Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38378497›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024

The PEP++ study protocol: a cluster-randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of an enhanced regimen of post-exposure prophylaxis for close contacts of persons affected by leprosy to prevent disease transmission.

Duane C Hinders, Anneke T Taal, Suchitra Lisam, Aymée M da Rocha, Nand Lal Banstola, Prativa Bhandari, Abhijit Saha, Jugal Kishore, Virginia O Fernandes, Abu Sufian Chowdhury and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Leprosy.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Duane C HindersNLR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. D.Hinders@nlrinternational.org.
Anneke T TaalNLR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Suchitra LisamNLR India, Delhi, India.
Aymée M da RochaNHR Brasil, Fortaleza, Brazil.
Nand Lal BanstolaNLR Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Prativa BhandariNLR Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Abhijit SahaTLMI Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Jugal KishoreVardhman Mahavir Medical College/Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, India.
Virginia O FernandesFederal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil.
Abu Sufian ChowdhuryTLMI Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Anna T van 't NoordendeNLR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Liesbeth MierasNLR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan Hendrik RichardusErasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Wim H van BrakelNLR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Netherlands Leprosy Relief · NLNLR Nepal · NPErasmus MC · NLNLR India · INUniversidade Federal do Ceará · BRVardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLeprosy is an infectious disease with a slow decline in global annual caseload in the past two decades. Active case finding and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with a single dose of rifampicin (SDR) are recommended by the World Health Organization as measures for leprosy elimination. However, more potent PEP regimens are needed to increase the effect in groups highest at risk (i.e., household members and blood relatives, especially of multibacillary patients). The PEP++ trial will assess the effectiveness of an enhanced preventive regimen against leprosy in high-endemic districts in India, Brazil, Bangladesh, and Nepal compared with SDR-PEP.

methodsThe PEP++ study is a cluster-randomised controlled trial in selected districts of India, Brazil, Bangladesh, and Nepal. Sub-districts will be allocated randomly to the intervention and control arms. Leprosy patients detected from 2015 - 22 living in the districts will be approached to list their close contacts for enrolment in the study. All consenting participants will be screened for signs and symptoms of leprosy and tuberculosis (TB). In the intervention arm, eligible contacts receive the enhanced PEP++ regimen with three doses of rifampicin (150 - 600 mg) and clarithromycin (150 - 500 mg) administered at four-weekly intervals, whereas those in the control arm receive SDR-PEP. Follow-up screening for leprosy will be done for each individual two years after the final dose is administered. Cox' proportion hazards analysis and Poisson regression will be used to compare the incidence rate ratios between the intervention and control areas as the primary study outcome. DISCUSSION: Past studies have shown that the level of SDR-PEP effectiveness is not uniform across contexts or in relation to leprosy patients. To address this, a number of recent trials are seeking to strengthen PEP regimens either through the use of new medications or by increasing the dosage of the existing ones. However, few studies focus on the impact of multiple doses of chemoprophylaxis using a combination of antibiotics. The PEP++ trial will investigate effectiveness of both an enhanced regimen and use geospatial analysis for PEP administration in the study communities.

trial registrationNL7022 on the Dutch Trial Register on April 12, 2018. Protocol version 9.0 updated on 18 August 2022 https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/23060.

Indexed as

LeprosyRifampinAnti-Bacterial AgentsClarithromycinHumansPost-Exposure ProphylaxisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsClarithromycinRifampinBlanket campaignsClarithromycinHigh-endemic areasLeprosyPost-exposure prophylaxisRifampicin

Identifiers

PMID38378497
PMCPMC10877766
OpenAlexW4391980784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.