» Articles » PMID: 35957854

Clinical, Epidemiological, and Laboratory Prognostic Factors in Patients with Leprosy Reactions: A 10-year Retrospective Cohort Study

Abstract

Introduction: Leprosy reactions, the main cause of neural damage, can occur up to 7 years after starting multidrug therapy. We aimed to approach the prognostic factors that may influence the leprosy reactions over the follow-up time.

Methods: Retrospective cohort study, encompassing 10 years of data collection, composed of 390 patients, divided into 201 affected by reactions and 189 reaction-free individuals. Epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory variables were approached as prognostic factors associated with leprosy reactions. The association among variables was analyzed by a binomial test and survival curves were compared by the Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional-hazards regression.

Results: 51.5% (201/390) of patients were affected by leprosy reactions. These immunological events were associated with lepromatous leprosy (16.2%; 63/390; < 0.0001) and multibacillary group (43%; 169/390; < 0.0001). This study showed that survival curves for the prognostic factor anti-PGL-I, comparing positive and negative cases at diagnosis, differed in relation to the follow-up time (Log Rank: = 0.0760; Breslow: = 0.0090; Tarone-Ware: = 0.0110). The median survival times (time at which 50% of patients were affected by leprosy reactions) were 5 and 9 months for those reactional cases with negative (26/51) and positive serology (75/150), respectively. The time-dependent covariates in the cox proportional-hazards regression showed anti-PGL-I as the main prognostic factor to predict leprosy reactions (hazard ratio=1.91; = 0.0110) throughout the follow-up time.

Conclusions: Finally, these findings demonstrated that anti-PGL-I serology at diagnosis is the most important prognostic factor for leprosy reactions after starting multidrug therapy, thus enabling prediction of this immunological event.

Citing Articles

Anti‑phenolic glycolipid‑I seropositivity among household contacts of leprosy patients in Egypt.

Salah E, Khalil H, Moussa M, Shalaby R, Diab H Arch Dermatol Res. 2024; 317(1):6.

PMID: 39520505 DOI: 10.1007/s00403-024-03462-7.


Leprosy reactions: Unraveling immunological mechanisms underlying tissue damage in leprosy patients.

Serrano-Coll H, Wan E, Restrepo-Rivera L, Cardona-Castro N Pathog Dis. 2024; 82.

PMID: 38806255 PMC: 11180982. DOI: 10.1093/femspd/ftae013.

References
1.
Ambrosano L, Santos M, Machado E, Pegas E . Epidemiological profile of leprosy reactions in a referral center in Campinas (SP), Brazil, 2010-2015. An Bras Dermatol. 2018; 93(3):460-461. PMC: 6001109. DOI: 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20187260. View

2.
Raposo M, Reis M, Caminha A, Heukelbach J, Parker L, Pastor-Valero M . Grade 2 disabilities in leprosy patients from Brazil: Need for follow-up after completion of multidrug therapy. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018; 12(7):e0006645. PMC: 6062121. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006645. View

3.
Ridley M, RIDLEY D . The immunopathology of erythema nodosum leprosum: the role of extravascular complexes. Lepr Rev. 1983; 54(2):95-107. DOI: 10.5935/0305-7518.19830015. View

4.
Grosset J . Recent developments in the field of multidrug therapy and future research in chemotherapy of leprosy. Lepr Rev. 1986; 57 Suppl 3:223-34. DOI: 10.5935/0305-7518.19860113. View

5.
Cuellar-Barboza A, Cardenas-de la Garza J, Garcia-Lozano J, Vera-Pineda R, Cruz-Gomez L, Irabien-Zuniga M . Leprosy reactions in North-East Mexico: epidemiology and risk factors for chronic erythema nodosum leprosum. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020; 34(5):e228-e229. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.16197. View