Comparing the clinical and histological diagnosis of leprosy and leprosy reactions in the INFIR cohort of Indian patients with multibacillary leprosy
Diana N J Lockwood, Peter Nicholls, W Cairns S Smith, Loretta Das, Pramila Barkataki, Wim van Brakel, Sujai Suneetha, Diana N J Lockwood, Peter Nicholls, W Cairns S Smith, Loretta Das, Pramila Barkataki, Wim van Brakel, Sujai Suneetha
Abstract
Background: The ILEP Nerve Function Impairment in Reaction (INFIR) is a cohort study designed to identify predictors of reactions and nerve function impairment in leprosy. The aim was to study correlations between clinical and histological diagnosis of reactions.
Methodology/principal findings: Three hundred and three newly diagnosed patients with World Health Organization multibacillary (MB) leprosy from two centres in India were enrolled in the study. Skin biopsies taken at enrolment were assessed using a standardised proforma to collect data on the histological diagnosis of leprosy, leprosy reactions and the certainty level of the diagnosis. The pathologist diagnosed definite or probable Type 1 Reactions (T1R) in 113 of 265 biopsies from patients at risk of developing reactions whereas clinicians diagnosed skin only reactions in 39 patients and 19 with skin and nerve involvement. Patients with Borderline Tuberculoid (BT) leprosy had a clinical diagnosis rate of reactions of 43% and a histological diagnosis rate of 61%; for patients with Borderline Lepromatous (BL) leprosy the clinical and histological diagnosis rates were 53.7% and 46.2% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnosis for T1R was 53.1% and 61.9% for BT patients and 61.1% and 71.0% for BL patients. Erythema Nodosum Leprosum (ENL) was diagnosed clinically in two patients but histologically in 13 patients. The Ridley-Jopling classification of patients (n = 303) was 42.8% BT, 27.4% BL, 9.4% Lepromatous Leprosy (LL), 13.0% Indeterminate and 7.4% with non-specific inflammation. This data shows that MB classification is very heterogeneous and encompasses patients with no detectable bacteria and high immunological activity through to patients with high bacterial loads.
Conclusions/significance: Leprosy reactions may be under-diagnosed by clinicians and increasing biopsy rates would help in the diagnosis of reactions. Future studies should look at sub-clinical T1R and ENL and whether they have impact on clinical outcomes.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
References
- Van Brakel WH, Nicholls PG, Das L, Barkataki P, Maddali P, et al. The INFIR Cohort Study: assessment of sensory and motor neuropathy in leprosy at baseline. Lepr Rev. 2005;76(4):277–295.
- Jadhav R, Suneetha L, Kamble R, Shinde V, Devi K, et al. Analysis of antibody and cytokine markers for leprosy nerve damage and reactions in the INFIR cohort in India. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(3):e977.
- Lockwood DNJ, Suneetha L, Sagili KD, Chaduvula MV, Mohammed I, et al. Cytokine and protein markers of leprosy reactions in skin and nerves: baseline results for the North Indian INFIR cohort. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(12):e1327.
- Ridley DS, Jopling WH. Classification of leprosy according to immunity. A five-group system. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1966;34(3):255–273.
- World Health Organization. WHO Expert Committee on Leprosy. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1998;874:1–43.
- Moorthy BN, Kumar P, Chatura KR, Chandrasekhar HR, Basavaraja PK. Histopathological correlation of skin biopsies in leprosy. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2001;67(6):299–301.
- Pardillo FE, Fajardo TT, Abalos RM, Scollard D, Gelber RH. Methods for the classification of leprosy for treatment purposes. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(8):1096–1099.
- Ridley DS, Radia KB. The histological course of reactions in borderline leprosy and their outcome. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1981;49(4):383–392.
- Ridley DS. Pathogenesis of Leprosy and Related Diseases. London: Wright; 1988.
- Lockwood DN, Lucas SB, Desikan KV, Ebenezer G, Suneetha S, et al. The histological diagnosis of leprosy type 1 reactions: identification of key variables and an analysis of the process of histological diagnosis. J Clin Pathol. 2008;61(5):595–600.
- Pocaterra L, Jain S, Reddy R, Muzaffarullah S, Torres O, et al. Clinical course of erythema nodosum leprosum: an 11-year cohort study in Hyderabad, India. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006;74(5):868–879.
- Walker SL, Waters MF, Lockwood DN. The role of thalidomide in the management of erythema nodosum leprosum. Lepr Rev. 2007;78(3):197–215.
- Van Veen NH, Lockwood DN, van Brakel WH, Ramirez J, Richardus JH. Interventions for erythema nodosum leprosum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD006949.
- Hussain R, Lucas SB, Kifayet A, Jamil S, Raynes J, et al. Clinical and histological discrepancies in diagnosis of ENL reactions classified by assessment of acute phase proteins SAA and CRP. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1995;63(2):222–230.
- van Brakel WH, Nicholls PG, Das L, Barkataki P, Suneetha SK, et al. The INFIR Cohort Study: investigating prediction, detection and pathogenesis of neuropathy and reactions in leprosy. Methods and baseline results of a cohort of multibacillary leprosy patients in north India. Lepr Rev. 2005;76(1):14–34.
- Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: CIOMS; 1993.
- McDougall AC, Ponnighaus JM, Fine PE. Histopathological examination of skin biopsies from an epidemiological study of leprosy in northern Malawi. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1987;55(1):88–98.
- Shetty VP, Thakar UH, D'Souza E, Ghate SD, Arora S, et al. Detection of previously undetected leprosy cases in a defined rural and urban area of Maharashtra, Western India. Lepr Rev. 2009;80(1):22–33.
- Groenen G, Saha NG, Rashid MA, Hamid MA, Pattyn SR. Classification of leprosy cases under field conditions in Bangladesh. I. Usefulness of skin-smear examinations. Lepr Rev. 1995;66(2):126–133.
Source: PubMed