Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 11201874

Prophylaxis--scope and limitations.

Abstract

Attempts to prevent leprosy by one or another prophylactic method began with the use of dapsone as a chemoprophylaxis. Following early, small-scale studies, which were promising, large-scale studies with dapsone and acedapsone, both among contacts and in the general population, demonstrated that it is possible to prevent the occurrence of leprosy to a modest extent. With regard to immunoprophylaxis, BCG had long been considered a possibility, particularly in view of its potential to convert the skin test reaction to lepromin. Over the years, major, large-scale field trials of BCG had been carried out in Uganda, Burma, Papua New Guinea and India. All of the studies demonstrated that BCG was capable of preventing leprosy. However, protective efficacy varied from around 20% to greater than 80%. Killed Mycobacterium leprae mixed with BCG has also given varying results. Other vaccines based on cultivable mycobacteria have also been tried, and at least one of them appears promising. An approach to prophylaxis must take into account (a) the level of risk addressed and the perception of risk by the community; (b) the level of efficacy of the method of prophylaxis; (c) the possibility of easily identifying high-risk groups; (d) the operational feasibility; and (e) the focus of the prophylaxis, whether the individual or the community, or both. However, in view of the enormous progress being made towards elimination of leprosy by the widespread application of MDT, prophylaxis is becoming less and less relevant and less and less cost-effective, except in very special situations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S K Noordeen. 2000. Prophylaxis--scope and limitations.. https://doi.org/10.5935/0305-7518.20000060

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Risk of bacterial meningitis in children with cochlear implants.

BACKGROUND: In June 2002, the Food and Drug Administration received reports of bacterial meningitis in patients with cochlear implants for treatment of hearing loss. Implants that included a positioner (a wedge inserted next to the implanted electrode to facilitate transmission of the electrical signal by pushing the electrode against the medial wall of the cochlea) were voluntarily recalled in the United States in July 2002. METHODS: We identified patients with meningitis and conducted a cohort study and a nested case-control investigation involving 4264 children who had received cochlear implants in the United States between January 1, 1997, and August 6, 2002, and who were less than six years of age when they received the implants. We calculated the incidence of meningitis in the cohort and assessed risk factors for meningitis among patients and among 199 controls, using data from interviews with parents and abstracted from medical records. RESULTS: We identified 26 children with bacterial meningitis. The incidence of meningitis caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae was 138.2 cases per 100,000 person-years--more than 30 times the incidence in a cohort of the same age in the general U.S. population. Postimplantation bacterial meningitis was strongly associated with the use of an implant with a positioner (odds ratio, 4.5 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.3 to 17.9], with adjustment for medical, surgical, and environmental factors) and with the joint presence of radiographic evidence of a malformation of the inner ear and a cerebrospinal fluid leak (adjusted odds ratio, 9.3 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 94.5]). The incidence of meningitis among patients who had received an implant with a positioner remained higher than the incidence among those whose implants did not have a positioner for the duration of follow-up (24 months from the time of implantation). CONCLUSIONS: Parents and health care providers should ensure that all children who receive cochlear implants are appropriately vaccinated and are then monitored and treated promptly for any bacterial infections after receiving the implant.

Bacterial Vaccines↗