麻风病暴露后预防疗法(PEOPLE):分组随机试验。

IF 19.9 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Lancet Global Health Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00062-7
Epco Hasker, Younoussa Assoumani, Andriamira Randrianantoandro, Stéphanie Ramboarina, Sofie Marijke Braet, Bertrand Cauchoix, Abdallah Baco, Aboubacar Mzembaba, Zahara Salim, Mohammed Amidy, Saverio Grillone, Nissad Attoumani, Sillahi Halifa Grillone, Maya Ronse, Koen Peeters Grietens, Mala Rakoto-Andrianarivelo, Hanitra Harinjatovo, Philip Supply, Rian Snijders, Carolien Hoof, Achilleas Tsoumanis, Philip Suffys, Tahinamandranto Rasamoelina, Paul Corstjens, Nimer Ortuno-Gutierrez, Annemieke Geluk, Emmanuelle Cambau, Bouke Catharina de Jong
{"title":"麻风病暴露后预防疗法(PEOPLE):分组随机试验。","authors":"Epco Hasker, Younoussa Assoumani, Andriamira Randrianantoandro, Stéphanie Ramboarina, Sofie Marijke Braet, Bertrand Cauchoix, Abdallah Baco, Aboubacar Mzembaba, Zahara Salim, Mohammed Amidy, Saverio Grillone, Nissad Attoumani, Sillahi Halifa Grillone, Maya Ronse, Koen Peeters Grietens, Mala Rakoto-Andrianarivelo, Hanitra Harinjatovo, Philip Supply, Rian Snijders, Carolien Hoof, Achilleas Tsoumanis, Philip Suffys, Tahinamandranto Rasamoelina, Paul Corstjens, Nimer Ortuno-Gutierrez, Annemieke Geluk, Emmanuelle Cambau, Bouke Catharina de Jong","doi":"10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00062-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) using single-dose rifampicin reduces progression from infection with Mycobacterium leprae to leprosy disease. We compared effectiveness of different administration modalities, using a higher (20 mg/kg) dose of rifampicin-single double-dose rifampicin (SDDR)-PEP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We did a cluster randomised study in 16 villages in Madagascar and 48 villages in Comoros. Villages were randomly assigned to four study arms and inhabitants were screened once a year for leprosy, for 4 consecutive years. All permanent residents (no age restriction) were eligible to participate and all identified patients with leprosy were treated with multidrug therapy (SDDR-PEP was provided to asymptomatic contacts aged ≥2 years). Arm 1 was the comparator arm, in which no PEP was provided. In arm 2, SDDR-PEP was provided to household contacts of patients with leprosy, whereas arm 3 extended SDDR-PEP to anyone living within 100 m. In arm 4, SDDR-PEP was offered to household contacts and to anyone living within 100 m and testing positive to anti-phenolic glycolipid-I. The main outcome was the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of leprosy between the comparator arm and each of the intervention arms. We also assessed the individual protective effect of SDDR-PEP and explored spatial associations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03662022, and is completed.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Between Jan 11, 2019, and Jan 16, 2023, we enrolled 109 436 individuals, of whom 95 762 had evaluable follow-up data. Our primary analysis showed a non-significant reduction in leprosy incidence in arm 2 (IRR 0·95), arm 3 (IRR 0·80), and arm 4 (IRR 0·58). After controlling for baseline prevalence, the reduction in arm 3 became stronger and significant (IRR 0·56, p=0·0030). At an individual level SDDR-PEP was also protective with an IRR of 0·55 (p=0·0050). Risk of leprosy was two to four times higher for those living within 75 m of an index patient at baseline.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>SDDR-PEP appears to protect against leprosy but less than anticipated. Strong spatial associations were observed within 75 m of index patients. Targeted door-to-door screening around index patients complemented by a blanket SDDR-PEP approach will probably have a substantial effect on transmission.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.</p><p><strong>Translation: </strong>For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.</p>","PeriodicalId":48783,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Global Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":19.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post-exposure prophylaxis in leprosy (PEOPLE): a cluster randomised trial.\",\"authors\":\"Epco Hasker, Younoussa Assoumani, Andriamira Randrianantoandro, Stéphanie Ramboarina, Sofie Marijke Braet, Bertrand Cauchoix, Abdallah Baco, Aboubacar Mzembaba, Zahara Salim, Mohammed Amidy, Saverio Grillone, Nissad Attoumani, Sillahi Halifa Grillone, Maya Ronse, Koen Peeters Grietens, Mala Rakoto-Andrianarivelo, Hanitra Harinjatovo, Philip Supply, Rian Snijders, Carolien Hoof, Achilleas Tsoumanis, Philip Suffys, Tahinamandranto Rasamoelina, Paul Corstjens, Nimer Ortuno-Gutierrez, Annemieke Geluk, Emmanuelle Cambau, Bouke Catharina de Jong\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00062-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) using single-dose rifampicin reduces progression from infection with Mycobacterium leprae to leprosy disease. We compared effectiveness of different administration modalities, using a higher (20 mg/kg) dose of rifampicin-single double-dose rifampicin (SDDR)-PEP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We did a cluster randomised study in 16 villages in Madagascar and 48 villages in Comoros. Villages were randomly assigned to four study arms and inhabitants were screened once a year for leprosy, for 4 consecutive years. All permanent residents (no age restriction) were eligible to participate and all identified patients with leprosy were treated with multidrug therapy (SDDR-PEP was provided to asymptomatic contacts aged ≥2 years). Arm 1 was the comparator arm, in which no PEP was provided. In arm 2, SDDR-PEP was provided to household contacts of patients with leprosy, whereas arm 3 extended SDDR-PEP to anyone living within 100 m. In arm 4, SDDR-PEP was offered to household contacts and to anyone living within 100 m and testing positive to anti-phenolic glycolipid-I. The main outcome was the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of leprosy between the comparator arm and each of the intervention arms. We also assessed the individual protective effect of SDDR-PEP and explored spatial associations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03662022, and is completed.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Between Jan 11, 2019, and Jan 16, 2023, we enrolled 109 436 individuals, of whom 95 762 had evaluable follow-up data. Our primary analysis showed a non-significant reduction in leprosy incidence in arm 2 (IRR 0·95), arm 3 (IRR 0·80), and arm 4 (IRR 0·58). After controlling for baseline prevalence, the reduction in arm 3 became stronger and significant (IRR 0·56, p=0·0030). At an individual level SDDR-PEP was also protective with an IRR of 0·55 (p=0·0050). Risk of leprosy was two to four times higher for those living within 75 m of an index patient at baseline.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>SDDR-PEP appears to protect against leprosy but less than anticipated. Strong spatial associations were observed within 75 m of index patients. Targeted door-to-door screening around index patients complemented by a blanket SDDR-PEP approach will probably have a substantial effect on transmission.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.</p><p><strong>Translation: </strong>For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48783,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Global Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":19.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00062-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00062-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:使用单剂量利福平进行暴露后预防(PEP)可降低麻风分枝杆菌感染发展为麻风病的风险。我们比较了不同给药方式的有效性,使用了更高剂量(20 毫克/千克)的利福平--单剂量双剂量利福平(SDDR)--PEP:我们在马达加斯加的 16 个村庄和科摩罗的 48 个村庄进行了分组随机研究。村庄被随机分配到四个研究组,居民每年接受一次麻风病筛查,连续进行4年。所有常住居民(无年龄限制)均有资格参与,所有被确认的麻风病人均接受多种药物治疗(年龄≥2 岁的无症状接触者接受 SDDR-PEP 治疗)。试验组 1 为对比组,不提供 PEP。在治疗组2中,SDDR-PEP提供给麻风病人的家庭接触者,而治疗组3则将SDDR-PEP扩大到生活在100米范围内的任何人。在治疗组4中,SDDR-PEP提供给家庭接触者和生活在100米范围内且抗酚糖脂-I检测呈阳性的任何人。主要结果是参照组与各干预组之间的麻风病发病率比(IRR)。我们还评估了 SDDR-PEP 的个体保护作用,并探讨了空间关联。该试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT03662022)上注册,并已完成:从 2019 年 1 月 11 日到 2023 年 1 月 16 日,我们共招募了 109 436 人,其中 95 762 人有可评估的随访数据。我们的主要分析表明,第 2 组(IRR 0-95)、第 3 组(IRR 0-80)和第 4 组(IRR 0-58)的麻风病发病率下降不显著。在对基线发病率进行控制后,第 3 组的发病率降低幅度更大且更显著(IRR 0-56,p=0-0030)。在个人层面,SDDR-PEP 也具有保护作用,IRR 为 0-55 (p=0-0050)。基线时与指数患者生活在75米范围内的人患麻风病的风险要高出2到4倍:SDDR-PEP似乎可以预防麻风病,但效果不如预期。在疫点患者周围 75 米范围内观察到了强烈的空间关联。在疫点患者周围进行有针对性的逐户筛查,并辅以全面的SDDR-PEP方法,可能会对麻风病的传播产生重大影响:资金来源:欧洲和发展中国家临床试验伙伴关系:摘要法文译文见补充材料部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Post-exposure prophylaxis in leprosy (PEOPLE): a cluster randomised trial.

Background: Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) using single-dose rifampicin reduces progression from infection with Mycobacterium leprae to leprosy disease. We compared effectiveness of different administration modalities, using a higher (20 mg/kg) dose of rifampicin-single double-dose rifampicin (SDDR)-PEP.

Methods: We did a cluster randomised study in 16 villages in Madagascar and 48 villages in Comoros. Villages were randomly assigned to four study arms and inhabitants were screened once a year for leprosy, for 4 consecutive years. All permanent residents (no age restriction) were eligible to participate and all identified patients with leprosy were treated with multidrug therapy (SDDR-PEP was provided to asymptomatic contacts aged ≥2 years). Arm 1 was the comparator arm, in which no PEP was provided. In arm 2, SDDR-PEP was provided to household contacts of patients with leprosy, whereas arm 3 extended SDDR-PEP to anyone living within 100 m. In arm 4, SDDR-PEP was offered to household contacts and to anyone living within 100 m and testing positive to anti-phenolic glycolipid-I. The main outcome was the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of leprosy between the comparator arm and each of the intervention arms. We also assessed the individual protective effect of SDDR-PEP and explored spatial associations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03662022, and is completed.

Findings: Between Jan 11, 2019, and Jan 16, 2023, we enrolled 109 436 individuals, of whom 95 762 had evaluable follow-up data. Our primary analysis showed a non-significant reduction in leprosy incidence in arm 2 (IRR 0·95), arm 3 (IRR 0·80), and arm 4 (IRR 0·58). After controlling for baseline prevalence, the reduction in arm 3 became stronger and significant (IRR 0·56, p=0·0030). At an individual level SDDR-PEP was also protective with an IRR of 0·55 (p=0·0050). Risk of leprosy was two to four times higher for those living within 75 m of an index patient at baseline.

Interpretation: SDDR-PEP appears to protect against leprosy but less than anticipated. Strong spatial associations were observed within 75 m of index patients. Targeted door-to-door screening around index patients complemented by a blanket SDDR-PEP approach will probably have a substantial effect on transmission.

Funding: European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.

Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Lancet Global Health
Lancet Global Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
44.10
自引率
1.20%
发文量
763
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Global Health is an online publication that releases monthly open access (subscription-free) issues.Each issue includes original research, commentary, and correspondence.In addition to this, the publication also provides regular blog posts. The main focus of The Lancet Global Health is on disadvantaged populations, which can include both entire economic regions and marginalized groups within prosperous nations.The publication prefers to cover topics related to reproductive, maternal, neonatal, child, and adolescent health; infectious diseases (including neglected tropical diseases); non-communicable diseases; mental health; the global health workforce; health systems; surgery; and health policy.
期刊最新文献
Improving Ebola virus disease outbreak control through targeted post-exposure prophylaxis. Mechanisms and causes of death after abdominal surgery in low-income and middle-income countries: a secondary analysis of the FALCON trial. Microbiology testing capacity and antimicrobial drug resistance in surgical-site infections: a post-hoc, prospective, secondary analysis of the FALCON randomised trial in seven low-income and middle-income countries. Strengthening surgical systems in LMICs: data-driven approaches. Correction to Lancet Glob Health 2024; 12: e1278-87.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1