build. It would be good to spread that success across the globe, by including post-MDT chemoprophylaxis for LL patients.

 

Joel Almeida

 

References

 

1. Li HY, Weng XM, Li T et al. Long-Term Effect of Leprosy Control in Two Prefectures of China, 1955-1993. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1995 Jun;63(2):213-221.  

 

2. Li HY, Pan YL, Wang Y. Leprosy control in Shandong Province, China, 1955-1983; some epidemiological features. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1985 Mar;53(1):79-85

 

3.  Katoch K, Aggarwal A, Yadav VS, Pandey. A National sample survey to assess the new case disease burden of leprosy in India. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 2017; 146(5): 585-605.

 

- - - - - - 

P.S.   We can be grateful to LML for providing this uniquely valuable platform for well-informed discussions, rapid and open review of contributions, and for expert advice to those colleagues who seek assistance. Our contributions here are scrutinised, and can be openly and carefully reviewed, by nearly all of the world's knowledgeable HD experts. This allows us to help one another more rapidly to assemble the pieces of the jigsaw and evolve practical measures more securely to defeat our common enemy, the bacilli.

 

Interestingly, the Gates Foundation, on behalf of its funding recipients, has adopted an open rapid publication platform with open (rather than anonymous and unpublished) peer review. It is called Gates Open Research. That digital platform reproduces some of LML's helpful features.


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

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

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Leprosy Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leprosymailinglist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leprosymailinglist/10d31267-8227-4bba-a1fa-aef7bde2fd7a%40googlegroups.com.

FW: (LML) Is the use of an eponym for leprosy inappropriate?

 

Leprosy Mailing List – November 16,  2019

 

Ref.:    (LML) Is the use of an eponym for leprosy inappropriate?

From:   Francesca Gajete, Manila, Philippines


 

Dear Pieter,

 

The mail of Dr Ruth Butlin came as a surprise just as the most recent Patient Group Congress last September in Manila came up with a paper to rename leprosy disease as Hansen 's Disease. I was not present in that Congress but I was provided a copy of it.

 

When, where and how can we have the final consensus on this issue? Pls HELP!

 

Best regards,

 

Francesca Gajete

 


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

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

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

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Leprosy Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leprosymailinglist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leprosymailinglist/5785abcf-b84c-42f6-84db-50c93ff0a7f4%40googlegroups.com.

Friday, November 15, 2019

FW: (LML) Is the use of an eponym for leprosy inappropriate?

 

Leprosy Mailing List – November 15,  2019


Ref.:    (LML) Is the use of an eponym for leprosy inappropriate?

From:  Ruth Butlin, London, UK


Dear Pieter,

Apparently in his Memoirs in 1910, Armauer Hansen himself wrote "It was I who found leprosy's origins. In medical literature it is now partly referred to as Hansen's Disease". (quoted in Vogelsang 1978, ref 1). 


In the past it was common practice to name a disease after the person who first described it, or occasionally after the patient in whom it was first described. Modern practice has moved away from this, towards use of descriptive terminology that indicates the nature or cause of the disease. Examples include Bright's disease, Still's disease and Charcot Marie Tooth Disease, now respectively known as glomerulonephritis, systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis and inherited peripheral neuropathy. Use of a person's name is sometimes done to honour his contributions to medicine.


In recent times there has been a move to completely replace the term 'Leprosy' with the term 'Hansen's disease'. I contend that it would be more appropriate to use a term such as "mycobacterial neuro-dermatosis" if one wishes to avoid the undesirable social connotations of the word leprosy.

 

There might be no objection to incorporating the name Hansen into the name of the bacteria which cause leprosy, since Armauer Hansen was the discoverer of this bacterium (ref 2,3,4) (and we are grateful to him for that work). However, attaching his name to the disease - and by extension to people ("people affected by Hansen's Disease") who have had to live with the consequences of being infected by M leprae - brings undue honour to a man who was convicted of unethical experimentation on a human being. Surprisingly, this episode in his life is nowadays often overlooked: in some accounts of his life and work it is not even mentioned (refs 4, 5, 6).


Armauer Hansen made a series of excellent studies of the epidemiology of leprosy from which he showed that an infectious cause was more likely than inheritance, to explain the pattern of attack in populations both in Norway and in USA (ref 5). Carried away with his desire to demonstrate the transmissibility of leprosy, Armauer Hansen also conducted a number of human experiments (ref 1, 7).


In 1879, he decided to attempt to induce a "nodular" (i.e. lepromatous) form of leprosy in a woman who had been diagnosed with what he called  the "anaesthetic" form of the disease (in modern parlance, roughly equivalent to paucibacillary leprosy) by inoculating her with material from a nodular leprosy case (refs 8,9,10). Using a contaminated sharp instrument, he deliberately pricked her conjunctiva, without her consent and despite the woman's protests (refs 1,10). This action was adjudged unethical even by the less stringent standards of the day. At the court case that ensued, it was found that "the accused…. has with clear intent taken advantage of his position in relation to the first witness so as to cause her bodily injury, …." (ref 10). He was stripped of his position as Physician at the Bergen Leprosy Hospital where the experiment had been carried out. He had to pay the court costs but was not jailed. He was allowed to continue in his other (non-clinical) appointment as Chief Medical Officer for Leprosy in Norway. Although at the time he seemed to show no remorse, defending his behaviour as justified in the cause of science (refs 1,10), it seems that later (being older and wiser) he understood his fault. His biographer (Vogelsang) says (refs 7,10) that, in an article written in 1885, he (Hansen) states almost as if it were a self-evident corollary "that we cannot experiment with human beings."

 

In other human experiments conducted by Armauer Hansen and Danielsson (ref 1), it is not known for certain whether some people were coerced into participating, as the victims may have been powerless to raise any official complaint (ref 10). The woman who was assaulted on 3.11.1879 was a 33- year- old who had been living since age 16 years in the institution at which Armauer Hansen was the senior doctor and responsible for her care. This fact might have made her more vulnerable to his abuse of medical authority. Without assistance from her pastor, she may have been unable to register a complaint against the doctor (ref 10).


The careful analysis of the case written by a Norwegian Justice of the Supreme Court, published some years ago (ref 10) deserves study, and more recently the case was highlighted by a Dutch neurologist (ref 11). I believe readers of the Leprosy Mailing List will concur with the view that "even a celebrated scientist is bound to obey the law of the land, and that it is the court's duty to protect every citizen also against encroachments from more influential persons" (ref 7).

 


References

1. Vogelsang TM. 1978 Gerhard Henrik Armauer Hansen 1841-1912, The discoverer of the leprosy bacillus. His life and his work. Int J Lep 46 (3-4), p257-332

2. Vogelsang 1957 Termination of leprosy in Norway Int J Lep, 25 (4) p 346-349

3. Vogelsang TM 1963 The Hansen Neisser controversy 1879-188. Int J Lep 31 (1), P 74-80

4. Schmidt, Matthias 2012. The Hundredth anniversary of Armauer Hansen's death 1841 -1912. Leprosy Review 83 (4) p 408

5. Harboe M. 1973. Armauer Hansen- the man and his work. Int J leprosy 41 (4). P417-424

6. Getz B 1958. leprosy research in Norway.1850-1900. Medical History,2 p 65-67

7. Vogelsang TM. 1968. Gerhard Armauer Hansen, 1814-1912. Oslo, pp 80-89.

 

8. Jay V. 2000. The Legacy of Armauer Hansen. Arch Pathol. Lab Med 124, p 496-497

9. Ghosh S, Chaudhuri S. 2015. Chronicles of Gerhard Henrik Armauer Hansen's Life and Work. Indian J of Dermatology, 60 (3), p219-221

10. Blom K. 1973. Armauer Hansen and human leprosy transmission- Medical ethics and human rights. Int J Lep 41 (2) p 199-207

11. Lanska D J. 2015. Armauer Hansen- the controversy. World Neurology Newsletter. Aug 2015, p 8.


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

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

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

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Leprosy Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leprosymailinglist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leprosymailinglist/4195392b-828e-4081-809b-b9b24576dbc8%40googlegroups.com.

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

FW: (LML) Three drugs are unnecessary for treating paucibacillary leprosy—A critique of the WHO guidelines

 

Leprosy Mailing List – November 12,  2019

Ref.:  (LML)   Three drugs are unnecessary for treating paucibacillary leprosy—A critique of the WHO guidelines

From:  Diana Lockwood, London, UK


Dear Pieter

 

"Three drugs are unnecessary for treating paucibacillary leprosy—A critique of the WHO guidelines" PLoS NTD

 

We posted a critique on the LML on December 23rd 2018 regarding the 2018 WHO guidelines suggesting that patients with paucibacillary (PB) leprosy should be treated with 3 drugs (rifampicin, dapsone and clofazimine) for six months rather than 2 (rifampicin and dapsone). We have now published these assessments as a commentary in PLoS NTD October 31st 2019.

 

We are sharing the link to this publication with LML readers. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 13(10): e0007671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007671

 

http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007671

 

Our key points are that the reasoning underpinning this important change is based on insufficient evidence from a small number of patients in studies with significant design limitations.

 

Clofazimine causes significant adverse effects especially pigmentation. This is likely to increase stigma associated with leprosy. It will probably also worsen patient adherence with the new PB MDT regimen.

 

We urge everyone associated with leprosy medication, including national programme managers and NGOs working with leprosy treatments to read this evidence before switching to the 3 drug treatment regimen for PB cases.

 

 

Diana N. J. LockwoodID1*, Saba Lambert1, Aparna Srikantam2, Joydeepa Darlong3, V. V. Pai4, C. Ruth Butlin5, Barbara de BarrosID1, Edessa Negera1, Stephen L. WalkerID1

1 London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Infectious Diseases, London, United Kingdom, 2 LEPRA-Blue Peter Public Health and Research Center, Hyderabad, India, 3 The Leprosy Mission Trust, New Delhi, India, 4 Bombay Leprosy Project, Mumbai, India, 5 The Leprosy Mission England and Wales, United Kingdom


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

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

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

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Leprosy Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leprosymailinglist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leprosymailinglist/512dcdd4-42db-4848-917b-d30cde15cb68%40googlegroups.com.

Saturday, November 9, 2019

FW: (LML) “WHO Goodwill Ambassador's Newsletter for the Elimination of Leprosy" (No. 97)

 

 

Leprosy Mailing List – November 9,  2019


Ref.:  (LML)   "WHO Goodwill Ambassador's Newsletter for the Elimination of Leprosy" (No. 97)

From:  Takahiro Nanri, Tokyo, Japan


Dear Dr. Schreuder and Friends,  

 

Warm greetings from Sasakawa Health Foundation in Tokyo. 

 

We have uploaded the latest issue of the "WHO Goodwill Ambassador's Newsletter for the Elimination of Leprosy" (No. 97) to our website

In this issue, we feature: 

Message: Reflections from Manila
Global Forum: Coming together in Manila/ A call for action/ Building for a sustainable future
Viewpoint: Knowledge is key
Report: 20th International/ Leprosy Congress
Spotlight: Peace-building in Sri Lanka
Ambassador's Journal: Philippines, Comoros
News: Leprosy toolkit
From the Editor: Breaking transmission
  

We hope you enjoy our latest issue and welcome your comments and contributions to the newsletter. 

 

BACK ISSUES

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

 

   

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

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Leprosy Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leprosymailinglist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leprosymailinglist/a8b1fa25-e4fb-4bfb-9bf9-264ccb5c6505%40googlegroups.com.

Friday, November 8, 2019

FW: What really happened in Shandong ?

 

Leprosy Mailing List – November 8,  2019

Ref.:  (LML)   What really happened in Shandong ?

From:  Paul Fine, London, UK


Dear Pieter,

 

Readers may have been interested to read repeated references in LML to dramatically effective leprosy control in Shandong Province of China. 


For example:

 ". Shandong demonstrated that near-zero transmission can be achieved within a surprisingly short duration…Shandong protected LL patients with prolonged anti-microbial treatment. That allowed Shandong to shut down a major source of concentrated viable bacilli. Shandong then achieved a 20% / year decline in incidence rate."  (Almeida J, LML 04/11/19)


Similar statements by the same correspondent appeared in LML on 18 September and 11 October. This prompted me to examine the cited publication (1), which is available on: http://ila.ilsl.br/pdfs/v63n2a03.pdf


My interpretation is rather different to that expressed in LML. While it is apparent that leprosy declined rapidly in Shandong province, there is little if any evidence that this was directly attributable to protection of "LL patients with prolonged antimicrobial treatment".

Consider the following: 

·        -  Leprosy was declining dramatically from 1955 (the earliest data shown – see Figure 3), thus effectively from the start of leprosy control if not before ("organised control" began in Shandong with dapsone in the 1960s, rifampicin was introduced only in 1979, and MDT in 1986  - see page 213).

·        -  The paper states that "Before the implementation of MDT, Weifang [=Shandong] already kept leprosy under control, reducing the detection rate …. since the 1960s" (p 214).

·        - The paper notes that there were no child cases detected since 1985 "due to the interruption of transmission several decades ago" (p 216)

·        - The proportion MB rose to 80 % in the 1980s, consistent with cessation (or near cessation) of transmission long before and consequent increasing predominance of long incubation period forms of the disease (Figure 5)


Several features of Shandong are consistent with this early decline of leprosy: 

 

·        -  Even in 1955 the case detection rate was only about 3.5 per 10,000. By 1980 it was less than 1 per 100,000 !  (Figure 3)

·        -  It is a semi-urban area in northern China, latitude c. 17 degrees, similar to southern Europe

·         - It had a dramatic improvement in socio-economic indicators, low infant mortality and high life expectancy (Table 1) – characteristics associated with leprosy decline in several societies. This is acknowledged in the paper ("since 1978…. Weifang has experienced rapid growth of average annual income…"  [P 217])


The simplest interpretation of these several observations is that Shandong was similar to many populations in the world which have undergone considerable socio-economic improvement and in which leprosy declined to vanishingly low levels – even before the advent of any chemotherapy. In another publication (2) the authors explicitly compared the Shandong pattern to that in Norway, where leprosy declined dramatically to zero before the advent of dapsone (3).


Pointing out that there is little evidence that leprosy's decline in Shandong was attributable to prolonged treatment of LL patients is in no way meant to question the utility of chemotherapy or of MDT – which is obviously essential for leprosy treatment and control.

But the observation does raise several issues:

·        - The Shandong experience provides yet another example of important background trends and the powerful negative association between socio-economic level and leprosy.

·        -  It is hard to show the population impact of case finding and treatment on leprosy incidence. It must have some effect – but this has proven difficult to demonstrate convincingly given

(a) the absence of appropriate comparable control populations,

(b) the long incubation periods and hence delayed effects of interventions,

(c) the fact that much transmission by clinical cases occurs before they are detected, and

(d) the fact that we still do not fully understand the natural history of leprosy, and it may be that we are missing some sources of transmission in endemic communities.

·        -  One should look critically at evidence.

 

Readers are encouraged to look at the Li et al papers and make up their minds themselves.

 

Paul Fine

 

References:

1.     1.  Li H-Y, Wang X-M, Li T, Zheng D-Y, Mao Z-M, Ran S-P, Liu F-W. Long term effect of leprosy control in two prefectures of China, 1955 – 1993. Int J Leprosy 1995; 63: 213 – 221 (http://ila.ilsl.br/pdfs/v63n2a03.pdf)

 

2.      2. Li H-Y, Pan Y-L, Yang W. Leprosy control in Shandong Province, China. 1955 – 1983; some epidemiological features. Int J Leprosy 1985; 53: 79 – 85. (http://ila.ilsl.br/pdfs/v53n1a14.pdf)

 

3.     3. Irgens L. Leprosy in Norway. Leprosy Review 1980; 51 (supplement 1): 1-130. (http://leprev.ilsl.br/pdfs/1980/v51s1/pdf/pdf_full/v51s1.pdf)


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

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

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

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Leprosy Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leprosymailinglist+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leprosymailinglist/3c01f025-e00c-4480-ac8a-c215fd81542b%40googlegroups.com.