Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38535882›Full record

ArticleTropical medicine and infectious disease2024

Single-Dose Rifampicin Leprosy Chemoprophylaxis for Household Contacts in Kiribati: An Audit of a Combined Retrospective and Prospective Approach.

Patrick O Campbell, Temea Bauro, Erei Rimon, Eretii Timeon, Caitlin Bland, Nabura Ioteba, Nicholas M Douglas, Arturo Cunanan, Stephen T Chambers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Assessment of Antimicrobial Resistance in M. leprae Strains From Kiribati.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Patrick O CampbellDepartment of Pathology and Biomedical Science, University of Otago, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-8031-9852
Temea BauroGovernment of the Republic of Kiribati Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Tarawa P.O. Box 268, Kiribati.
Erei RimonGovernment of the Republic of Kiribati Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Tarawa P.O. Box 268, Kiribati.
Eretii TimeonGovernment of the Republic of Kiribati Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Tarawa P.O. Box 268, Kiribati.
Caitlin BlandOtago Medical School, University of Otago, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand.
Nabura IotebaPasifika Medical Association, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand.
Nicholas M DouglasDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Christchurch Hospital, Te Whatu Ora Waitaha, Canterbury 8011, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-7214-4244
Arturo CunananDepartment of Health, Culion Sanatorium and General Hospital, Culion 5315, Philippines.
Stephen T ChambersDepartment of Pathology and Biomedical Science, University of Otago, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand.
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resource Development · KIChristchurch Hospital · NZUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Kiribati is a Pacific Island nation with a widely dispersed population and one of the highest rates of leprosy worldwide. Single-dose rifampicin post-exposure prophylaxis (SDR-PEP) of leprosy contacts has reduced new case detection rates in controlled trials. In 2018, an SDR-PEP programme was introduced in Kiribati that included screening and chemoprophylaxis of household contacts of leprosy cases retrospectively (2010-2017) and prospectively (2018-2022). We conducted a retrospective audit to determine the comprehensiveness, timeliness and feasibility of the SDR-PEP programme. Overall, 13,641 household contacts were identified (9791 in the retrospective and 3850 in the prospective cohort). In the retrospective cohort, 1044 (11%) contacts were absent, 403 (4%) were ineligible for SDR, and 42 new cases were detected (0.4%) Overall, SDR coverage was 84.7%. In the prospective cohort, 164 (4%) contacts were absent, 251 (7%) were ineligible for SDR, and 23 new cases were diagnosed (0.6%). Overall, SDR coverage was 88.1%. Across both cohorts, there were 23 SDR refusals. The median time to SDR administration was 220 days (IQR 162-468) and 120 days (IQR 36-283) for the retrospective and prospective cohorts, respectively. SDR was readily accepted in both cohorts. The new case detection rate (0.5%) is consistent with that in other studies. Overall SDR coverage in both the retrospective and prospective phases met programmatic expectations.

Indexed as

feasibility studieshousehold contactsleprosyMycobacterium lepraepost-exposure prophylaxissingle-dose rifampicin

Identifiers

PMID38535882
PMCPMC10976163
OpenAlexW4392358956

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.