Background This study evaluates an active search strategy for leprosy diagnosis based on responses to a Leprosy Suspicion Questionnaire (LSQ), and analyzing the clinical, immunoepidemiological and follow-up aspects for individuals living in a prison population. Methods A cross-sectional study based on a questionnaire posing 14 questions about leprosy symptoms and signs that was distributed to 1,400 prisoners. This was followed by dermatoneurological examination, anti-PGL-I serology and RLEP-PCR. Those without leprosy were placed in the Non-leprosy Group (NLG, n = 1,216) and those diagnosed with clinical symptoms of leprosy were placed in the Leprosy Group (LG, n = 34). Findings In total, 896 LSQ were returned (64%), and 187 (20.9%) of the responses were deemed as positive for signs/symptoms, answering 2.7 questions on average. Clinically, 1,250 (89.3%) of the prisoners were evaluated resulting in the diagnosis of 34 new cases (LG), based on well-accepted clinical signs and symptoms, a new case detection rate of 2.7% within this population, while the NLG were comprised of 1,216 individuals. The confinement time medians were 39 months in the LG while it was 36 months in the NLG (p>0.05). The 31 leprosy cases who responded to the questionnaire (LSQ+) had an average of 1.5 responses. The symptoms “anesthetized skin area” and “pain in nerves” were most commonly mentioned in the LG while “tingling, numbness in the hands/feet”, “sensation of pricks and needles”, “pain in nerves” and “spots on the skin” responses were found in more than 30% of questionnaires in the NLG. Clinically, 88.2% had dysesthetic macular skin lesions and 97.1% presented some peripheral nerve impairment, 71.9% with some degree of disability. All cases were multibacillary, confirming a late diagnosis. Anti-PGL-I results in the LG were higher than in the NLG (p<0.0001), while the RLEP-PCR was positive in 11.8% of the patients. Interpretation Our findings within the penitentiary demonstrated a hidden prevalence of leprosy, although the individuals diagnosed were likely infected while living in their former communities and not as a result of exposure in the prison. The LSQ proved to be an important screening tool to help identify leprosy cases in prisons.

Background This study evaluates implementation strategies for leprosy diagnosis based on responses to a Leprosy Suspicion Questionnaire (LSQ), and analyzes immunoepidemiological aspects and follow-up of individuals living in a presumptively nonendemic area in Brazil. Methodology/Principal findings Quasi-experimental study based on LSQ throughout Jardinópolis town by community health agents, theoretical-practical trainings for primary care teams, dermatoneurological examination, anti-PGL-I serology, RLEP-PCR, and spatial epidemiology. A Leprosy Group (LG, n = 64) and Non-Leprosy Group (NLG, n = 415) were established. Overall, 3,241 LSQs were distributed; 1,054 (32.5%) LSQ were positive for signs/symptoms (LSQ+). Among LSQ+ respondents, Q2-Tingling (pricking)? (11.8%); Q4-Spots on the skin? (11.7%); Q7-Pain in the nerves? (11.6%); Q1-Numbness in your hands and/or feet? (10.7%) and Q8-Swelling of hands and feet? (8.5%) were most frequently reported symptoms. We evaluated 479 (14.8%) individuals and diagnosed 64 new cases, a general new case detection rate (NCDR) of 13.4%; 60 were among 300 LSQ+ (NCDR-20%), while 4 were among 179 LSQ negative (NCDR-2.23%). In LG, Q7(65%), Q2(60%), Q1(45%), Q4(40%) and Q8(25%) were most frequent. All 2x2 crossings of these 5 questions showed a relative risk for leprosy ranging from 3 to 5.8 compared with NLG. All patients were multibacillary and presented hypochromatic macules with loss of sensation. LG anti-PGL-I titers were higher than NLG, while 8.9% were positive for RLEP-PCR. The leprosy cases and anti-PGL-I spatial mappings demonstrated the disease spread across the town. Conclusions/Significance Implementation actions, primarily LSQ administration focused on neurological symptoms, indicate hidden endemic leprosy in a nonendemic Brazilian state.

No abstract