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.

Hansen’s disease (HD) is an ancient disease, but more than 200,000 new cases were reported worldwide in 2019. Currently, there are not many satisfactory immunoassay methods for its diagnosis. We evaluated antibodies against Mce1A as a promising new serological biomarker. We collected plasma from new cases, contacts, and endemic controls in the city of Parnaíba and treated patients at Carpina, a former HD colony in Piauí state, northeastern Brazil. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the assay thresholds, specificity and sensitivity of the IgA, IgM, and IgG antibodies against α-Mce1A by indirect ELISA and compared it with IgM anti-PGL-I and molecular diagnosis by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Venn diagrams were generated to represent the overlap in the antibody positivity pattern. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess the potential predictor of antibodies for the outcome of having an HD diagnosis. IgA and IgG were positive in 92.3 and 84% of patients, respectively. IgM was negative for all treated patients. IgG had a sensitivity and specificity of 94.7 and 100%, respectively. IgM-positive individuals had a 3.6 chance of being diagnosed with HD [OR = 3.6 (95% CI = 1.1–11.6);p= 0.028], while IgA-positive individuals had a 2.3 chance [OR = 2.3 (95% CI = 1.2–4.3);p= 0.005] compared to endemic controls. We found that the Mce1A antibody profile can be an excellent diagnostic method of HD. IgA is an ideal biomarker for confirming contact with the bacillus. IgM has potential in the detection of active disease. IgG antibodies confirm the performance of these serological markers in diagnosis and therapeutic follow-up.