medigraphic.com
Órgano oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Cirugía Dermatológica y Oncológica, AC

2022, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Dermatología Cosmética, Médica y Quirúrgica 2022; 20 (3)

Clinical and epidemiological profile of Hansen’s disease and geolocation in rural area of Nuevo Leon, Mexico

Méndez PÉ, Cruz CMD, González MVZ, Salas AJC, Arenas R

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 293-298
PDF size: 457.52 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: leprosy is an endemic disease in Mexico. Nuevo Leon is a state that continues to report new cases.
Objective: describe the clinical and epidemiological profile of Hansen’s disease and its geolocation in rural area of Nuevo Leon.
Material and methods: observational, descriptive study of Hansen’s diagnostic dossiers during the period 2008-2018. We analyzed clinical information, epidemiology and patient geolocation in order to detect patient cluster by area.
Results: 42 clinical records, 24 women and 18 men were analyzed, the average age was 55.48 ± 15.48. The municipalities with the highest number of leprosy cases were Linares (42.5%) and Montemorelos (40.5%). 22 (52.4%) lived in marginalized areas and 20 (47.6%) in rural areas. Diagnoses were lepromatous leprosy (54.8%), tuberculoid (16.7%), dimorphic (16.7%) and indeterminate (11.9%). Multibacillary cases predominated (71.4%). 53.4% had an antecedent case. Detections were by consultation (73.8%) and contact examination (26.2%).
Conclusion: Hansen’s disease predominates in areas of low socioeconomic status. We document it in marginalized and rural urban areas. There is a predominance of multibacillary cases, and detection is primarily by dermatological consultation. Examination of home contacts will facilitate timely detection and reduce the probability of intra-domiciliary transmission.


REFERENCES

  1. Gomes MW, Silva Carvalho S, Rodrigues L, Brito ML y França AL, Epidemiologicalprofile of leprosy in the Brazilian state of Piauí between 2003 and 2008, An Bras Dermatol 2012; 87(3):389-95.

  2. De las Aguas JT, Consideraciones histórico epidemiológicas de la lepraen América, Med Cutan Ibero Lat Am 2006; 34(4):179-94.

  3. Secretaría de Salud, Eliminación de la lepra, programa de acción específico2013-2018, México, Secretaría de Salud, 2014.

  4. Rodríguez O, La lucha contra la lepra en México, Rev Fac Med unam2003; 46(3):109-13.

  5. Eduardo EV, Tolstenko L, Alves da Silva H, Napoleão LA y Mauriz CH,Epidemiologic profile of the leprosy of the city of Teresina, in theperiod of 2001-2008, An Bras Dermatol 2011; 86(2):235-40.

  6. Fitness J, Tosh K y Hill AV, Genetics of susceptibility to leprosy, Genesand Immnunity 2002; 3:441-53.

  7. Fine PE, Leprosy: the epidemiology of a slow bacterium, Epidemiol Rev1982; 4:161-88.

  8. Sociedad Nuevoleonesa de Acción Contra la Lepra, Casos de lepraen Nuevo León, 2017. Disponible en: http://www.sonalep.org/casos.html. Fecha de consulta: 3 de septiembre de 2020.

  9. Cury MR, Paschoal V, Tonelli SM, Chierotti AP, Rodrigues AL y ChiaravallotiF, Spatial analysis of leprosy incidence and associated socioeconomicfactors, Rev Saúde Pública 2012; 46(1):110-8.

  10. Dias MC, Nobre ML y Dias GH, Spatial distribuition of hansen diseasein the municipality of Mossoró/RN, using the Geographic InformationSystem (gis), An Bras Dermatol 2005; 80:s289-94.

  11. Silva ME, De Souza CD, Costa e Silva SP, Costa FM y Carmo RF, Epidemiologicalaspects of leprosy in Juazeiro, BA, from 2002 to 2012, AnBras Dermatol 2015; 90(6):799-805.

  12. Queirós MI, Ramos Jr. AN, Alencar CHM, Monteiro LD, Sena AL yBarbosa JC, Clinical and epidemiological profile of leprosy patientsattended at Ceará, 2007-2011, An Bras Dermatol 2016; 91(3):311-7.

  13. Alencar MJF, Barbosa JC, Pereira TM, Santos SO, Eggens KH y HeukelbachJ, Leprosy reactions after release from multidrug therapy inan endemic cluster in Brazil: patient awareness of symptoms and selfperceivedchanges in life, Cad Saúde Colet 2013; 21:450-6.

  14. Barbosa JC, Ramos Jr AN, Alencar MJF y Castro GJ, Pós-alta emhanseníase no Ceará: limitação da atividade funcional, consciência derisco e participação social, Rev Bras Enferm 2008; 61:727-33.

  15. Eichelmann K, González González SE, Salas-Alanís JC y Ocampo-Candiani J, Leprosy. An update: definition, pathogenesis, classification,diagnosis, and treatment, Actas Dermosifiliogr 2013; 104(7):554-63.

  16. Lastória JC y Abreu MA, Leprosy: review of the epidemiological,clinical, and etiopathogenic aspects, part 1, An Bras Dermatol 2014;89(2):205-18.

  17. Nery JAC, Sales AM, Illarramendi X, Duppre NC, Jardim MR y MachadoAM, Contribution to diagnosis and management of reactionalstates: a practical approach, An Bras Dermatol 2006; 81(4):367-75.

  18. Wangara F, Kipruto H, Ngesa O, Kayima J, Masini E, Sitienei J et al.,The spatial epidemiology of leprosy in Kenya: a retrospective study,plos Negl Trop Dis 2019; 13(4):e0007329. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007329.

  19. Andrea K, Boggild JD, Corriea JS y Keystone KC, Leprosy in Toronto:an analysis of 184 imported cases, Can Med Assoc J 2004; 1:170.

  20. Rodríguez M, Castillo S. Reporte de 9 casos nuevos de lepra estudiadosen el Centro Dermatológico Pascua en el año 2001. Rev CentDermatol Pascua 2003; 12(1): 15-22.

  21. Atoche C, Torres E, Vargas F y Arenas R, Lepra en Yucatán, estudioclínico retrospectivo de 63 años (1950-2013), Salud Publ Méx 2015;57(3):191-192.

  22. who Expert Committee on Leprosy, 7th report, no. 874 of TechnicalReport series, Ginebra




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com