Observational studyPLoS neglected tropical diseases2024
Effectiveness of ongoing single dose rifampicin post-exposure prophylaxis (SDR-PEP) implementation under routine programme conditions-An observational study in Nepal.
Observational study in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leprosy elimination: are we winning the fight or losing focus?Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the Neurological Manifestations of Leprosy: Clinical Insights and Implications.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
introductionLeprosy control remains a challenge in Nepal. Single-dose rifampicin post-exposure prophylaxis (SDR-PEP) shows promise in reducing leprosy incidence among contacts of index cases, contributing to reducing the transmission of Mycobacterium (M.) leprae. This study evaluates the effectiveness of routine SDR-PEP implementation in Nepal in addition to contact screening, focusing on its impact on reducing leprosy risk among contacts and potential population-level effects. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare leprosy case notification rates and leprosy risk among close contacts. We compared two districts implementing SDR-PEP (the intervention group) and two without (the comparator group). Data from 2015 onwards included demographics, index case types, and contact relationships. Statistical analyses, including Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival curves, assessed the impact of SDR-PEP implementation.
findingsAll four districts showed a decrease in case notification rates since 2015, with the steepest decline in the intervention districts. The risk of developing leprosy among contacts was significantly lower in the intervention districts (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18-0.44). SDR-PEP offered 72% protection, consistent over time, as shown in Kaplan-Meier plots. The protective effect was equally strong in blood-related contacts (HR 0.29 versus 0.27 in others, p = 0.32), and the proportion of MB cases among incident cases was not significantly different post-PEP (51.4% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.82).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the substantial protective effect of integrating SDR-PEP in routine leprosy control programs with contact screening, significantly lowering leprosy risk among contacts. SDR-PEP is equally effective for blood-related contacts and does not preferentially prevent PB cases. While suggesting potential population-level impact, the study design does not allow for firm conclusions at this level. Further research is needed to fully assess SDR-PEP's effectiveness in diverse contexts and optimize its implementation. Integrating SDR-PEP within well-organized contact screening programs is effective and is expected to reduce leprosy transmission when applied as a rolling intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.