Leprosy [Hansen's disease]: clinical guidelines

Applies toadults, children2025 editionA30, B92

Clinical guidelines of the Russian Ministry of Health, adults, children. 2025 edition, ICD-10 codes: A30, B92.

Receive research articles on "Leprosy [Hansen's disease]"Every morning — fresh PubMed studies on this topic and specialty: in Russian, with figures, sample size, and conclusion. Plus changes in Russian clinical guidelines.

Subscribe for 990 ₽

Brief for Practice

WhiteCoat Pro editorial summary of the guideline text, 2025 edition. Each item links to the original section — verify against it before prescribing.

Leprosy is a chronic generalized infection caused by Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis, predominantly affecting the skin, upper respiratory tract mucosa, and peripheral nerves. Practically the main thing is to recognize the combination of skin lesions with impaired superficial sensitivity and nerve thickening, confirm the diagnosis by bacterioscopy and/or histology, and administer long-term combination therapy.

Key points

Diagnostics

  1. Collect complaints: skin changes, finger numbness, cold sensation, "pins and needles", burns due to loss of sensitivity, persistent nasal congestion, foot ulcers, pain along nerves, finger contractures, decreased muscle strength and atrophy. → in text
  2. Clarify symptom duration, contact with a leprosy patient in the family, and stay in endemic regions. → in text
  3. Examine all skin in daylight, using a magnifying glass if necessary: skin color, eyebrows/eyelashes, erythema, acrocyanosis, rash, edema, trophic disorders, burn scars, paresis, deformities, foot ulcers. → in text
  4. Palpate accessible nerves: ulnar, peroneal, tibial, great auricular; assess thickening, tenderness, and neurological deficit. → in text
  5. Check superficial sensitivity: temperature with test tubes of water at 45–50 °C and 18–20 °C, tactile with monofilaments, pain with a needle from the center of the lesion to the periphery. → in text
  6. Perform laboratory confirmation: bacterioscopy of skin scrapings and nasal mucosal scrapings; PCR for M. leprae DNA in biopsy/surgical material or punctate; skin histology from active, regressing, or resolved elements. PCR: LoE B, GoR 2; bacterioscopy and histology: LoE C, GoR 5. → in text
  7. In case of neuropathy, prescribe instrumental evaluation of peripheral nerves — ultrasound, stimulation or needle ENMG, MR neurography; in case of deformities, foot ulcers, and neurotrophic complications — radiography of upper/lower extremities. LoE C. → in text

Treatment

When to refer and how to monitor

Frequently asked questions

When is a diagnosis of leprosy considered confirmed?

When there are clinical signs of the disease and laboratory confirmation: bacterioscopy and/or histological examination. In the presence of clinical presentation and superficial sensory impairment without laboratory confirmation, the diagnosis is considered probable. → in text

Which skin and neurological signs should raise suspicion first?

Suspicious findings include spots, papules, plaques, or infiltrates with sensory impairment, peripheral nerve thickening, numbness, burns due to anesthesia, foot ulcers, finger contractures, and decreased muscle strength. → in text

What tests are mandatory before and during treatment?

All patients undergo a complete blood count, blood chemistry panel, and urinalysis to assess the disease course and safety of therapy. During dapsone therapy, signs of anemia and agranulocytosis, as well as hepatotoxicity, are monitored particularly closely. → in text

How is leprosy treated in adults?

The main regimen is dapsone 100 mg daily and rifampicin 600 mg once a month. Duration depends on the type: at least 12 months for multibacillary leprosy and at least 6 months for paucibacillary leprosy. → in text

What should be done with contacts?

Contacts living with the patient or belonging to a risk group are examined for early detection of leprosy. After ruling out leprosy and tuberculosis and in the absence of contraindications, they are prescribed a single dose of rifampicin 600 mg. → in text

Status
Applied · approved by the Scientific and Practical Council of the Russian Ministry of Health
Database ID
964, edition 1 (ID 964_1)
Publication date
November 12, 2025
Age category
adults, children
ICD-10 codes
A30B92
Specialties
Dermatovenereology
Developers
All-Russian Public Organization "Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists"
Official text
Rubricator of the Russian Ministry of Health — 964_1

List of Abbreviations

BI — bacteriological index;

ENL — erythema nodosum leprosum;

ESR — erythrocyte sedimentation rate;

TTp — polar tuberculoid type of leprosy;

TTs — subpolar tuberculoid type of leprosy;

BT — borderline tuberculoid form of leprosy;

BB — borderline form of leprosy;

BL — borderline lepromatous form of leprosy;

LLs — subpolar lepromatous type of leprosy;

LLp — polar lepromatous type of leprosy;

I — indeterminate form of leprosy;

M. leprae – Mycobactrium leprae;

M. lepromatosis – Mycobacterium lepromatosis.

Terms and Definitions

Leprosy (syn.: Hansen's disease, hansenosis, hanseniasis, leprosy, Crimean disease, Phoenician disease, affliction disease, black malady, scabies leaves, Saint Lazarus disease, etc.) is a chronic generalized granulomatous infectious disease from the group of mycobacterioses, caused by Mycobacterium leprae (M. leprae) and Mycobacterium lepromatosis (M. lepromatosis), characterized by clinically diverse lesions of the skin, upper respiratory tract mucosa, peripheral nervous system, musculoskeletal system, and internal organs [1].

Remission – a period of the disease course characterized by significant amelioration or complete disappearance of symptoms, including data from laboratory and instrumental diagnostic methods.

Relapse – return of clinical manifestations of the disease, including according to laboratory and instrumental research methods.

Exacerbation (reactions, reactive phases) refers to reactive states characterized by varying degrees of increased skin manifestations, involvement of the peripheral nervous system, transformation of the disease into another classification group, or activation of an existing form of the disease (reactions of the ENL [erythema nodosum leprosum] and Lucio phenomenon type).

1. Brief information on the disease or condition

1.1 Definition of the disease or condition

Leprosy is a chronic generalized human infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis, characterized by a long incubation period, clinically diverse granulomatous lesions of the skin, upper respiratory tract mucosa, peripheral nervous system, musculoskeletal system and internal organs, and sometimes the anterior chamber of the eye [1, 2].

1.2 Etiology and pathogenesis of the disease or condition (group of diseases or conditions)

Leprosy (Hansen's disease) is a chronic infectious disease and granuloma caused by human-pathogenic Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis, primarily affecting the skin, mucous membranes, and peripheral nervous system [3–5].

The oldest paleontological finds showing evidence of this disease have a wide geographical distribution and date back to various periods—ranging from the Bronze and Iron Ages to the Modern era, demonstrating a clear example of pathogen-host coevolution [6].

In the Russian Federation, cases of the disease are rare and sporadic in nature. Endemic foci include the Lower Volga region, the North Caucasus, Siberia, and the Far East [4, 7].

Mycobacterium leprae was considered the only known etiologic agent of leprosy until PCR analysis identified another closely related species, Mycobacterium lepromatosis, in patients of Mexican descent who died from diffuse lepromatous leprosy [8]. According to current data, M. lepromatosis is localized mainly in North and Central America [9].

Both mycobacteria are closely related: they are obligate intracellular parasites, cannot be cultivated on artificial nutrient media, and cause similar pathological conditions. However, despite genome conservation, they belong to separate species due to certain differences in DNA nucleotide sequences. M. lepromatosis de novo sequencing revealed nucleotide polymorphisms, leading to the hypothesis that M. leprae and M. lepromatosis diverged from a common ancestor more than 13 million years ago [2]. Since the divergence, both species have gradually lost gene fragments from different regions of the genome, and furthermore, according to P. Singh et al. (2015), M. leprae has a more recent origin [10]. Through phylogenetic analysis, the authors established that M. lepromatosis has lost several enzymes required for amino acid synthesis, whereas M. leprae exhibits defects in heme synthesis regulation. Like M. leprae, M. lepromatosis also possesses neuropathogenic properties, which consist of the ability to infect Schwann cells of the peripheral nervous system [10].

A distinctive feature of M. leprae is that approximately 2% of its genome consists of specific repetitive sequences from four families: RLEP (39 copies), REPLEP (15 copies), LEPREP (8 copies), and LEPRPT (5 copies). This feature allows them to be used as genetic targets in diagnostic studies [11].

Genome-wide analysis of the pathogen has revealed numerous pseudogenes that determine the metabolic strategy of M. leprae for survival in the host organism during the long incubation period [12].

The issues of leprosy pathogenesis remain largely unclear. Despite the low contagiousness of the disease, there is strong evidence of an increased risk for people living in close contact with patients due to "infectious aerosols" generated by coughing and sneezing, as a large number of mycobacteria are found in nasal mucus and the secretions of the pharynx and larynx. Transmission of leprosy can also occur via fomites and damaged skin [13, 14].

The pathogenesis of leprosy is closely related to the state of the host immune system, involving mechanisms of both innate and adaptive immunity. Host susceptibility to infection is determined by a genetically predisposed susceptibility to pathogen invasion into human tissues, congenital defects in the macrophage link, and host T-lymphocytes [4, 15, 16].

Macrophages are among the most common cells interacting with mycobacteria. Phagocytosis of M. leprae by monocyte-derived macrophages can be mediated by complement receptors CR1 (CD35), CR3 (CD11b / CD18), and CR4 (CD11c / CD18) and is regulated by protein kinase [17].

Leprosy mycobacteria invade vascular endothelial cells and settle in Schwann cells of cutaneous nerves. This tropism is explained by the similarity of antigens between M. leprae and peripheral nerve tissue, where a prolonged period of adaptation and replication takes place [2, 18].

M. leprae-induced demyelination results from direct bacterial binding to the neuregulin receptor, activation of ErbB2 and Erk1/2, and subsequent signaling and MAP kinase proliferation [17].

Along with a decrease in the immunological resistance of the body against M. leprae, an increase in leprosy incidence may also be promoted by possible changes in the biological properties of the pathogen itself, including the emergence of drug-resistant strains or strains with increased virulence and pathogenicity.

It is believed that HIV coinfection may worsen the pathogenesis of leprosy lesions or lead to increased susceptibility, as observed with tuberculosis. However, to date, it has not been reported that HIV infection increases susceptibility to leprosy, affects the immune response to M. leprae, or significantly impacts the pathogenesis of nerve or skin lesions.

Currently, the variability of candidate leprosy-susceptibility genes involved in the host immune response to the infectious agent is of great interest to researchers. Genome-wide association studies have identified 4 chromosomal regions linked to leprosy: 6p21, 17q22, 20p13, and 10p13 [21, 22].

For a long time, leprosy was considered an exclusively anthroponotic disease. A prerequisite for the development of the disease was prolonged contact with an infected person. J. Pedley (1967) proposed a hypothesis regarding the alimentary route of leprosy transmission, as the pathogen is detected in breast milk [23]. The possibility of sexual transmission of leprosy was also considered, since mycobacteria were found in the testes of patients with the lepromatous form of the disease [24]. Nevertheless, modern scientific data largely point to the airborne droplet route of pathogen transmission [25, 26].

However, in a review by T. Ploemacher et al. (2020) on environmental pathogen dissemination, the authors emphasize that human-to-human transmission is not the only way to contract leprosy [14].

Blood-sucking insects and flies have been considered potential vectors of leprosy because mycobacteria have repeatedly been found in their bodies. However, experimental data confirming this hypothesis have not yet been presented [27].

There are reports of red squirrels being infected with M. lepromatosis or M. leprae in England and Scotland [14, 28, 29, 30].

According to R. Sharma et al. (2020), nine-banded armadillos are highly susceptible to leprosy, and approximately 16% of wild armadillos in the southern United States are affected by M. leprae. Given the similarity between M. leprae and M. lepromatosis, it is quite likely that armadillos can also be infected with M. lepromatosis [8]. Furthermore, in most human cases, the pathogen shares the same genotypes as those found in infected armadillos in the region [9].

Other studies indicate the presence of the pathogen in various natural habitats within leprosy-endemic regions. M. Tio-Coma et al. (2019) identified M. leprae DNA in soil samples collected in Bangladesh, Suriname, and the British Isles using PCR and Sanger sequencing [31].

Studies by P. Mohanty et al. (2016) revealed similarities in the genotypes of leprosy mycobacterium strains found in skin scrapings of patients at a leprosarium in Ghatampur (India) and in soil samples collected on the leprosarium grounds. The authors suggest that these findings are promising for understanding and further studying the transmission routes of the pathogen [32].

1.3 Epidemiology of the Disease or Condition

Thanks to advances in modern medicine, there is a steady global decrease in the number of newly registered leprosy cases.

According to WHO data, the number of new cases decreased from 763,000 in 2001 to 249,000 in 2008 [34, 35]. In 2013, 215,656 new cases of leprosy were registered, in 2014 – 213,899, in 2015 – 215,973, and in 2017 – 193,118 [33–35].

In 2018, a total of 208,641 new cases of leprosy were registered worldwide (an incidence rate of 2.74 per 100,000 population), of which 20,500 were in Africa (1.93 per 100,000 population), 30,957 in the Americas (3.08 per 100,000 population), 50 in Europe (0.01 per 100,000 population), and 148,495 in Southeast Asia (7.49 per 100,000 population) [33].

The highest incidence rate per 100,000 population in 2018 was recorded in Somalia at 17.3, followed by Brazil at 13.6, Nepal at 10.2, India at 8.8, Mozambique at 8.2, Sri Lanka at 6.9, Indonesia at 6.3, Congo at 3.9, Ethiopia at 2.9, and Bangladesh at 2.0. By comparison, in China, with a population of 1.5 billion, 521 new cases of leprosy were registered in 2018 (0.03 per 100,000 population). Global statistics show that 95.6% of new leprosy cases were detected in 23 countries worldwide [33].

Migration flows play a significant role in the spread of leprosy in modern conditions. For example, out of 168 leprosy cases registered in Spain in 2013, 40 (24.6%) were detected among native Spaniards, while 128 (76.2%) were among migrants living in the country, mainly from Brazil, Paraguay, and Bolivia [36]. In Denmark, between 1980 and 2010, 15 leprosy patients were identified, 13 of whom were migrants from South and Southeast Asia [37]. In Italy, between 1990 and 2009, the number of new leprosy cases among the native population was 12, whereas among migrants it was 159 [38].

According to WHO data, 50 new cases of leprosy were registered across Europe in 2018, which accounted for 0.01 per 100,000 population. France registered 9 new cases of leprosy (0.01 per 100,000 population), Portugal 5 (0.04 per 100,000 population), Spain 7 (0.01 per 100,000 population), Sweden 11 (0.11 per 100,000 population), the United Kingdom 7 (0.10 per 100,000 population), Italy 5 (0.008 per 100,000 population), and Russia 3 (0.002 per 100,000 population) [33]. As can be seen from the data presented, the leaders in absolute numbers and per 100,000 population are prosperous Sweden and the United Kingdom, with the majority of new cases detected among the non-native population.

The incidence of leprosy in Russia has long been stable and sporadic in nature. Thanks to the successes of domestic healthcare, the total number of registered leprosy patients in the Russian Federation has decreased over the past 20 years from 711 in 2000 to 143 in 2020. At the same time, an increase in the number of new cases has been noted in recent years. Thus, over the past decade (2010–2020), 15 new cases of leprosy were detected in the Russian Federation, with 13 (86.6%) of the total newly detected cases being residents of the Lower Volga region (primarily Astrakhan Oblast). The newly detected patients are predominantly elderly individuals with multibacillary leprosy, which is the most unfavorable from an epidemiological standpoint.

It should be noted that currently in the Russian Federation there are no separate accounting and reporting statistical forms for leprosy, which makes it difficult to obtain reliable data.

1.4 Features of Coding the Disease or Condition

Other bacterial diseases (A30–A49)

A30 Leprosy [Hansen's disease]: infection caused by Mycobacterium leprae

A30.0 Indeterminate leprosy (I leprosy)

A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy (TT leprosy)

A30.2 Borderline tuberculoid leprosy (BT leprosy)

A30.3 Borderline leprosy (BB leprosy)

A30.4 Borderline lepromatous leprosy (BL leprosy)

A30.5 Lepromatous leprosy (LL leprosy)

A30.8 Other forms of leprosy

A30.9 Leprosy, unspecified

Sequelae of infectious and parasitic diseases (B90–B94)

B92 Sequelae of leprosy.

The concept of "sequelae" includes conditions specified as such, as well as residual manifestations of a disease classified in the categories mentioned above, provided it is evident that the causal disease is no longer present.

1.5 Classification of the disease or condition

There are three classifications of leprosy: the Madrid Classification adopted in 1953, its subsequent modification proposed by D.S. Ridley and W. Jopling and recommended for use since 1973, and the classification proposed by the WHO in 1993 [1, 39].

According to the Madrid Classification, two polar types of leprosy are distinguished—tuberculoid and lepromatous—and two intermediate types: indeterminate and borderline (dimorphous) [39].

The modern Ridley-Jopling leprosy classification is based on dividing patients according to their state of immunological reactivity to M. leprae, which is reflected in clinical manifestations as well as histopathological, bacterioscopic, and immunobiological study data. The leprous process is viewed as a continuous spectrum of immunopathological changes between the tuberculoid and lepromatous types of leprosy, termed polar types, with the identification of three borderline forms and one indeterminate form [1, 40, 41].

The following designations for clinical forms of leprosy are adopted:

TTp — polar tuberculoid type of leprosy;

TTs — subpolar tuberculoid type of leprosy;

BT — borderline tuberculoid form of leprosy;

BB — borderline form of leprosy;

BL — borderline lepromatous form of leprosy;

LLs — subpolar lepromatous type of leprosy;

LLp — polar lepromatous type of leprosy;

I – indeterminate form of leprosy.

The use of this classification required morphological and bacterioscopic studies.

The WHO concluded that a clinical classification was necessary, without the use of bacterioscopic examinations, and proposed distinguishing the following groups:

- MB multibacillary forms of leprosy;

- PB paucibacillary forms of leprosy.

The MB group includes polar (LLp) and subpolar lepromatous (LLs), borderline-lepromatous (BL), and borderline (BB) forms of leprosy, while the paucibacillary group includes the borderline-tuberculoid (BT), subpolar tuberculoid (TTs), and polar tuberculoid (TTp) forms [42].

1.6 Clinical presentation of the disease or condition

The main signs of leprosy include:

- characteristic skin lesions;

- thickening of affected peripheral nerves (greater auricular, facial, ulnar, median, peroneal, etc.);

- impairment of superficial types of sensitivity (pain, tactile, temperature);

- presence of acid- and alcohol-fast rod-shaped bacteria in smears from skin scarifications, nasal mucosal scrapings, or biopsy specimens [42, 45].

Clinical syndromes in leprosy:

  • Intoxication syndrome

Not pronounced; fever is generally absent. Symptoms of the prodromal period may appear in leprosy, manifesting as brief low-grade fever, edema, and neuralgic pain along peripheral nerves. The onset of intoxication syndrome (elevation of body temperature, headache, arthralgia, neuralgia) combined with skin changes (increased redness in both the marginal zone and the entire lesion, development of edema, and formation of a urticarial-type lesion) is characteristic of reactive states (reactive phases, exacerbations) in the form of erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL). The development of ENL is the result of autoimmune mechanisms in the pathogenesis of the leprous process and always worsens the patient's condition [48, 49].

  • Skin lesion syndrome

Early manifestations of leprosy are characterized by skin mottling that does not disappear upon warming, and persistent cyanosis (acrocyanosis) upon cooling, especially in the plantar surfaces of the feet and palms. Initial manifestations in all types of leprosy have much in common and are characterized mainly by macular elements.

The most frequent early manifestations of the lepromatous type of leprosy are erythematous macules. They are either pale pink or red-cyanotic. The size and shape of the macules vary, and their borders are indistinct, gradually blending into the surrounding outwardly unchanged skin. Numerous small hypopigmented macules and papules with blurred edges may be present; the nerves at this stage are only slightly thickened, and involvement of the nasal mucosal lesion in the pathological process is frequently noted. Localization: buttocks, torso, extensor surfaces of the arms, thighs, lower legs, and face. In addition to erythematous macules, erythematosquamous or erythematopigmented macules occur. They most frequently appear on outwardly unchanged skin, both primarily and in the process of evolution of erythematous macules. In the process, the latter acquire the yellowish-brown color typical of lepromatous leprosy (a "rusty" shade). Subsequently, erythematous and erythematopigmented macules can turn into superficial and deep diffuse infiltrates [48, 51, 54].

The lepromatous type of leprosy, even in the early stages of its development, is characterized by symmetry of lesions. Increased sebaceous gland function in the area of macules and infiltrates makes the skin "greasy", shiny, and glossy. Enlargement of the follicles of vellus hair and the excretory ducts of sweat glands gives the skin an "orange peel" appearance [54].

With diffuse infiltration of the facial skin, natural skin folds become deeper and coarser, the superciliary arches protrude sharply, the nose is thickened, the earlobes enlarge, and the cheeks, lips, and chin acquire a lobular appearance (leonine facies – facies leonina). Infiltrates do not develop in the so-called "immune" zones (elbow and popliteal fossae, armpits, inner parts of the eyelids). Single or multiple papules and nodes (lepromas), ranging in size from 1–2 mm to 2–3 cm, appear in the areas of infiltration as early as the initial stages of the leprotic process. Lepromas are most frequently localized on the face (superciliary arches, forehead, nasal alae, chin, cheeks, earlobes), as well as on the skin of the hands, forearms, lower legs, and less commonly on the thighs, buttocks, back, and knee joints. They are sharply demarcated from the surrounding skin and painless. Lepromas can be dermal or hypodermal, depending on the depth of the infiltrate. The most common outcome of leproma development is ulceration. Eyelashes and eyebrows thin out and fall out, especially in the lateral zone [13, 54].

In tuberculoid leprosy, single and sparse elements with a unilateral arrangement are characteristic, most commonly spots, papules, and plaques with a clearly defined, elevated border resembling a "curb". This type of the disease is frequently characterized by reddish-brown papular plaques with an uneven or smooth surface and clearly defined edges ranging from 1 cm in diameter to the size of a palm. Localization includes the trunk, upper and lower extremities, buttocks, and less commonly the face. The surface of the plaques is often covered with fine scales, and vellus hair is sparse or absent [51]. As they develop, plaques may acquire figured outlines or an annular shape with a sharply demarcated, roller-like elevated border consisting of grouped papules. The central part is usually slightly hypopigmented and atrophic. Sometimes the peripheral papular rim is interrupted in places, and the eruptions appear as open rings. Papular eruptions may be preceded by erythematous spots. In addition to papular eruptions, elements resembling "sarcoidal nodes" are found on the face and extensor surface of the extremities; they are reddish-bluish with a brownish tint, 0.5–2.0 cm in diameter, and of a dense consistency.

Early atypical manifestations of tuberculoid leprosy include hypochromic, erythemo-hypochromic, and erythematous spots that are clinically almost indistinguishable from manifestations of indeterminate leprosy. Unlike lepromatous-type spots, they have clear borders, and a sensory disturbance can sometimes be determined within them. These manifestations may subsequently transform into typical tuberculoid lesions [50, 51].

Borderline leprosy is characterized by numerous plaque-like skin lesions with a slightly elevated surface, as if punched out in the center ("stamped-out") in the manner of "Swiss cheese", located symmetrically. The elements have a shiny surface and indefinite borders [51, 52].

In indeterminate leprosy, macular eruptions are also encountered. They may present as erythematous (ranging from pale pink to reddish-blue), hypopigmented, and erythemo-hypopigmented spots. The latter may have a hypopigmented central part with a narrow erythematous rim at the periphery. The borders of these spots are usually clear, but may also transition imperceptibly into the surrounding, seemingly unaffected skin. Their outlines are typically round, the surface is smooth, and localization includes the buttocks, trunk, shoulders, and thighs [13, 53].

  • Peripheral Nervous System Lesion Syndrome

is one of the early manifestations of the leprotic process and presents with thickening of nerve trunks, impairment of superficial sensory modalities, as well as motor and autonomic disorders. Most commonly and primarily affected are the ulnar nerve, followed by the peroneal, radial, tibial, median, great auricular, and facial nerves. Nervous system involvement may be limited to one or several nerves with the development of polyneuropathy.

A distinctive feature of neuritis is its bacterial (specific) ascending nature. One of the early clinical signs of leprotic neuritis is the formation of thickenings along the course of nerve trunks, which can be detected in areas accessible to palpation [13, 44].

In lepromatous leprosy, thickenings of the nerve trunks have a "spindle-like" shape, whereas in the tuberculoid type, they resemble "rosary beads". They are often painful upon compression. Symmetric involvement of peripheral nerve trunks is characteristic of lepromatous leprosy, whereas mononeuropathy more frequently develops initially in tuberculoid and indeterminate forms.

Sensory disorders manifest in a strict, regular sequence. Temperature sensitivity weakens first and then disappears, followed by pain sensitivity, and finally tactile sensitivity. All types of sensitivity may be absent on the distal parts of the extremities, only temperature and pain sensitivity at the wrist joint, and only temperature sensitivity on the forearm. The "insular" ("ramuscular") type of sensory disturbance, most characteristic of leprosy, is caused by the destruction of nerve endings in the skin and is usually detected over eruptions. Sometimes this type of sensory disturbance can spread to extensive areas of skin, including outwardly healthy-looking skin. Sensory changes may present as hypesthesia, anesthesia, or hyperesthesia (at the onset of the disease). During exacerbations of leprotic neuropathy, hyperpathia, synesthesialgia, and causalgia appear. In leprotic polyneuropathy, decreased sensitivity is observed in the distal extremities in the form of "gloves", "socks", or "stockings", extending to the elbow and popliteal fossae. In tuberculoid leprosy, hypesthesia usually appears fairly early and is detected not only within the lesion but also beyond its borders as a rim 0.5 to 2 cm wide. In lepromatous leprosy, tactile sensitivity may be weakened in areas of massive infiltration within the affected site. In indeterminate leprosy, sensory disturbances in the lesions sometimes cannot be detected [13, 55, 56].

Decreased deep sensory modalities (muscle-joint sense, vibration sense, pressure sense) are uncharacteristic of leprosy and can be detected exclusively in severe leprotic polyneuropathies.

Motor disorders join the previously developed sensory disorders and affect the muscles innervated by the corresponding nerves. The decrease in muscle strength is proportional to the degree of amyotrophy. Facial amyotrophy, although symmetric, is expressed unevenly on both sides. The face becomes mask-like, expressing no emotions. Motor function of the facial and trigeminal nerves is rarely impaired. Paresis is characteristically localized in the distal extremities (fingers, ankle joints, wrist joints). In leprotic neuritis, not all muscles innervated by a given nerve are affected to the same degree. Thus, in facial nerve neuritis, paresis of the orbicularis oculi muscle occurs first, manifested by the "eyelash sign", followed by lagophthalmos, and considerably later, paresis of the frontal muscle and the corrugator supercilii muscles develops. Isolated involvement of a single upper branch of the facial nerve is a largely pathognomonic symptom of leprosy. In ulnar nerve neuritis, the first symptom of motor impairment is limited extension of the terminal and middle phalanges of the 5th and then 4th fingers, later causing the hand to acquire a "claw hand" shape. When the median nerve is involved in the leprotic process, the patient cannot pick up an object, such as a pencil from a table; difficulty in opposition of the thumb occurs, along with atrophy of the thenar and hypothenar muscles, and the hand resembles an "ape hand". Radial nerve neuritis in leprosy is accompanied by paresis of the fingers and wrist extensors, leading to wrist drop. When the peroneal nerve is affected, foot extensor paresis occurs. Initially, patients often "trip", clumsiness in walking appears, then a "drop foot" develops with atrophy of the peroneal muscles, and the gait acquires a "steppage" character [55, 56].

A peculiarity of reflex changes is noted in leprosy. Some of the superficial reflexes (plantar, corneal, conjunctival) decrease and disappear relatively early, even in patients without clinically pronounced neuritic manifestations.

In severe cases, amyotrophies, trophic ulcers, and deforming osteoarthropathies occur, which are also characteristically localized in the distal extremities. Bowel and bladder dysfunction, trophic disorders on the sacrum, buttocks, perineum, and external genitalia do not occur in leprosy [55, 56].

In the innervation zones of the affected peripheral nerves, autonomic vasomotor disorders are observed in the form of hypo- or anhidrosis, loss of vellus hair, weakened pilomotor reflex, changes in local and reflex dermographism, impaired sebaceous gland function, dryness, flaking, and thinning of the skin, as well as transverse ridging and dullness of the nails. Initial autonomic skin disorders in leprosy are topographically identified in two variants or their combinations: in the form of localized disorders at the sites of macules, papules, and infiltrates, and in the form of diffuse disorders, most commonly in the distal extremities.

The course of leprous neuritis is divided into chronic and acute phases. The chronic course is characterized by a slow progression of neurological symptoms and the absence of pronounced pain syndrome, even with significant thickening of nerve trunks. All types of sensitivity are reduced, up to complete anesthesia. Paresis in the distal extremities and facial mimic muscles develops and slowly progresses. The slowly progressive development of neuritis can exacerbate. The acute phase of leprous neuritis sharply worsens the patient's condition and is accompanied by severe causalgic pain, significant thickening of nerve trunks, marked nerve tenderness upon palpation, and the appearance or rapid increase of sensory, motor, and trophic disorders. Sensitivity changes in the first days present as hyperesthesia, hyperpathy, and synesthesialgia, subsequently replaced by hypesthesia and anesthesia. Rapidly progressing motor disorders may precede the onset of muscle atrophy. The acute phase of leprous neuritis varies in duration, sometimes dragging on for several months [44, 47, 48, 55, 56].

Musculoskeletal system involvement syndrome is accompanied by significant osteoarticular deformations and functional impairments. The quantitative and qualitative characteristics of these changes directly depend both on specific violations of bone integrity and on peripheral nervous system involvement accompanied by neurotrophic disabling complications of the leprous process (amyotrophy, contractures, mutilation, trophic ulcers). Involvement of the bones of the distal upper and lower extremities is characteristic of all types of leprosy, with the development of complications such as pathological fractures or dislocations. Changes in the feet are more severe and diverse: destruction of the terminal and main phalanges, fractures, dislocations, and shortening of the toes, resorption of bone tissue leading to the rejection of phalanges and entire toes, and the development of specific osteomyelitis. Hand lesions manifest as diffuse osteoporosis, osteolysis, concentric atrophy, focal semicircular bone defects, thinning of the cortical layer, and beak-like tapering of the phalangeal bones. In the lepromatous type of leprosy, manifestations of an inflammatory hyperplastic nature predominate, along with focal destructions of the spongy and cortical bone layers, as well as foci of specific destruction (lepromas). It is important to note a characteristic feature of bone lesions in leprosy: the polymorphism of these changes occurring in the same patient. Most frequently, leprosy affects the muscles of the distal extremities, namely: the abductor hallucis/digiti minimi muscles of the hand, the extensor digitorum brevis of the feet, and the interosseous muscles of the hands and feet. In second place are: the flexor digitorum superficialis of the hand, the tibialis anterior and fibularis muscles of the leg, and the gastrocnemius muscles [55, 56].

Syndrome of external nose and upper respiratory tract involvement. Lepromatous changes of the nose are diverse and almost never observed in isolation. They are combined with changes in other facial areas, namely the superciliary arches, cheeks, lips, chin, auricles, eyebrows, and eyelashes. Various deformations of the external nose very often represent the consequences of leprous changes in the nasal cavity and, first and foremost, processes in the nasal septum. Changes in the external nose, as well as in the vestibule, are expressed by infiltration of the skin, the presence of lepromas, their breakdown and ulceration followed by scarring, and finally, various gross deformations of the entire external nose and its individual parts. The most frequent deformation of the external nose is the so-called flat-sunken nose. This deformation is based on the destruction or resorption of the anterior parts of the quadrilateral cartilage plate. In such cases, the nose appears flattened, spread out, wide, and thickened. The flat-sunken nose is accompanied by a depressed nasal tip in 80% of cases. The next most frequent deformation of the external nose is the so-called saddle nose. This shape is characterized by the formation of a variable-degree depression in the middle part of the nasal bridge and the destruction of the nasal septum. Specific leprous infiltrates and lepromas are localized predominantly in the cartilaginous part of the external nose. Depending on the degree of development, infiltrates and lepromas cause thickening of the alae and tip of the nose, turning them into tuberous formations, which often causes significant disfigurement of these areas of the external nose [55, 56].

The nasal cavity is affected extremely frequently in leprosy, earlier than any other segment of the upper respiratory tract, and in some cases earlier than the skin and peripheral nerves. Some patients, long before the appearance of the first overt manifestations of leprosy, experience dryness and crusting in the nose, impaired nasal breathing, and suffered from nosebleeds, which were observed especially frequently when trying to remove formed crusts from the nose. These changes should be regarded as initial signs of leprosy. Specific changes in the nasal cavity are expressed in the development of lepromas, mucosal infiltration, ulcerative processes, and, consequently, the destruction of the cartilaginous and bony framework. Along with this, there is dryness of the nasal mucosa, crusting and scarring changes, impaired nasal breathing, and sensory disorders. In leprosy, unlike other diseases, cicatricial narrowing of the nasal cavity entrance is often observed in the form of concentric tightening and a decrease in the size of the entrance openings. However, in the majority of patients suffering from the lepromatous type of leprosy, the disorder of nasal breathing does not reach a sharp degree, at least subjectively. Olfaction is rarely impaired in leprosy. This is exclusively explained by the localization of the leprous process at a significant distance from the olfactory zone of the nose [55, 56].

The spread of the specific process to the laryngeal area leads to voice and external respiration disorders due to the formation of lepromas.

Visceral involvement syndrome. The most frequent manifestations of visceral involvement are specific lesions of the liver (hepatitis), eyes (episcleritis, keratitis, keratoscleritis, iritis, corneoscleral lepromas, secondary lens lesions with cataract development), and testes (orchiepididymitis). Cases of fertility impairment and gynecomastia due to changes in neurohumoral regulation as a consequence of endocrine gland damage are not uncommon.

Lymph node involvement syndrome is characteristic mainly of the active period of multibacillary forms of leprosy and is accompanied by enlargement of the inguinal lymph nodes. Exacerbations of chronic foot osteomyelitis and the relapsing course of a chronic wound process (neurotrophic ulcers) may also be accompanied by regional lymphadenitis [55, 56].

2. Diagnostics, medical indications and contraindications for diagnostic methods

Criteria for establishing the diagnosis/condition:

Clinical manifestations of leprosy are diverse; the disease can affect various organs and tissues. The main condition for the correct diagnosis of leprosy is a comprehensive patient examination and analysis of laboratory research methods.

The diagnosis of leprosy is considered probable if there are clinical signs suspicious of leprosy and positive results of functional tests (superficial sensation disorder).

The diagnosis of leprosy is considered established if the patient has clinical signs of the disease and laboratory confirmation by microscopic examination (bacterioscopy) and/or pathomorphological examination (histology).

2.1 Complaints and Anamnesis

Complaints of skin changes, sensory disturbances in individual parts of the body, including the fingers and toes, a feeling of «numbness» in the fingertips, their cooling and/or «crawling sensations», persistent mild nasal congestion, ulcers in the foot area, joint pain and a feeling of heaviness in the limbs, contractures of the fifth, fourth, and third fingers of the upper extremities, decreased muscle strength and incipient muscle atrophy in the fingers, frequent burns resulting from decreased or complete loss of skin sensitivity. Patients often complain of a feeling of coldness, severe paroxysmal pain, especially at night, shifting from one nerve to another, and facial and extremity edema and skin dryness.

The history of present illness is typically prolonged with a gradual, slow period of increasing clinical manifestations (often over several years). The presence of nonspecific complaints, especially in the early stages of the disease, prompts patients to consult specialists in various fields (general practitioner, dermatovenerologist, neurologist, otorhinolaryngologist, surgeon, rheumatologist), who misdiagnose other conditions and prescribe ineffective therapy.

An epidemiological history is extremely important for establishing a diagnosis of leprosy. The significance of data regarding a "family" contact with a leprosy patient cannot be overstated. It should be noted that leprophobia is the reason why, in most cases, the fact of having leprosy patients among relatives is concealed not only from physicians, but also from relatives themselves, neighbors, and acquaintances. Information about visiting leprosy-endemic countries may also contribute to the early diagnosis of the disease [55, 56].

2.2 Physical Examination

An examination of the patient's entire skin is performed in daylight, using a magnifying glass if necessary. Attention is paid to changes in skin pigmentation, especially on the face, the condition of the eyebrows and eyelashes (sparse, falling out), the presence of erythema, acrocyanosis, rash, polyadenitis, edema and pastosity of the face, the backs of the hands and feet, trophic disorders (impaired sweating and sebum secretion, dryness, "ichthyosis", thickening and brittleness of the nails), burn scars on the lower legs and forearms ending in scars, nerve paresis and limb deformities (most commonly contracture of the V, IV, and III fingers of the hand), atrophy of the muscles of the hands and feet, non-healing felon, osteomyelitis, neuritis, polyneuritis with involvement of the upper branch of the facial nerve, and chronic foot ulcers.

Palpation in peripheral nervous system disorders in leprosy: the ulnar nerve is palpated in the medial ulnar sulcus with the forearm positioned at a right angle to the arm, in the cubital region, in the popliteal fossa near the head of the fibula and near the lateral malleolus (fibular nerve), in the middle of the popliteal fossa and near the medial malleolus of the lower leg (tibial nerve); the greater auricular nerve is identified visually and during maximum head rotation to the side opposite to the one being examined along its course – from the auricle downward and posteriorly, crossing the sternocleidomastoid muscle [55, 56].

Examination of the sensory and motor spheres in peripheral nervous system pathology in leprosy is assessed using functional tests:

Assessment of temperature sensitivity is performed using two test tubes filled with hot (45–50° C) and cold (18–20° C) water. Applying the hot and cold test tubes alternately to the examined skin area, the patient is asked about their sensations: "hot?" or "cold?". It is necessary to check the patient's ability to distinguish temperature differences between pathologically altered and visibly healthy skin areas.

To determine tactile sensitivity, monofilaments (surgical threads) are used, alternately touching the surface of the affected area and visibly unchanged skin. The physician asks the patient, who cannot see the skin area being examined, to count the stroke touches: "one", "two", "three", etc.

Pain sensitivity is determined using a needle or a regular medical needle. A light touch ("prick") should be alternated with the sharp and blunt ends of the needle both on the altered area and on healthy skin. The patient must also not see the area where sensitivity is being assessed and should characterize only their subjective sensation as "sharp", "sharper" (on healthy skin), "less sharp" (within the rashes), or "blunt". It is recommended to start needle touches from the center of the lesion toward the periphery, moving onto healthy skin.

To more clearly identify poorly distinguishable or even invisible elements, a test with #nicotinic acid is used, which involves the intravenous administration of 5–10 ml (depending on the body weight of the patient) of a 1% nicotinic acid solution. After 1–2 minutes, the face flushes, and simultaneously or even earlier, redness appears in the affected areas on the trunk and limbs, which have clear bright pink borders, sometimes slightly raised above the surrounding skin. After the general erythematous reaction disappears, the redness in the areas of leprosy lesions persists. This test also allows for the topographic selection of the most suitable site for further studies (taking a scarification, biopsy, etc.) [200–202].

2.3 Laboratory Diagnostics

Laboratory tests are performed to detect changes that may be caused by the course of leprosy or be a manifestation of adverse effects of drug therapy.

It is recommended that all patients with leprosy undergo a complete blood count (CBC) with differential to assess the activity of the leprosy process and to monitor the safety of ongoing therapy [57, 58, 203–209].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: patients with leprosy may develop anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia [203–205]. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is not a sensitive and/or specific diagnostic method, as it is elevated in 50% of leprosy patients, especially with the development of erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) [16]. Monitoring complete blood count parameters is necessary during #dapsone** therapy to detect laboratory signs of anemia and agranulocytosis [59, 60, 206–209].

It is recommended that all patients with leprosy undergo a general routine blood biochemistry test to diagnose impaired function of the hepatobiliary system and kidneys, as well as to detect adverse events of long-term combined systemic therapy in order to monitor its safety [61–63, 68, 203, 205].

GRC CLEL 4Grade of Recommendation C (Level of Evidence – 4)

Comments: monitoring the parameters of the general routine blood biochemistry test is necessary due to the development of protein and carbohydrate dystrophy in hepatocytes in leprosy, with impaired enzymatic processes and significant changes in Kupffer cells [64] both as a result of the disease itself and the use of combination therapy [65, 66]. This may manifest as an increase in the activity levels of alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase in the blood [61]. Anemia in patients with leprosy is accompanied by a decrease in blood iron levels [203–205]. In renal involvement in patients with leprosy, an increase in blood creatinine and urea levels may be detected [62, 63, 68]. A decrease in serum albumin and cholesterol levels is possible [205]. The general routine blood biochemistry test is performed with the determination of blood glucose levels; determination of blood albumin levels, determination of blood cholesterol levels, determination of alanine aminotransferase activity in the blood; determination of aspartate aminotransferase activity in the blood; determination of gamma-glutamyltransferase activity in the blood; determination of alkaline phosphatase activity in the blood; determination of blood iron levels, determination of blood urea levels; determination of blood creatinine levels; determination of C-reactive protein levels in blood serum. An elevation of C-reactive protein in blood serum is characteristic during the development of leprosy reactive states [16, 67]. Adverse events may develop during systemic therapy in patients, which can be detected by performing a general routine blood biochemistry test. Toxic liver damage may develop during dapsone** therapy [206–209].

It is recommended that patients with leprosy undergo a urinalysis to diagnose renal impairment and to monitor the safety of ongoing therapy [62, 63, 68, 204, 206–210].

GRC CLEL 4Grade of Recommendation C (Level of Evidence – 4)

Comments: patients with leprosy may develop renal involvement in the form of acute or chronic glomerulonephritis, interstitial nephritis, secondary amyloidosis, or pyelonephritis, which may manifest as hematuria, proteinuria, and possibly leukocyturia and cylindruria [211]. Monitoring urinalysis parameters is necessary to rule out renal involvement during the disease and to monitor the safety of antileprosy therapy [61, 68, 206–209].

It is recommended that all patients undergo microscopic (bacterioscopic) examination of skin scarifications and nasal mucosa scrapings with Ziehl-Neelsen staining to detect acid-fast bacilli (AFB) [69–71].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: staining is preferably carried out at room temperature rather than by heating. AFBs are stained bright red with carbol fuchsin and stand out distinctly against the methylene blue background. Mycobacterium leprae appear as homogenous bacilli or granular forms, singly and in typical clusters forming balls or "cigar packets". At least 100 fields of view should be examined in each smear. The number of AFBs in smears is evaluated using a 6-point grading system; the bacteriological index (BI) is calculated for each smear, and the arithmetic mean of the BIs (from 6 smears taken from different skin areas) is determined for the patient. The BI calculation is based on a logarithmic scale where 0 indicates the absence of AFBs; 1+ represents 1–10 AFBs per 100 fields; 2+ indicates 1–10 bacilli per 10 fields; 3+, 4+, 5+, and 6+ represent the identification of 1–10, 10–100, 100–1000, and > 1000 AFBs per field of view, respectively [72]. To evaluate treatment efficacy, testing for the presence of AFBs and BI calculation should be performed at 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment. In addition, to assess treatment outcomes, the morphological index—the ratio of homogenous to granular forms of M. leprae—is calculated and its proportion is indicated. Microscopy generally provides low sensitivity, especially in paucibacillary forms of leprosy, and does not allow for the differentiation of M. leprae from other Mycobacterium species [74]. It should be taken into account that non-lepramotous AFBs (such as paratuberculous, tuberculous, M. ulcerans, M. avium, M. fortuitum, etc.) morphologically indistinguishable from M. leprae may be present in the skin and nasal mucosa [75].

It is recommended that all patients undergo DNA testing for non-tuberculous mycobacteria in biopsy (surgical) material or punctate using polymerase chain reaction to identify M. leprae [89, 90, 91].

GRC BLEL 2Grade of Recommendation B (Level of Evidence – 2)

It has been demonstrated that PCR can facilitate the early diagnosis of leprosy even in the absence of confirmation by other diagnostic tests [80, 81]. The diagnosis of paucibacillary forms of the disease is always challenging, but PCR can serve as a useful tool for this purpose [77, 82, 83]. PCR can also help differentiate leprosy from other conditions presenting with hypopigmented or granulomatous lesions, such as leishmaniasis, cutaneous tuberculosis, sarcoidosis, and other mycobacterioses. Furthermore, the detection of M. leprae by PCR in leprosy patients indicates that the patient is a bacillary shedder and poses a risk to others, significantly increasing the likelihood of disease development in close contacts [84, 85]. Currently, a domestic test system has been developed in the Russian Federation for in vitro laboratory diagnostic testing for the qualitative detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA in clinical material using real-time polymerase chain reaction, designated "M. leprae Real-Time PCR", and patents have been obtained for methods of identifying M. leprae using PCR analysis targeting RLEP sequences and 16S rRNA [88, 89]; an EAEU registration certificate was issued on October 30, 2024 (MU-RUKZ-000113).

It is recommended to perform a pathomorphological examination of skin biopsy (surgical) material obtained from active, regressing, and resolved lesions for patients in order to diagnose and clarify the clinical forms of the disease, as well as to monitor treatment efficacy [72].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: to study the morphological picture, sections are stained with hematoxylin and eosin [76]. If multiple lesions are present, the freshest one is biopsied; if the morphological picture varies, taking biopsies from at least 2 skin sites is permitted. Follow-up (control) examinations should preferably be performed on the same or similar lesions. The volume of the biopsy specimen must be at least 1.0 cm2 including the subcutaneous adipose tissue. When taking the biopsy, an imprint smear is made on a glass slide for bacterioscopy. To detect AFBs, histological sections are stained using the Ziehl-Neelsen method, the Fite-Faraco method [77], or by fluorescence staining [78, 79].

Pathomorphological changes in various forms of leprosy can differ significantly. In tuberculoid leprosy (TT), typical epithelioid cell granulomas are formed, with an abundance of Pirogov-Langhans giant cells and lymphocyte clusters. Signs of hypersensitivity are pronounced with a characteristic arrangement of granulomas in the subepidermal zone; there may be foci of fibrinoid necrosis in the dermis, and deep within the dermis, there is an enlargement of the nerve bundle surrounded by lymphocytes within the perineurium. With this type of leprosy, the destruction of both small and large nerve trunks running along the course of blood vessels, infiltrated by epithelioid and lymphoid cells, occurs. M. leprae are detected very rarely, mainly as single specimens located in epithelioid cells and nerve fibers. In borderline tuberculoid leprosy (BT), granulomas only partially involve the subepidermal zone and do not destroy the epidermis; the giant cells in them are more similar to foreign-body type cells and contain fewer lymphocytes. Nerves are moderately thickened due to the granuloma, and lymphocytes usually infiltrate the perineurium, causing its distinct separation. However, the nerves are always recognizable, and only proliferation of Schwann cells is found in them. M. leprae are more common. In borderline leprosy (BB), infiltration of the dermis by epithelioid cells with varying degrees of differentiation is characteristic.

The subepidermal zone remains free of infiltrate. Lymphocytes and plasma cells are present in small numbers. Nerve thickening is slight or absent; splitting of the perineurium by invading epithelioid cells may occur. Mycobacteria are found in the cytoplasm of epithelioid cells, usually as short, thick, and intensely stained bacilli. Immunologically, the process in BB is characterized by instability: in the absence or inefficacy of treatment, it progresses toward LL or BL, whereas with treatment it may approach TT, transforming into BT with a predominance of elements characteristic of these types. In borderline-lepromatous leprosy (BL), a defining feature is the accumulation of epithelioid cells among macrophagic granulomas. In lepromatous leprosy (LL), granulomas are formed without epithelioid cells, consisting of histiocytes at various stages of transformation into classic Virchow lepra cells containing M. leprae, neutral fats, fatty acids, and their esters. M. leprae predominantly form intracellular clusters resembling "cigar packets" or "globio"; however, a large number of M. leprae can also be found extracellularly within collagen fibers, beneath the epidermis, in smooth muscle fibers, around small blood vessels, and in the secretion of sebaceous and sweat glands.

Homogenous forms predominate in earlier granulomas, whereas granular forms prevail in older, regressing ones. Unlike TT and BT, granulomas in LL do not involve the subepidermal zone, leaving a narrow strip of collagen fibers between them and the basal layer. Splitting may be detected in the nerves without prominent infiltration, or the nerves may remain unchanged. In indeterminate leprosy (I), the morphological picture is characterized by an inflammatory infiltrate in the dermis consisting of lymphocytes, histiocytes, plasmacytes, occasionally neutrophilic and eosinophilic granulocytes, located perivascularly and perifollicularly, as well as around fine nerve fibers and larger bundles along small blood and lymphatic vessels. M. leprae are detected very rarely, although they can occasionally be found within nerve bundles. The presence of a significant number of M. leprae is a sign of disease progression. Groups of epithelioid cells and isolated small epithelioid foci may appear.

2.4 Instrumental Diagnostics

Instrumental examinations of peripheral nerves are recommended for patients in order to determine the degree and nature of peripheral nerve damage [111, 112].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: instrumental examinations of peripheral nerves (ultrasonography of peripheral nerves (one anatomical region), stimulatory electroneuromyography of a single nerve, needle electromyography (one nerve), magnetic resonance neurography) such as the ulnar, median, and peroneal nerves, provide an objective assessment of their damage, information on the exact location of the enlarged segment, and morphological changes in the nerve, which is most informative when the disease manifests solely as neuropathies in the absence of cutaneous symptoms (neural leprosy) [111–115].

It is recommended to perform X-ray of the lower extremities and X-ray of the upper extremities in patients with leprosy if hand or foot deformities, neurotrophic complications, or neurotrophic foot ulcers are present, in order to detect foci of inflammatory destruction [115].

GRC CLEL 4Grade of Recommendation C (Level of Evidence – 4)

Comments: in leprosy, bone tissue changes occur in the distal parts of the upper and lower extremities. Leprosy-specific changes are characterized by foci of inflammatory destruction, most frequently localized in the spongy (less commonly cortical) substance of the phalanges, metacarpal, and metatarsal bones. Neurotrophic bone changes are characterized by osteoporosis, atrophy, and resorption of bone tissue. Leprosy is characterized by concentric atrophy of the phalanges with a characteristic bone deformation known as the "opera-glass hand/foot" (or "chess pawn") appearance. Periostitis and hyperostosis of the metatarsal, metacarpal, and less frequently long tubular bones of the forearms and legs may also develop [118].

2.5 Other Procedures

Leprosy is characterized by involvement of not only the skin, but also the peripheral nerves. Involvement of other organs is possible. Therefore, patients with leprosy may require additional examination for diagnostic purposes and to prescribe appropriate therapy – consultations with specialists: a neurologist, general practitioner (internist), endocrinologist, ophthalmologist, urologist, otorhinolaryngologist, surgeon, and physical therapy doctor for the diagnosis and treatment of specific lesions of various organs and systems, as well as comorbidities that may affect the course of the leprosy process and the choice of therapy.

It is recommended that patients with leprosy undergo an initial consultation (examination) with a neurologist to diagnose peripheral nervous system pathology and to prescribe or adjust ongoing therapy [188].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: leprosy is characterized by the development of peripheral neuropathies requiring appropriate treatment.

It is recommended that patients with leprosy undergo an initial consultation (examination) with a general practitioner (internist) to diagnose specific lesions of various organs and systems, as well as comorbid conditions, and to prescribe or adjust ongoing therapy [217, 218].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: leprosy may be accompanied by damage to various internal organs, developing either due to M. leprae bacteremia or as a result of a leprosy reaction [218]. Involvement of the respiratory, cardiovascular system, liver and kidneys, blood and lymph nodes may be observed [217, 218].

It is recommended that patients with leprosy undergo an initial consultation (examination) with an endocrinologist to diagnose adrenal pathology and to prescribe or adjust ongoing therapy [219, 220].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: endocrine system involvement in leprosy is a consequence of either direct damage to endocrine gland tissue or immune response disorders [219]. The most significant include thyroid disorders and hypogonadism [219, 220].

It is recommended that patients with leprosy undergo an initial consultation (examination) with an ophthalmologist to diagnose conjunctivitis, specific iritis, scleritis, episcleritis, and to prescribe treatment [190].

GRC CLEL 4Grade of Recommendation C (Level of Evidence – 4)

Comments: meibomian gland dysfunction, dry eye syndrome, and cataracts are most frequently detected in patients with leprosy [221, 222].

It is recommended that patients with leprosy undergo an initial consultation (examination) with a urologist to diagnose specific orchitis and orchiepididymitis and to prescribe treatment [223].

GRC CLEL 4Grade of Recommendation C (Level of Evidence – 4)

Comments: testicular involvement is observed in 10–50% of patients with leprosy [223].

It is recommended that patients with leprosy undergo an initial consultation (examination) with an otorhinolaryngologist to diagnose ENT pathology caused by the specific process and to prescribe treatment [192].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: involvement of the pharynx and larynx is possible in patients with leprosy [217, 218].

It is recommended that patients with leprosy undergo an initial consultation (examination) with a surgeon for the diagnosis and treatment of neurotrophic ulcers and osteomyelitis [193].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

It is recommended that patients with leprosy undergo a consultation (examination) with a physical therapy doctor to prescribe and administer physical therapy for patients with neurotrophic complications of the leprosy process [194].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

3. Treatment, including drug and non-drug therapies, diet therapy, and pain management

3.1 Conservative Treatment

Treatment is carried out in accordance with the standard of specialized medical care for active-stage leprosy, approved by Order of the Russian Ministry of Health No. 1681n dated December 29, 2012, which includes dapsone** 100 mg daily and rifampicin** 600 mg once a month for 6–12 months [121].

It is recommended for adult patients with leprosy for the treatment of multibacillary leprosy: dapsone** 100 mg daily and rifampicin** 600 mg once a month for at least 12 months [195].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

It is recommended for pediatric patients with leprosy for the treatment of multibacillary leprosy: #dapsone** 50 mg daily and #rifampicin** 450 mg once a month for at least 12 months [195].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

It is recommended for adult patients with leprosy for the treatment of paucibacillary leprosy: dapsone** 100 mg daily and rifampicin** 600 mg once a month for at least 6 months [195].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

It is recommended for pediatric patients with leprosy for the treatment of paucibacillary leprosy: #dapsone** 50 mg daily and #rifampicin** 450 mg once a month for at least 6 months [195].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Due to drug resistance to ongoing chemotherapy in some patients [122], alternative chemotherapy regimens using fluoroquinolones are currently proposed.

Alternative leprosy treatment regimens include: rifampicin** 600 mg once a month, #ofloxacin** 400 mg daily, #minocycline 100 mg daily (ROM) [123–125] and #rifapentine 600 mg once a month, #moxifloxacin** 100 mg daily, #minocycline 100 mg daily (RMM) [123, 125].

It is recommended for patients with multibacillary leprosy combination therapy for a course of 12 months [121, 195, 196]: Rifampicin** for adults and children over 15 years of age 600 mg once a month + #Ofloxacin** for adults and children over 15 years of age 400 mg daily + #Minocycline for adults and children over 15 years of age 100 mg daily.

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

It is recommended for patients with paucibacillary leprosy combination therapy for a course of 6 months [121, 195, 196]: Rifampicin** for adults and children over 15 years of age 600 mg once a month + #Ofloxacin** for adults and children over 15 years of age 400 mg daily + #Minocycline for adults and children over 15 years of age 100 mg daily.

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

It is recommended for patients with multibacillary leprosy combination therapy for a course of 12 months [121, 125, 195, 196]:

#Rifapentine for adults and children over 15 years of age 600 mg once a month + #Moxifloxacin** for adults and children over 15 years of age 400 mg daily + #Minocycline for adults and children over 15 years of age 100 mg daily.

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

It is recommended for patients with paucibacillary leprosy combination therapy for a course of 6 months [121, 125, 195, 196]: #Rifapentine for adults and children over 15 years of age 600 mg once a month + #Moxifloxacin** for adults and children over 15 years of age 400 mg daily + #Minocycline for adults and children over 15 years of age 100 mg daily.

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Treatment of Exacerbations (Leprosy Reactions)

It is recommended for adult patients with leprosy in the event of signs of exacerbation of the leprosy process in the form of leprosy reactions, combined systemic therapy with systemic corticosteroids and #methotrexate** [212]: #prednisolone** orally for patients with a body weight of less than 45 kg at an initial dose of 30 mg daily, for patients with a body weight of more than 45 kg at an initial dose of 40 mg daily for 3–6 months, after which the dose of #prednisolone** is gradually tapered according to the schedule, + #methotrexate** 7.5 mg once a week for 24–30 months (Table 1)

GRC CLEL 4Grade of Recommendation C (Level of Evidence – 4)

Comments: a #prednisolone** dose tapering schedule is proposed after 3–6 months of therapy at an initial dose of 30 or 40 mg daily (Table 1)

Table 1. Treatment regimen for patients with leprosy in the event of signs of exacerbation of the leprosy process in the form of leprosy reactions [212]

Medication

Dose

Duration of therapy

#Prednisolone**

Body weight up to 45 kg: 30 mg daily, body weight over 45 kg: 40 mg daily

30 mg daily or 40 mg daily as an initial dose

3–6 months

15 mg daily or 20 mg daily

6–9 months

10 mg daily or 15 mg daily

3 months

5 mg daily or 10 mg daily

3 months

or 5 mg daily

3 months

5 mg every 2 days

3–6 months

5 mg twice a week

3 months

5 mg once a week

3 months

2.5 mg once a week

3 months

#Methotrexate**

7.5 mg once a week

24–30 months

The total duration of therapy in this regimen is 2–3 years

When using #methotrexate**, it is necessary to regularly perform a complete blood count (CBC), test blood total bilirubin levels, and determine the activity of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase in the blood.

Systemic corticosteroids remain the leading drugs for the treatment of reversal reactions. Below are the WHO-recommended regimens for the use of #prednisolone** in leprosy reactions [126].

It is recommended for adult and pediatric leprosy patients over 15 years of age in the event of type 1 (reversal) and type 2 (erythema nodosum leprosum) leprosy reactions to receive systemic sequential combination therapy [126]:

#Prednisolone** 40 mg once daily for 2 weeks;

#Prednisolone** 30 mg once daily for 2 weeks;

#Prednisolone** 20 mg once daily for 2 weeks;

#Prednisolone** 15 mg once daily for 2 weeks;

#Prednisolone** 5 mg once daily for 2 weeks.

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: #Prednisolone** and other systemic corticosteroids are used in accordance with the prednisolone equivalent. Systemic corticosteroid therapy is administered at a dose of no more than 1 mg per kg of the patient's body weight for 3 weeks, less commonly 4 weeks or more. The daily dose of the drug is taken strictly in the morning hours (before 11:00 AM) after a meal. The drug should be discontinued after a gradual dose reduction.

3.2 Surgical Treatment

Leprosy patients with contractures, deformities of the fingers and toes, or neurotrophic foot ulcers complicated by osteomyelitis may require surgical treatment.

It is recommended to perform surgical wound debridement [213] in leprosy patients with skin defects of the feet.

GCR CLEL 5Grade of Recommendation C (Level of Evidence – 5)

It is recommended to perform bone reconstruction in leprosy patients with foot deformities. Corrective osteotomy for foot deformities [213].

GCR CLEL 5Grade of Recommendation C (Level of Evidence – 5)

It is recommended to perform foot amputation or amputation of lower limb digits [213] in leprosy patients with severe destruction of the bones and joints of the feet.

GCR CLEL 5Grade of Recommendation C (Level of Evidence – 5)

It is recommended to perform neurolysis and nerve decompression [214–216] in leprosy patients in the event of nerve compression.

GCR CLEL 5Grade of Recommendation C (Level of Evidence – 5)

Comments: nerve damage in leprosy may be accompanied by edema, leading to tunnel neuropathy manifested by pain and neurological deficit, which requires surgical intervention.

3.3 Other Treatment

In accordance with Order of the Russian Ministry of Health No. 1681n "On Approval of the Standard of Specialized Medical Care for Patients with Leprosy, Active Stage" and domestic clinical experience [197–199], physiotherapy may be prescribed to leprosy patients.

It is recommended during the acute phase of neuritis, with the aim of alleviating and eliminating pain syndrome and stimulating regenerative processes in nerve trunks: Drug electrophoresis for peripheral nervous system diseases. Galvanization for peripheral nervous system diseases. Ultra-high-frequency electric field (UHF) therapy. Sinusoidal modulated current therapy (SMT therapy) for peripheral nervous system diseases. Medical ultraphophoresis. General magnetotherapy. Magnetic field therapy. High-intensity pulsed magnetic field therapy. Infrared therapy. Low-level laser therapy for peripheral nervous system diseases [197, 198, 199].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

It is recommended to perform drug electrophoresis for peripheral nervous system diseases using a 5% #procaine** solution; and #hyaluronidase** in the case of fibrosis development. The applied current density is 8–10 mA. Procedures are performed daily, lasting from 15 to 30 minutes. The treatment course consists of 15–20 procedures. Galvanization for peripheral nervous system diseases is performed according to the Vermel method. The current density is 0.1 mA/cm². The treatment course consists of 10–15 daily sessions. A special variety of this type of procedure is interstitial electrophoresis. The current density is 0.08–0.1 mA/cm2, exposure time is up to 40 minutes. The number of procedures per course is 10–15, with two to three courses administered at intervals of three to four weeks [199].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: general contraindications for electrophoresis are conditions and diseases in which physiotherapy methods are contraindicated.

It is recommended to apply ultra-high-frequency (UHF) electric field therapy in an athermal mode, and in subacute and chronic courses, in a weakly thermal mode. Procedures are performed daily for 10–15 minutes, with 12–15 procedures per course [199].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: general contraindications for UHF therapy are conditions and diseases in which physiotherapy methods are contraindicated.

It is recommended to apply sinusoidal modulated current therapy (SMT therapy) for peripheral nervous system diseases in the acute period of neuritis in alternating mode, types 3–4 of work, with a frequency of 150 Hz, modulation depth of 50%, half-period duration of 3 seconds, for 5 minutes for each type of work. As the acute period subsides, the frequency is switched to 75–100 Hz with a modulation depth of 75%. The treatment course consists of 10–12 daily procedures [199].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: general contraindications for SMT current treatment are conditions and diseases in which physiotherapy methods are contraindicated.

It is recommended to perform medical ultraphophoresis (of peripheral nerves) with a radiation power of 0.2–0.6 W/cm2. The session duration is 5–10 minutes, the treatment course is 5–15 sessions. For ultraphophoresis with #hydrocortisone** (0.5–1%) and #metamizole sodium** (10–20%), a pulsed exposure mode is used; as inflammatory phenomena subside, treatment switches to continuous mode. The treatment course consists of 10–12 daily procedures [197, 199].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: general contraindications for ultrasound therapy are conditions and diseases in which physiotherapy methods are contraindicated. Ultrasound exposure is contraindicated during pregnancy and thrombophlebitis.

Recommended magnetic field therapy. Used for the treatment of neuritis in both acute and chronic stages. In hypertrophic forms of neuritis, magnetophoresis is performed using a composition containing 4 ml of a 25% #dimethyl sulfoxide** solution and 64 units of #hyaluronidase**. Exposure power is 25–30 mT. The treatment course is 10–12 sessions. High-intensity pulsed magnetic field therapy: pulse repetition rate is 80–150 Hz, LED radiation power is 60 mW, exposure per treatment zone is from 1 to 2 minutes. 4–6 zones are treated with a repetition rate of 10 Hz, LED radiation power of 50 mW, and an exposure of 30 seconds. Total exposure time is 20 minutes. The course consists of 15–20 procedures. 2–3 repeated courses can be performed at intervals of 3–4 weeks [197, 199].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: during laser therapy procedures, shielding of the patient's eyes and medical personnel is mandatory. Contraindications for laser therapy include benign neoplasms in the irradiation zones and individual intolerance to the physical factor.

Recommended electro-pulse bioregulatory (SCENAR) therapy in two main operating modes: continuous and individually dosed. The total duration of a SCENAR session is 30–40 minutes [197].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: number of procedures per course is 15–30. General contraindications for SCENAR procedures are conditions and diseases in which physiotherapy methods are contraindicated.

It is recommended for leprosy patients with subacute and chronic stages of neuritis: exposure to extremely high frequency (EHF) electromagnetic radiation (EHF therapy) [197–199]. During EHF therapy, the applied radiation power is up to 12 W. Procedures are performed daily for 10–20 minutes, with a treatment course of up to 15 sessions [197, 199].

LoE 5Level of evidence C (level of reliability of evidence – 5)

Comments: contraindications for microwave therapy are conditions and diseases in which physiotherapy methods are contraindicated.

It is recommended for leprosy patients with subacute and chronic stages of neuritis to undergo local darsonvalization for peripheral nervous system diseases [129]. During local darsonvalization for peripheral nervous system diseases, a frequency of 50 to 110 kHz is used. The duration of exposure to a single zone ranges from 3 to 5 minutes, with a total session duration of no more than 15 minutes [197, 199].

LoE 5Level of evidence C (level of reliability of evidence – 5)

Comments: contraindications to d'arsonvalization include conditions and diseases for which physiotherapy methods are contraindicated. The treatment course consists of 10–15 procedures; repeated courses can be carried out after 1–2 months.

It is recommended for leprosy patients with facial nerve involvement to improve microcirculation, nerve conduction, and reduce pain syndrome: laser puncture, ultrasonic puncture, electropuncture, and reflexology electropuncture [197–199].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

It is recommended to use laser puncture, ultrasonic puncture, electropuncture, and reflexology electropuncture for acute neuritis using a sedative technique, and for chronic neuritis using a tonic technique. Applied electropuncture parameters: current frequency 0.1–100 Hz, current up to 100 µA. The treatment course consists of 10–15 sessions, lasting 10–20 minutes each. Continuous or pulsed operating modes are used for laser puncture. The exposure time for biologically active points is 0.5 minutes in both modes. The course of treatment consists of 10–12 daily procedures. For phonopuncture, the exposure intensity is 0.05–0.1 W/cm2 with an exposure time of up to 2 minutes per point [197, 199].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: general contraindications for the procedures include conditions and diseases for which physiotherapy methods are contraindicated. During laser therapy procedures, mandatory shielding of the eyes of the patient and medical personnel is required. Contraindications for laser therapy include the presence of benign neoplasms in the irradiation areas and individual intolerance to the factor.

It is recommended for leprosy patients with chronic neuritis accompanied by facial muscle atrophy to improve microcirculatory processes in tissues: Paraffin therapy for diseases of the peripheral nervous system [198, 199].

For ulnar nerve neuritis, paraffin is applied in the form of high gloves; for peroneal nerve neuritis, in the form of long socks or stockings. After the procedure, the patient undergoes massage and exercise therapy (physiotherapy exercises) [197, 198, 199].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: contraindications for paraffin therapy of diseases of the peripheral nervous system include conditions and diseases for which physiotherapy methods are contraindicated.

It is recommended for leprosy patients suffering from superficial neurotrophic foot ulcers to improve microcirculation and epithelialization of ulcer defects: Polarized light therapy. Combined exposure to pulsed currents and drug phonophoresis. Low-intensity laser irradiation of the skin [197–199].

LoE 5Level of evidence C (level of reliability of evidence – 5)

It is recommended to use a combination of pulsed currents and drug phonophoresis. It is performed at a frequency of 880 kHz, an exposure intensity of 0.2–0.6 W/cm2, with an exposure time of 3–10 minutes per field using a labile technique in continuous and pulsed modes [197–199].

LoE 5Level of evidence C (level of reliability of evidence – 5)

Comments: 10–15 procedures are performed per course. Repeated courses can be administered after two to three months.

It is recommended to use polarized light therapy utilizing polychromatic incoherent polarized light. The surface of the ulcers is irradiated daily with an exposure of 8–10 minutes per field. The light is directed at a right angle, with a gap of 5–10 cm [197–199].

LoE 5Level of evidence C (level of reliability of evidence – 5)

Comments: the treatment course consists of 20 procedures; repeated sessions can be performed at an interval of one month.

It is recommended to use low-intensity laser irradiation of the skin over the ulcer surface. It is performed using a radiation power of 0.25–0.5 mW/cm2, the session duration is 8–10 minutes, and the focal length ranges from 0.5 to 1 m depending on the type of radiation. The number of procedures per treatment course varies from 15 to 30 [197–199].

LoE 5Level of evidence C (level of reliability of evidence – 5)

Comments: general contraindications for low-intensity laser irradiation of the skin are conditions and diseases for which physiotherapy methods are contraindicated. During laser therapy procedures, mandatory shielding of the eyes of the patient and medical staff is required.

Constant attention should be paid to the prevention and rehabilitation of progressive musculoskeletal deformities through exercise therapy, occupational therapy, prosthetics [198], and, in severe cases, surgical correction of disorders [131].

Medical Nutrition Therapy

When receiving specialized medical care in an inpatient setting, patients regardless of the stage and form of the disease are prescribed a high-protein diet with technological modifications for comorbid conditions and in accordance with the orders of the Russian Ministry of Health No. 330 dated August 5, 2003, "On measures to improve therapeutic nutrition in healthcare institutions of the Russian Federation" and No. 395n dated June 21, 2013, "On approval of therapeutic nutrition standards" [132, 133].

Pain Management

Nervous system involvement in leprosy may be accompanied by pain. Spontaneous pain occurs periodically, varies in intensity, and evoked pain can be triggered by palpation, compression of a skin fold or superficial peripheral nerves, or percussion of the nerve in the area of its thickening [227].

In the acute phase of neuritis, or during an exacerbation in the form of erythema nodosum leprosum, leprosy patients are prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and antirheumatic drugs in therapeutic dosages according to the instructions, with the aim of reducing and eliminating pain.

4. Medical Rehabilitation and Sanatorium-Resort Treatment

Medical rehabilitation of leprosy patients is a crucial part of the overall patient treatment.

It is recommended for patients with leprosy in the inactive disease stage with chronic neuritis in the residual stage to improve microcirculation, increase muscle strength, and increase the range of motion in the joints of the limbs: General medical massage. Upper limb medical massage. Lower limb medical massage. Mechanotherapy for diseases of the peripheral nervous system. Exercise therapy for diseases of the peripheral nervous system [137, 228]. The average duration of a full limb massage is up to 15 minutes, and for individual areas and muscle groups, 5–10 minutes.

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: general medical massage, upper limb medical massage, lower limb medical massage, mechanotherapy for peripheral nervous system diseases, and exercise therapy for peripheral nervous system diseases aim to increase muscle strength and the range of motion in limb joints. In the treatment of contractures, the effectiveness of these procedures increases when combined with preliminary paraffin therapy. the treatment course usually prescribes from 20 to 30 massage sessions. General contraindications for general medical massage, upper and lower limb medical massage, mechanotherapy for peripheral nervous system diseases, and exercise therapy for peripheral nervous system diseases include conditions and diseases for which physiotherapy methods are contraindicated.

It is recommended for leprosy patients with severe forms of limb deformities, presence of lower leg, thigh, or hand stumps for the purpose of medical rehabilitation: orthotics, prosthetics [130, 131].

LoE 5Level of evidence C (level of reliability of evidence – 5)

Comments: prosthetics and orthotics are performed according to indications in specialized prosthetic and orthopedic institutions, with the development of an applied kinesotherapy rehabilitation program taking into account individual psychomotor ontogenesis. For patients with pronounced foot deformities, orthopedic shoes are custom-made.

Sanatorium-resort treatment is not indicated for leprosy patients due to the infectious nature of the disease. In accordance with Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 216 dated April 29, 2015, "On approval of the list of medical contraindications due to the presence of which a citizen or recipient of social services may be denied, including temporarily, the provision of social services in an inpatient form, as well as the form of the conclusion of an authorized medical organization on the presence of such contraindications," leprosy (A30) is included in the List of medical contraindications due to the presence of which a citizen or recipient of social services may be denied, including temporarily, the provision of social services in an inpatient form.

5. Prevention and Dispensary Observation

Primary prevention aims at preventing the occurrence and development of leprosy in the population.

It is recommended as a primary prevention measure for leprosy to vaccinate with the #tuberculosis vaccine** for intradermal administration at birth [141].

GCR BLEL 2Grade of Recommendations B (Level of Evidence – 2)

Comments: Currently, there is no vaccine against leprosy in the world. Evidence of the effectiveness of the #tuberculosis vaccine** for the prevention of leprosy is well known [149], but the magnitude of its effect has varied significantly [4, 143, 144].

Secondary prevention is a set of measures aimed at preventing the onset and development of the disease in individuals in contact with leprosy patients.

It is recommended to perform a comprehensive examination of contacts (persons living with the patient or belonging to a risk group) to detect the disease at an early stage [145].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: the risk of developing leprosy is increased in children under 14 years of age and in the elderly [224].

It is recommended that all contacts receive a single dose of #rifampicin** 600 mg as prophylactic treatment after excluding leprosy and tuberculosis, and in the absence of other contraindications [160, 161].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Tertiary prevention is a set of measures aimed at preventing exacerbations, relapses, and complications of the leprosy process.

It is recommended that all leprosy patients who have received full treatment and achieved remission undergo dispensary follow-up as a measure to reduce the risk of disease relapse [162, 169–171, 225, 226].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: dispensary follow-up of leprosy patients is carried out once a year for life [225]. During dispensary follow-up, a comprehensive examination of leprosy patients is performed to identify the high-risk group for disease relapse. Relapse cases have been described both shortly after the end of combination therapy and several decades later [162, 163]. At the same time, despite full antimycobacterial therapy, some patients experience relapses, even multiple ones, while others never do. This indicates the role of hereditary factors in the occurrence of disease relapses [168]. Along with non-adherence to therapy, one of the main factors contributing to the development of relapses in the leprosy process is the emergence of drug-resistant forms of M. leprae [171, 172]. To exclude drug resistance to rifampicin**, dapsone**, #ofloxacin**, a test system based on PCR with hybridization is used, which allows the detection of mutant M. leprae strains resistant to these drugs. Currently, using whole-genome sequencing of M. leprae, it has become possible to distinguish relapse cases from reinfection [169] and to determine mutations in M. leprae genes responsible for drug resistance [173]. If drug-resistant strains of M. leprae are identified, the use of second-line drugs is recommended.

It is recommended to ensure early detection and timely comprehensive treatment of complications of the leprosy process [174, 175].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: the cause of most disabling complications of the leprosy process is damage to the peripheral nervous system, manifested by mono- and polyneuritis and trophic ulcers, which is associated with the long-term persistence of M. leprae in Schwann cells within nerves [185] and in trophic ulcers [177]. Treatment of these complications must be carried out in antileprosy institutions with the participation of neurologists. Early detection of complications of the leprosy process is possible using immunogenetic criteria [178]. Thus, it has been shown that the severe course of leprosy polyneuritis can be predicted with a high degree of probability by the presence of the HLA-DRB1-15-DQA1-0102-DQB1-0602/8 haplotype in the patient's genotype [179].

It is recommended to provide training in self-care, train relatives in caring for severely ill patients, and conduct family clinical and psychological counseling [137, 179].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: the patient should avoid skin trauma on the hands and feet; avoid hot objects, choose comfortable footwear (custom-made), perform muscle exercises, regularly moisturize palms and soles, and protect the eyes from dryness [179].

It is recommended that all leprosy patients who have completed a full course of specific treatment (inpatient or outpatient) be transferred to dispensary follow-up in order to prevent the development of disease relapses [181, 182].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: patients transferred to dispensary follow-up are examined once a year at dermatovenereological dispensaries. The need for long-term dispensary care is associated with the risk of relapse in leprosy, especially in the lepromatous type, which may be due to the persistence of viable M. leprae in the organs and tissues of the leprosy patient [183, 184], as well as irregular or insufficiently effective treatment. According to various estimates, the relapse rate is 0.65 to 3.0% for multibacillary forms of leprosy and 0.02 to 0.8% for paucibacillary leprosy [185]. The examination should include inspection of the skin and mucous membranes, assessment of temperature and tactile sensitivity, and microscopic examination of biopsy (surgical) material or punctate for acid-fast mycobacteria (Mycobacterium spp.) [69] to detect M. leprae.

It is recommended that if it is impossible to provide full outpatient treatment at the place of residence, or for the treatment of progressive complications of the leprosy process (neuritis, osteomyelitis, hepatitis, etc.), or if a scheduled examination is necessary due to re-examination by the Clinical and Expert Commission (CEC), patients under dispensary care are subject to hospitalization in an antileprosy institution [181, 182].

GDR CLE 5Grade of recommendation C (level of evidence – 5)

Comments: upon the development of progressive complications of the leprosy process, patients, in addition to physiotherapeutic and general therapeutic procedures, must receive a course of specific antimycobacterial therapy under medical supervision, taking into account that M. leprae persist in internal organs and nerves, and the progression of complications may indicate their multiplication [175].

6. Organization of Medical Care

As part of the provision of primary medical and sanitary care, general practitioners, family physicians, neurologists, and surgeons, upon detecting characteristic skin rashes, thickening of affected peripheral nerves, impaired superficial sensitivity, or symptoms/signs of leprosy, refer the patient to a dermatovenereological medical organization to receive primary health care. If medical care cannot be provided within the framework of primary health care and there are medical indications, the patient is referred to a medical organization providing specialized medical care.

Specialized, including high-tech, medical care for leprosy patients is provided in specialized antileprosy medical organizations subordinate to the Russian Ministry of Health.

Control over the outpatient treatment of leprosy patients, dispensary follow-up of registered leprosy patients and their contacts, and the implementation of health education and preventive work are carried out by the dermatovenereologist of the dermatovenereological dispensaries responsible for antileprosy measures.

Treatment of comorbid somatic diseases in leprosy patients is carried out in medical institutions at the patient's place of residence.

Hospitalization and treatment of leprosy patients

Hospitalization in antileprosy institutions is subject to:

- all patients with a newly established diagnosis;

- patients discharged to dispensary follow-up upon the occurrence of a relapse or suspected relapse.

Discharge of patients from antileprosy institutions

Inpatient treatment is the first and main stage of medical rehabilitation for patients. After achieving clinical regression, patients may be discharged for outpatient treatment (if necessary) and/or dispensary follow-up.

Indications for patient discharge

Patients with lepromatous, borderline-lepromatous, or borderline leprosy are discharged when a partial or complete regression of rashes is achieved, along with negativity of bacterioscopic indicators of nasal mucosa scrapings, skin scarifications, and skin biopsies for 6 months (3 times). Histological examination of skin biopsies by the time of discharge should show regressive changes manifested by the replacement of the specific granuloma with a nonspecific infiltrate showing signs of tissue fibrosis; in polar lepromatous processes, a small number of vacuolated lipid-containing leprosy macrophages may be detected. The presence of solitary granular mycobacteria is permissible.

Patients with tuberculoid, borderline-tuberculoid, and indeterminate leprosy who are bacteriologically positive upon admission may be discharged for outpatient treatment after the disappearance of active disease manifestations and upon obtaining two consecutive negative bacteriological test results over the past 6 months.

Patients hospitalized for a leprosy relapse may be discharged after 6 months of bacteriological negativity, provided that the clinical manifestations of the disease have regressed.

Transfer to dispensary follow-up

Indications for transferring patients from outpatient treatment to dispensary follow-up include:

- absence of active leprosy manifestations on the skin over the past year;

- negative results of repeated bacteriological examinations of nasal mucosa scrapings and skin scarifications over the past 12 months (once every 3 months);

- presence of pronounced connective tissue fibrosis without leprosy bacilli in skin histological specimens at the site of specific infiltrates;

- stable condition of existing neurotrophic changes over the past 12 months (sensory disturbances, amyotrophy, contractures, paresis, etc.).

7. Additional Information

Risk factors for an unfavorable prognosis in leprosy include older age, late diagnosis [116], severe disease course, non-adherence to treatment, relapsing disease course, presence of hereditary predisposition factors to leprosy [186], and M. leprae resistance to antileprotic drugs [122].

Leprosy patients transferred to outpatient treatment have no restrictions in choosing a civilian profession based on epidemiological indications, but they are not recommended to engage in work related to direct service to children or in public catering establishments. When developing employment recommendations for outpatients, it is necessary to consider the presence of complications of the leprous process and facilitate employment in industries that exclude the possibility of injuries, burns, hypothermia, occupational hazards, and excessive physical exertion.

Severe neurotrophic complications of the leprous process are a factor that negatively affects the outcome of the disease, hindering the medical and social rehabilitation of leprosy patients [187].

Leprosy patients are indicated for a high-protein diet. Modification of the high-protein diet variant is possible depending on existing concomitant diseases (diabetes mellitus, hepatitis, etc.).

Criteria for Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care

№

Quality criteria

Performance evaluation

1

A complete blood count (differential) was performed

Yes/No

2

General therapeutic blood biochemistry analysis performed

Yes/No

3

A general (clinical) urinalysis was performed

Yes/No

4

Pathological and anatomical examination of skin biopsy (surgical) material performed for disease diagnosis

Yes/No

5

Therapy with dapsone and rifampicin** administered

Yes/No

References

Show references
  1. Kubanov A.A., Abramova T.V., Murakhovskaya E.K., Lasachko V.A. Modern view of leprosy. Lechashchiy Vrach. 2018; 5: 48.

  2. Bhandari J., Awais M., Robbins B.A., Gupta V. Leprosy. 2023 Sep 15. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–.

  3. Saroyants L.V., Arnaudova K.Sh., Duyko V.V. Identification of mycobacteria isolated from the contents of trophic ulcers in leprosy patients. Klinicheskaya dermatologiya i venerologiya. 2015; 14 (5): 28–31.

  4. Belopasov V.V. Typology and pathogenesis of neuropathic pain in leprosy. RMZh. Meditsinskoe obozrenie. 2018; (9): 41–45.

  5. Semyonova V.G., Karamova A.E., Nefedova M.A. et al. A case of borderline-tuberculoid leprosy with atypical and complicated manifestations. Vestnik dermatologii i venerologii. 2019; 95 (4): 67–78.

  6. Henneberg M., Holloway-Kew K., Lucas T. Human major infections: Tuberculosis, treponematoses, leprosy – A paleopathological perspective of their evolution. PLoS One. 2021 Feb 25; 16 (2): e0243687.

  7. Duyko V.V., Naumov V.Z., Saroyants L.V., Astafurova A.P. Leprosy incidence in the Caspian region. Topical issues of modern medicine. Proceedings of the III International Conference of Caspian States. 2018. – P. 64–66.

  8. Sharma R., Singh P., McCoy R.C. et al. Isolation of Mycobacterium lepromatosis and development of molecular diagnostic assays to distinguish Mycobacterium leprae and M. lepromatosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2020; 71 (8): e262–e269. 

  9. Sotiriou M.C., Stryjewska B.M., Hill C. Two cases of leprosy in siblings caused by Mycobacterium lepromatosis and review of the literature. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016; 95 (3): 522–527.       

  10. Singh P., Benjak A., Schuenemann V.J. et al. Insight into the evolution and origin of leprosy bacilli from the genome sequence of Mycobacterium lepromatosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112 (14): 4459–4464.

  11. Obraztsova O.A. Molecular biological research methods in laboratory diagnostics of leprosy: epidemiological analysis, genetic determinants of antimicrobial resistance. Vestnik dermatologii i venerologii. 2017; (6): 34–40.

  12. Kaur G., Kaur J. Multifaceted role of lipids in Mycobacterium leprae. Future Microbiol. 2017; 12 (4): 315–335.

  13. Chebotarev V.V. Tropical diseases in the practice of a dermatovenereologist: teaching aid for extracurricular work of students of general medicine and pediatric faculties / comp.: V.V. Chebotarev, A.V. Odinets, M.S. Askhakov, E.V. Bronnikova. Stavropol: StGMU Publ., 2016, 56 p.

  14. Ploemacher T., Faber W.R., Menke H. et al. Reservoirs and transmission routes of leprosy: A systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Apr 27; 14 (4): e0008276.

  15. Belopasov V.V. Leprosy. In: Chronic neuroinfections / [Baranova N.S., Belopasov V.V., Boyko A.N. et al.]; ed. by I.A. Zavalishin [et al.]. – 2nd ed. – Moscow : GEOTAR-Media, 2017. – 589 p.

  16. Semyonova V.G., Makarova L.L., Karamova A.E. Erythema nodosum as a leprous reaction. Vestnik dermatologii i venerologii. 2020; 96 (3): 68–74.

  17. Bhat R.M., Prakash C. Leprosy: an overview of pathophysiology. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2012;2012:181089.

  18. Scollard D.M., Truman R.W., Ebenezer G.J. Mechanisms of nerve injury in leprosy. Clin Dermatol. 2015; 33 (1): 46–54.

  19. Ismurzaeva N.S. Analysis of new cases of leprosy in the Astrakhan region // Proceedings of the All-Russian scientific forum of students with international participation "Student Science - 2019". Forcipe. 2019; 2 (S1): 397.

  20. Walker E.L. Some new aspects of the etiology and endemiology of leprosy. Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1929; 3 (3) 167–195.

  21. Mira M.T., Francio, A.S., Sindeaux, R.H. et al. Aspectos geneticos da suscetibilidade do hospedeiro a hanseniase [revisao]. Salud (i) ciencia (Impresa). 2011: 18 (2): 138–141.

  22. Lastória J.C., Abreu M.A. Leprosy: review of the epidemiological, clinical, and etiopathogenic aspects - part 1. An Bras Dermatol. 2014; 89 (2): 205–218.

  23. Pedley J.C. The presence of M. leprae in human milk. Lepr Rev. 1967; 38 (4): 239–242.

  24. Huang C.L. The transmission of leprosy in man. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1980; 48 (3): 309–318.

  25. Kolesnikov F.N. Leprosy: from shadow to light. An essay on a mysterious disease // Universum: Meditsina i farmakologiya: electron. scientific journal. 2018. No. 1 (46). URL: http://7universum.com/ru/med/archive/item/5443

  26. Yanchevskaya E.Yu., Mesnyankina O.A. Leprosy: modern concepts of transmission routes. Kubanskiy nauchniy meditsinskiy vestnik. 2019; 26 (4): 123–130.

  27. Geater J.G. The fly as potential vector in the transmission of leprosy. Lepr Rev. 1975; 46 (4): 279–286.

  28. Meredith A., Pozo J.D., Smith S. et al. Leprosy in red squirrels in Scotland. Vet Rec. 2014; 175 (11): 285–286.

  29. Schilling A.K., van Hooij A., Corstjens P. et al. Detection of humoral immunity to mycobacteria causing leprosy in Eurasian red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) using a quantitative rapid test. Eur J Wildl Res. 2019; 65: 49.

  30. Kirchheimer W.F. The role of arthropods in the transmission of leprosy. Int. J. Lepr. 1976; 44 (1–2): 104–107.

  31. Tio-Coma M., Wijnands W., Pierneef, L. et al. Detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA in soil: multiple needles in the haystack. Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 28; 9 (1): 3165.

  32. Mohanty P.S., Naaz F., Katara D. et al., Viability of Mycobacterium leprae in the environment and its role in leprosy. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2016; 82 (1): 23–27.

  33. World Health Organization: Weekly epidemiological record, 30 AUGUST 94th YEAR: Nos.35/36, 2019, 94, 389-412 [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.who.int/wer (accessed: 20.09.21).

  34. Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of leprosy. - ISBN: 978-92-9022-6383/ - World Health Organization. - 2018. - 87 p.

  35. Skripkin Yu.K., Kubanova A.A., Akimov V.G. Skin and venereal diseases. – GEOTAR-Media, 2012. – 544 p.

  36. Ramos J.M., Romero D., Belinchón I. Epidemiology of leprosy in Spain: the role of the international migration. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Mar 3; 10 (3): e0004321.

  37. Aftab H., Nielsen S.D., Bygbjerg I.C. Leprosy in Denmark 1980–2010: a review of 15 cases. BMC Res Notes. 2016 Jan 5; 9: 10.

  38. Massone C., Brunasso A.M., Noto S. et al. Imported leprosy in Italy. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012; 26 (8): 999–1006.

  39. Leprosy. WHO report Jan 22, 2010 [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB126/B126_41-ru.pdf (accessed: August 05, 2025).

  40. Ridley D.S., Jopling W.H. Classification of leprosy according to immunity. A five-group system. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1966; 34 (3): 255–273.

  41. Chaitanya V. S., Cuello L., Das M. et al. Analysis of a novel multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay as a sensitive tool for the diagnosis of indeterminate and tuberculoid forms of leprosy. Int J Mycobacteriol. 2017; 6 (1): 1–8.

  42. WHO. Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of leprosy. – Geneva: WHO, 2018. – 106 p.

  43. World Health Organization Leprosy elimination [cited Apr 2021]; Available from:http://www.who.int/lep/epidemiology/en/.

  44. World Health Organization et al. Leprosy: Management of reactions and prevention of disabilities. Technical guide.

  45. Adaskevich V.P., Kozin V.N. Skin and venereal diseases. – M.: Meditsinskaya literatura, 2006. – 659 p.

  46. Belopasov V.V., Androsyuk Yu.G., Dyachina M.N. Leprous neuropathies. Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry. 2004; 104 (11): 19–24.

  47. Androsyuk Yu.G., Dyachina M.N., Belopasov V.V., Korneeva M.A. Clinical and diagnostic evaluation of leprous neuropathies in the acute stage. Neyroimmunologiya. 2004; (2): 6–7.

  48. Semyonova V.G., Makarova L.L., Karamova A.E. Erythema nodosum as a leprous reaction. Vestnik dermatologii i venerologii. 2020; 96 (3): 68–74.

  49. Upputuri B, Pallapati MS, Tarwater P, Srikantam A. Thalidomide in the treatment of erythema nodosumleprosum (ENL) in an outpatient setting: A five-year retrospective analysis from a leprosy referral centre in India. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Oct 9; 14 (10): e0008678.

  50. Talhari C., Talhari S., Penna G.O. Clinical aspects of leprosy. Clin Dermatol. 2015; 33 (1): 26–37. 

  51. Lastória J.C., Abreu M.A. Leprosy: review of the epidemiological, clinical, and etiopathogenic aspects - part 1. An Bras Dermatol. 2014; 89 (2): 205–218.

  52. Lezvinskaya E.M., Romanenko G.F., Kazantseva I.A. et al. A case of borderline leprosy. Russian Journal of Skin and Venereal Diseases. 2004; (2): 20–22.

  53. Yanchevskaya E.Yu., Duyko V.V., Mesnyankina O.A. Classification of leprosy: historical aspects, modern approach. Lechebnoe delo. 2020; (1): 6–11.

  54. Yanchevskaya E.Yu., Kovtunova V.A., Dumchenko E.V., Duyko V.V. Borderline-lepromatous leprosy with primary clinical manifestation in a patient with a long dermatological history. Vestnik dermatologii i venerologii. 2020; 96 (5): 53–58.

  55. Torsuev N.A. Recognition and differential diagnosis of leprosy. – M.: Meditsina, 1971. – 184 p.

  56. Torsuev N.A. On the treatment of leprosy. Vestnik venerologii i dermatologii. 1955; 37: 35.

  57. Silva I.M., Oliveira C.A., Guedes W.R. et al. Agranulocytosis induced by multidrug therapy in leprosy treatment: a case report. Braz J Infect Dis. 2009; 13 (2): 158–160.

  58. Guragain S., Upadhayay N., Bhattarai B.M. Adverse reactions in leprosy patients who underwent dapsone multidrug therapy: a retrospective study. Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jun 29; 9: 73–78.

  59. Deps P.D., Nasser S., Guerra P. et al. Adverse effects from multi-drug therapy in leprosy: a Brazilian study. Lepr Rev. 2007; 78 (3): 216–222.

  60. Satarasinghe R.L., Jayawardana M.A., De Silva G.V. et al. Total agranulocytosis caused by dapsone therapy for tuberculoid leprosy – an unappreciated serious side effect of anti-leprosy treatment with clinical implications. Drug Metabol Drug Interact. 2009; 24 (2–4): 325–329.

  61. Moura A.K., Melo B.L., Brito A.E. et al. High levels of liver enzymes in five patients with type 1 leprosy reaction. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009; 23 (1): 96–98.

  62. Polito M.G., Moreira S.R., Nishida S.K, Mastroianni Kirsztajn G. It is time to review concepts on renal involvement in leprosy: pre- and post-treatment evaluation of 189 patients. Ren Fail. 2015; 37 (7): 1171–1174.

  63. Ozturk S, Ozturk T, Can I. Renal involvement in leprosy: evaluation of patients in Turkey. Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2017; 34 (3): 240–244.

  64. Loginov V.K. Leprous liver damage: dis. – M.: author's abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Medical Sciences, 1969.

  65. Penna G.O., Pontes M.A., Cruz R. et al. A clinical trial for uniform multidrug therapy for leprosy patients in Brazil: rationale and design. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2012 Dec;107 Suppl 1: 22–27.

  66. Weiand D., Thoulass J., Smith W.C. Assessing and improving adherence with multidrug therapy. Lepr Rev. 2012; 83 (3): 282–­291.   

  67. Silva E.A., Iyer A., Ura S. et al. Utility of measuring serum levels of anti-PGL-I antibody, neopterin and C-reactive protein in monitoring leprosy patients during multi-drug treatment and reactions. Trop Med Int Health. 2007; 12 (12): 1450–­1458.

  68. da Silva Júnior G.B., Daher Ede F. Renal involvement in leprosy: retrospective analysis of 461 cases in Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis. 2006; 10 (2): 107–112.

  69. Sevastyanova E.V., Larionova E.E., Andrievskaya I.Yu. Detection of mycobacteria by microscopy of Ziehl-Neelsen stained preparations. Vestnik TsNIIT. 2019; (1): 100–108.

  70. Methods of clinical laboratory research. Ed. by Prof. V.S. Kamyshnikov. – 6th ed., rev. - M.: MEDpress-inform, 2013. – P. 149.

  71. Burdash N.M., West M.E., Bannister E.R. et al. Evaluation of a dual-staining method for acid-fast bacilli. J Clin Microbiol. 1976; 2 (2): 149–150.

  72. World Health Organization et al. Laboratory techniques for leprosy. // Laboratory techniques for leprosy. – World Health Organization, 1987.

  73. Hagemann P.K. Fluoreszenzfarbung von tuberkelbakterien mit auramin. Munich Med Wschr. 1938; 85: 1066–1068.

  74. Scollard D.M., Adams L.B., Gillis T.P. et al. The continuing challenges of leprosy. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006 Apr;19 (2): 338–381.

  75. Saroyants L.V., Arnaudova K.Sh., Duyko V.V. Identification of mycobacteria isolated from the contents of trophic ulcers in leprosy patients. Klinicheskaya dermatologiya i venerologiya. 2015; 14 (5): 28–31.

  76. Tsvetkova G.M., Mordovtsev V.N. Pathomorphological diagnostics of skin diseases. M.: Meditsina, 1986. – P. 109–114.

  77. Reja A.H., Biswas N., Biswas S. et al. Fite-Faraco staining in combination with multiplex polymerase chain reaction: A new approach to leprosy diagnosis. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013; 79 (5): 693–700.

  78. Nayak S.V., Shivarudrappa A.S., Mukkamil A.S. Role of fluorescent microscopy in detecting Mycobacterium leprae in tissue sections. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2003; 7 (2): 78–81.

  79. Adiga DS, Hippargi SB, Rao G. et al. Evaluation of fluorescent staining for diagnosis of leprosy and its impact on grading of the disease: Comparison with conventional staining. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(10):EC23–EC26.

  80. Job C.K., Jayakumar J., Williams D.L., Gillis T.P. Role of polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of early leprosy. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1997; 65 (4): 461–464.

  81. Torres P., Camarena J.J., Gomez J.R., et al. Comparison of PCR-mediated amplification of DNA and the classical methods for detection of Mycobacterium leprae in different types of clinical samples in leprosy patients and contacts. Lepr Rev. 2003; 74 (1): 18–30.

  82. Jardim M.R, Antunes S.L., Santos A.R. et al. Criteria for diagnosis of pure neural leprosy. J Neurol. 2003; 250 (7): 806–809.

  83. Bezerra Da Cunha F.M., Werneck M.C., Scola R.H., Werneck L.C. Pure neural leprosy: diagnostic value of the polymerase chain reaction. Muscle Nerve. 2006; 33 (3): 409–414.

  84. Bakker M.I., Hatta M., Kwenang A. et al. Risk factors for developing leprosy – a population-based cohort study in Indonesia. Lepr Rev. 2006; 77 (1): 48–61.

  85. Reis E.M., Araujo S., Lobato J. et al. Mycobacterium leprae DNA in peripheral blood may indicate a bacilli migration route and high-risk for leprosy onset. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014; 20 (5): 447–452.

  86. Saroyants L.V., Arnaudova K.Sh., Abramov D.D., Trofimov D.Yu. Development of laboratory diagnostics of leprosy using polymerase chain reaction. Klinicheskaya laboratornaya diagnostika. 2018; 63 (1): 55–59.

  87. Obraztsova O.A., Verbenko D.A., Karamova A.E. et al. Improvement of PCR diagnostics of leprosy by amplification of a species-specific repetitive fragment of the Mycobacterium leprae genome. Klinicheskaya laboratornaya diagnostika. 2018; 63 (8): 511–516.

  88. Pat. No. 2 641 060 C1 (RU) "Method for identifying DNA of leprosy mycobacteria using polymerase chain reaction" / Saroyants L.V., Arnaudova K.Sh. // Byul. Izobreteniya. – 15.01.2018. No. 2.

  89. Patent for invention No. 2688156 "Method for evaluating the effectiveness of leprosy treatment using polymerase chain reaction" dated 20.05.2019 Byul. No. 14.

  90. Martinez A.N., Ribeiro-Alves M., Sarno E.N., Moraes M.O. Evaluation of qPCR- based assays for leprosy diagnosis directly in clinical specimens. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 Oct; 5 (10): e1354.

  91. Truman R.W., Andrews P.K., Robbins N.Y. et al. Enumeration of Mycobacterium leprae using real-time PCR. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008; 2 (11): e328.

  92. Spencer J.S., Kim H.J., Wheat W.H., et al. Analysis of antibody responses to Mycobacterium leprae phenolic glycolipid I, lipoarabinomannan, and recombinant proteins to define disease subtype-specific antigenic profiles in leprosy. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011; 18 (2): 260–267.

  93. Oskam L., Slim E., Buhrer-Sdkula S. Serology: recent developments, strengths, limitations and prospects: a state of the art overview. Lepr Rev. 2003; 74 (3): 196–205.

  94. Koroleva-Ushakova A.G., Baranova E.V., Ignatov S.G. et al. Prospect of using synthetic mycobacterial antigens in serological tests for the diagnosis of leprosy. Infektsionnye bolezni. 2020; 18 (4): 164–168.

  95. Kondakov N.N., Mel'nikova T.M., Chekryzhova T.V. et al. Synthesis of a disaccharide of phenolic glycolipid from Mycobacterium leprae (PGL-I) and its conjugates with bovine serum albumin. Russian Chemical Bulletin. 2015; 64 (5): 1142–1148.

  96. Degtyarev O.V., Dyachina M.N., Duyko V.V., Parshin M.P. Prognostic value of seroepidemiological examination in leprosy. Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases. 1995; (2): 35–37.

  97. Spencer J. S., Duthie M. S., Geluk A. et al. Identification of serological biomarkers of infection, disease progression and treatment efficacy for leprosy. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2012; 107 Suppl 1: 79–89.

  98. Martins M.V., Guimarães M.M., Spencer J.S. et al. Pathogen-specific epitopes as epidemiological tools for defining the magnitude of Mycobacterium leprae transmission in areas endemic for leprosy. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012; 6 (4): e1616.

  99. Prakash K., Sehgal V. N., Aggarwal R. Evaluation of phenolic glycolipid-I (PGL-I) antibody as a multidrug therapy (MDT) monitor. J Dermatol. 1993; 20 (1): 16–20.

  100. Roche P.W., Britton W.J., Failbus S.S. et al. Serological monitoring of the response to chemotherapy in leprosy patients. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1993; 61 (1): 35–43.

  101. Cho S.N., Cellona R.V., Fajardo T.T. Jr. et al. Detection of phenolic glycolipid-I antigen and antibody in sera from new and relapsed lepromatous patients treated with various drug regimens. Int. J. Lepr. 1991; 59 (1): 25–31.

  102. Silva R. C., Lyon S., Araos R. et al. The result patterns of ML Flow and ELISA (PGL-I) serologic tests in leprosy-endemic and non-endemic areas. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2008; 41 Suppl 2: 19–22.

  103. Khadge S., Banu S., Bobosha K. et al. Longitudinal immune profiles in type 1 leprosy reactions in Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia and Nepal. BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Oct 28; 15: 477.

  104. Bazan-Furini R., Motta A.C., Simão J.C. et al. Early detection of leprosy by examination of household contacts, determination of serum anti-PGL-1 antibodies and consanguinity. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2011; 106 (5): 536–540.

  105. Dessunti E.M., Soubhia Z., Alves E. et al. Leprosy: control of household contacts in the municipality of Londrina-PR for a ten-year period. Rev Bras Enferm. 2008; 61 Spec No: 689–693.

  106. Buhrer-Sekula S., Smits H.L., Gussenhoven G.C. et al. Simple and fast lateral flow test for classification of leprosy patients and identification of contacts with high risk of developing leprosy. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41 (5): 1991–1995.

  107. Reece S.T., Ireton G., Mohamath R. et al. ML0405 and ML2331 are antigens of Mycobacterium leprae with potential for diagnosis of leprosy. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2006; 13 (3): 333–340. 

  108. Baranova E., Panfertsev E., Solov‘ev P., et al. Development of LF test based on synthetic antigens for the serodiagnosis of leprae // 18th Int. Leprosy Congress. Hidden challenges: book of abstracts. – Brussels. – 2013. – P.170.

  109. Neurology. National guidelines. Short edition / ed. by E.I. Gusev, A.N. Konovalov, A.B. Gekht. M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2018. – 268 p. ISBN 978-5-9704-4405-4.

  110. Jain S., Visser L.H., Yerasu M.R. et al. Use of high-resolution ultrasonography as an additional tool in the diagnosis of primary neuritic leprosy: a case report. Lepr Rev. 2013; 84 (2): 161–165.

  111. Choudhuri H., Thappa D.M., Kumar R.H., Elangovan S. Bone changes in leprosy patients with disabilities/deformities (a clinico-radiological correlation). Indian J Lepr. 1999; 71 (2): 203–215.

  112. DeFaria C.R., Silva I.M. Electromyographic diagnosis of leprosy. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 1990; 48 (4): 403–413.

  113. Prahad P.V.S., Kaviarasan P.K., Kannambal K. et al. Recent advances in diagnostic techniques and new hope towards leprosy elimination in the post elimination era. J Clin Dermatol Ther. 2017; 4: 027.

  114. Frade M.A., Nogueira-Barbosa M.H., Lugao H.B. et al. New sonographic measures of peripheral nerves: a tool for the diagnosis of peripheral nerve involvement in leprosy. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2013; 108 (3): 257–262.

  115. Choudhuri H, Thappa DM, Kumar RH, Elangovan S. Bone changes in leprosy patients with disabilities/deformities (a clinico-radiological correlation). Indian J Lepr. 1999 Apr-Jun;71(2):203-15.

  116. Khadilkar S.V., Patil S.B., Shetty V.P. Neuropathies of leprosy. J Neurol Sci. 2021 Jan 15; 420: 117288.

  117. Order of the Russian Ministry of Health No. 1681n dated December 29, 2012, "On Approval of the Standard of Specialized Medical Care for Leprosy, Active Stage".

  118. Rostom S., Bahiri .R, Mahfoud-Filali S., Hajjaj-Hassouni N. Neurogenic osteoarthropathy in leprosy. Clin Rheumatol. 2007; 26 (12): 2153–2155.

  119. Kubanov A.A., Shats E.I., Duyko V.V. Lepra. In: Clinical Dermatovenereology: in 2 vols. / ed. by Yu.K. Skripkin, Yu.S. Butov. – Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2009. – Vol. 1 – P. 336–349.

  120. 9. CW. 3H3O6-3E3x9p.ert Committee on Leprosy seventh report. WHO Technical Report Series, №874, WHO, 1998, Geneva, Switzerland.

  121. Kubanov A.A., Karamova A.E., Vorontsova A.A., Kalinina R.A. Pharmacotherapy of leprosy. Vestnik dermatologii i venerologii. 2016; (4): 12–19.

  122. Williams D.L., Hagino T., Sharma R., Scollard D. Primary multidrug-resistant leprosy, United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013; 19 (1): 179–181.

  123. Kar H.K., Gupta R. Treatment of leprosy. Clin Dermatol. 2015; 33 (1): 55–65.

  124. Lockwood D.N., Cunha M. da G. Developing new MDT regimens for MB patients; time to test ROM 12 month regimens globally. Lepr Rev. 2012; 83 (3): 241–244.

  125. Setia M.S., Shinde S.S., Jerajani H.R., Boivin J.F. Is there a role for rifampicin, ofloxacin and minocycline (ROM) therapy in the treatment of leprosy? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Trop Med Int Health. 2011; 16 (12): 1541–1551.

  126. Report of Informal Consultation on Treatment of Reactions and Prevention of Disabilites, WHO, Chennai, India, 2018.

  127. Faber W.R., Jensema A.J., Goldschmidt W.F. Treatment of recurrent erythema nodosum leprosum with infliximab. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355 (7): 739.

  128. Santos J.R., Vendramini D.L., Nery J., Avelleira J.C. Etanercept in erythema nodosum leprosum. An Bras Dermatol. 2017; 92 (4): 575–577.

  129. de Barros B., Lambert S.M., Shah M. et al. Methotrexate and prednisolone study in erythema nodosum leprosum (MaPs in ENL) protocol: a double-blind randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 17; 10 (11): e037700.

  130. Kar B.R., Babu R. Methotrexate in resistant ENL. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 2004; 72 (4): 480–482.

  131. Severe E. N. L., Numerous E. N. L. WHO Guidelines for the management of severe erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) reactions.

  132. Kar H.K., Gupta L. Comparative efficacy of four treatment regimens in Type 2 Leprosy Reactions (Prednisolone alone, Thalidomide alone, Prednisolone plus Thalidomide and Prednisolone plus Clofazimine). Indian J Lepr. 2016; 88 (1): 29–38.

  133. Lockwood D., Bryceson A. The return of thalidomide: new uses and renewed concerns—reply. Lepr Rev. 2003; 74 (3): 290–294.

  134. Sales A.M., de Matos H.J., Nery J.A. et al. Double-blind trial of the efficacy of pentoxifylline vs thalidomide for the treatment of type II reaction in leprosy. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2007; 40 (2): 243–248.

  135. Moraes M.O., Sarno E.N., Teles R.M. et al. Anti-inflammatory drugs block cytokine mRNA accumulation in the skin and improve the clinical condition of reactional leprosy patients. J Invest Dermatol. 2000; 115 (6): 935–941.

  136. Shats E.I., Naumov V.Z. Topical issues of using physical factors in the rehabilitation of leprosy patients. // Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference Dedicated to the 120th Anniversary of the Astrakhan Clinical Leprosarium. – Astrakhan. – 2016. – P. 58–70.

  137. Drabik R. Rehabilitation and Prevention of Progressive Deformities in Leprosy. // Practical Guide for Physicians, Moscow. – 2005. – 59 p.

  138. Fritschi E.P. Surgical reconstruction and rehabilitation in leprosy. // TLM New Delhi. – 1984.

  139. Guidelines for the Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention of Leprosy,WHO, 2018.

  140. Kar H.K., Gupta R. Treatment of leprosy. Clin Dermatol. 2015; 33 (1): 55–65.

  141. Merle C.S., Cunha S.S., Rodrigues L.C. BCG vaccination and leprosy protection: review of current evidence and status of BCG in leprosy control. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2010; 9 (2): 209–22.

  142. Smith W.C., Sanderson P. Leprosy. BMJ Clin Evid. 2010: 2010. pii: 0915.

  143. Cunha S.S., Alexander N., Barreto M.L. et al. BCG revaccination does not protect against leprosy in the Brazilian Amazon: a cluster-randomised trial. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008 Feb 13; 2 (2): e167.

  144. Sharma P., Mukherjee R., Talwar G.P. et al. Immunoprophylactic effects of the anti-leprosy Mw vaccine in household contacts of leprosy patients: clinical field trials with a follow up of 8–10 years. Lepr Rev. 2005; 76 (2): 127–143.

  145. World Health Organization, Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases. Global leprosy update, 2015: time for action, accountability and inclusion. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2015 Sep 2; 91 (35): 405–420.

  146. Bishop P.J., Neumann G. The history of the Ziehl-Neelsen stain. Tubercle. 1970; 51 (2): 196–206.

  147. Saroyants L.V., Arnaudova K.Sh., Abramov D.D., Trofimov D.Yu. Development of laboratory diagnostics of leprosy using polymerase chain reaction. Klinicheskaya laboratornaya diagnostika. 2018; 63 (1): 55–59.

  148. Obraztsova O.A., Verbenko D.A., Karamova A.E. et al. Improvement of PCR diagnostics of leprosy by amplification of a species-specific repetitive fragment of the Mycobacterium leprae genome. Klinicheskaya laboratornaya diagnostika. 2018; 63 (8): 511–516.

  149. Bazan-Furini R., Motta A.C., Simão J.C. et al. Early detection of leprosy by examination of household contacts, determination of serum anti-PGL-1 antibodies and consanguinity. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2011; 106 (5): 536–540.

  150. Saroyants L.V., Boldyreva M.N., Guskova I.A. et al. Immunogenetic markers of predisposition to leprosy in Russian residents of the Astrakhan region. Immunologiya. 2005; 26 (5): 263–267.

  151. Saroyants L.V. Immunogenetic aspects of familial leprosy. Astrakh. med. zhurn. 2011; 6 (1): 105–108.

  152. Khaitov R.M., Alekseev L.P., Boldyreva M.N., Saroyants L.V. Polymorphism of human immune response genes and its role in anti-infectious defense. Immunologiya. 2013; 34 (3): 132–144.

  153. Zhang X., Cheng Y., Zhang Q. et al. Meta-­analysis identifies major histocompatiblity complex loci in or near HLA-DRB1, HLA-DQA1, HLA-C as associated with leprosy in Chinese Han population. J Invest Dermatol. 2019; 139 (4): 957–960.

  154. Escamilla-Tilch M., Torres-Carrillo N.M., Payan R.R., Association of genetic polymorphism of HLA DRB1 antigens with the susceptibility to lepromatous leprosy. Biomed Rep. 2013 Nov; 1 (6): 945–949.

  155. Hsieh N.K., Chu C.C., Lee N.S. et al. Association of HLA- DRB1* 0405 with resistance to multibacillary leprosy in Taiwanese. Hum Immunol. 2010; 71 (7): 712–716.

  156. Zhang F, Liu H, Chen S. et al. Evidence for an association of HLA-DRB1* 15 and DRB1* 09 with leprosy and the impact of DRB1* 09 on disease onset in a Chinese Han population. BMC Med Genet. 2009 Dec 11; 10: 133.

  157. da Silva S.A., Mazini P.S., Reis P.G. et al. HLA-DR and HLA-DQ alleles in patients from the south of Brazil: markers for leprosy susceptibility and resistance. BMC Infect Dis. 2009 Aug 22; 9: 134.

  158. Vanderborght P.R., Pacheco A.G., Moraes M.E. et al. HLA-DRB1*04 and DRB1*10 are associated with resistance and susceptibility, respectively, in Brazilian and Vietnamese leprosy patients. Genes Immun. 2007; 8 (4): 320–324.

  159. Manczinger M., Boross G., Kemeny L. et al. Pathogen diversity drives the evolution of generalist MHC-II alleles in human populations. PLoS Biol. 2019 Jan 31; 17 (1): e3000131.

  160. Dallmann-Sauer M., Fava V.M., Gzara C. et al. The complex pattern of genetic associations of leprosy with HLA class I and class II alleles can be reduced to four amino acid positions. PLoS Pathog. 2020 Aug 10; 16 (8): e1008818.

  161. World Health Organization .Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of leprosy. 2018, p.87.

  162. Barth-Jaeggi T., Steinmann P., Mieras L. et al. Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) programme: study protocol for evaluating the feasibility and impact on case detection rates of contact tracing and single dose rifampicin. BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 17; 6 (11):  e013633.

  163. Kubanov A.A., Karamova A.E., Semenova V.G. et al. Leprosy relapse developed after discontinuation of antileprotic therapy. Vestnik dermatologii i venerologii. 2016; (6): 66–72.

  164. Prabu R., Manickam P., Mahalingam V.N. et al. Relapse and deformity among 2177 leprosy patients released from treatment with MDT between 2005 and 2010 in South India: A retrospective cohort study. Lepr Rev. 2015; 86 (4): 345–355.

  165. Prabu R., Manickam P., Mahalingam V.N. et al. Relapse and deformity among 2177 leprosy patients released from treatment with MDT between 2005 and 2010 in South India: A retrospective cohort study. Lepr Rev. 2015; 86 (4): 345–355.

  166. Wu Q., Yin Y., Zhang L. et al. A study on a possibility of predicting early relapse in leprosy using a ND-O-BSA based ELISA. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 2002; 70 (1): 1–8.

  167. Degtyarev O.V., Duyko V.V., Dyachina M.N., Ibadulaev Z.Ya. Serological monitoring of leprosy patients as a criterion for cure and control of the epidemiological situation. Rossiyskiy zhurnal kozhnykh i venericheskikh bolezney. 2013; (4): 29–32.

  168. Sengupta U. Immunological aspects of relapse in leprosy. Indian J Lepr. 1995; 67 (1): 81–83.

  169. Buhrer-Sikula S., Cunha M.G., Foss N.T. et al. Dipstick assay to identify leprosy patients who have an increased risk of relapse. Trop Med Int Health. 2001; 6 (4): 317–323.

  170. Saroyants L.V., Naumov V.Z. Method for predicting the risk of relapse in leprosy patients. – 2009.

  171. Stefani M.M., Avanzi C., Bührer-Sékula S. et al. Whole genome sequencing distinguishes between relapse and reinfection in recurrent leprosy cases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Jun 15; 11 (6): e0005598.

  172. Anokhina V.V., Umnova Z.G. Relapses in leprosy patients. Topical Issues of Clinical and Experimental Leprology. // Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, Astrakhan, September 22–24, 2011. – P. 118–123.

  173. Degtyarev O.V., Inshina E.A., Metreveli G.V., Yanchevskaya E.Yu. Relapses of leprosy. Astrakhanskiy meditsinskiy zhurn. 2015; 10 (3): 6–14.

  174. Beltrán-Alzate C., López Díaz F., Romero-Montoya M. et al. Leprosy drug resistance surveillance in Colombia: the experience of a sentinel country. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Oct 5; 10 (10): e0005041.

  175. You E.Y, Kang T.J., Kim S.K. et al. Mutations in genes related to drug resistance in Mycobacterium leprae isolates from leprosy patients in Korea. J Infect. 2005; 50 (1): 6–11.

  176. de Paula H.L., de Souza C.D., Silva S.R. et al. Risk factors for physical disability in patients with leprosy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Oct 1; 155 (10): 1120–1128.

  177. Scollard D. M., Adams L.B., Gillis T.P. et al. The continuing challenges of leprosy.  Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006; 19 (2): 338–381.

  178. Saroyants L.V., Naumov V.Z. Immunogenetic criteria for predicting complications of the leprosum process. Rossiyskiy allergologicheskiy zhurnal. 2010; 1 (1): 159–160.

  179. Saroyants L.V., Naumov V.Z. Method for predicting the severe course of leprosum polyneuropathies. – 2009.

  180. Watson J.M. Preventing disability in leprosy patients. - Brentford. - 1988.

  181. Duyko V.V., Gridasov M.I. Dispensary observation of leprosy patients in modern conditions // Proceedings of the II Annual All-Russian Congress on Infectious Diseases. – Moscow, 2010. – P. 103.

  182. Order of the USSR Ministry of Health No. 483 dated December 14, 1990, "On Approval of Instructions for Combating Leprosy" (together with the "Instruction on Combating Leprosy").

  183. Abdirov Ch.A., Yushchenko A.A., Vdovina I.A. Guide to Combating Leprosy. – Nukus. – 1987. – 170 p.

  184. Scollard D.M. Leprosy treatment: Can we replace opinions with research? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Oct 8; 14 (10): e0008636. 

  185. Degtyarev O.V., Ibadulaev Z.Ya. Bacterial persistence in leprosy // Topical Issues of Clinical and Experimental Leprology. – Astrakhan. – Kaimal S., Thappa D.M. Relapse in leprosy. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2009 Mar-Apr; 75 (2): 126–135.

  186. Saroyants L.V. Immunogenetics of Leprosy (Interpopulation Aspect): Diss. – Institute of Immunology, 2011.

  187. Shats E.I., Naumov V.Z. Topical issues of using physical factors in the rehabilitation of leprosy patients. // Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference Dedicated to the 120th Anniversary of the Astrakhan Clinical Leprosarium, October 6–7, 2016. – Astrakhan, 2016. – P. 58–69.

  188. Grimaud J. Neuropathies au cours de la lèpre [Peripheral nerve damage in patients with leprosy]. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2012; 168 (12): 967–974.

  189. Languillon J, Plagnol H, Giraudeau P. L'insuffisance de la corticosurrénale dans la lèpre lépromateuse. Essai de pathogénie de la réaction lépreuse [Adrenocortical insufficiency in leprosy. Pathogenic study of the leprous reaction]. Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiales. 1966; 59 (5): 740–744.

  190. Soshamma G., Suryavanshi N. Eye lesions in leprosy. Lepr Rev. 1989; 60 (1): 33–38.

  191. Singh N., Arora V.K., Jain A. et al. Cytology of testicular changes in leprosy. Acta Cytol. 2002; 46 (4): 659–663.

  192. Jaffe L. Leprosy of the nose, throat and ears, a forgotten object. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1971; 39 (2): 444–446.

  193. Puri V., Venkateshwaran N., Khare N. Trophic ulcers – Practical management guidelines. Indian J Plast Surg. 2012; 45 (2): 340–351.

  194. Furness M.A. Physiotherapy in leprosy. Aust J Physiother. 1982; 28 (6): 9–12.

  195. WHO Team, Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of leprosy-2018-

  196. Treatment of leprosy, Chapter 2.6. In Scollard DM, Gillis TP (ed), International textbook of leprosy.-2019-

  197. Shats E.I., Saroyants L.V., Naumov V.Z. Topical issues in the treatment of neurotrophic complications in leprosy patients. Meditsinskiy alfavit. 2022; (21): 23–26.

  198. Yushchenko A.A., Duyko V.V. Medical and social rehabilitation of leprosy patients. // First Russian Congress of Gerontologists and Geriatricians: Collection of Abstracts and Articles. Samara; 1999: 635–636.

  199. Epifanov V.A., Epifanov A.V. Medical and Social Rehabilitation of Patients with Various Pathologies. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2017. – 592 p.

  200. Semyonova V.G., Karamova A.E., Nefedova M.A. Leprosy under the "mask" of skin tuberculosis — diagnostic challenges. Vestnik dermatologii i venerologii. 2017; (6): 91–99.

  201. Semenova V.G., Karamova A.E., Nefedova M.A. et al. A case of borderline tuberculoid leprosy with atypical and complicated manifestations. Vestnik dermatologii i venerologii. 2019; 95 (4): 67–78.

  202. Yanchevskaya E.Yu., Kovtunova V.A., Dumchenko E.V., Duyko V.V., Levicheva Yu.Yu. Borderline-lepromatous leprosy with primary clinical manifestation in a patient with a long dermatological history. Vestnik dermatologii i venerologii. 2020; 96 (5): 53–58.

  203. Lapinsky S.E., Baynes R.D., Schulz E.J. et al. Anaemia, iron-related measurements and erythropoietin levels in untreated patients with active leprosy. J Intern Med. 1992; 232 (3): 273–278.

  204. Lastória J.C., Abreu M.A. Leprosy: a review of laboratory and therapeutic aspects--part 2. An Bras Dermatol. 2014; 89 (3): 389–401.

  205. Jindal R., Nagrani P., Chauhan P. et al. Nutritional status of patients with leprosy attending a tertiary care institute in North India. Cureus. 2022 Mar 16; 14 (3): e23217.

  206. Wolverton S.E. Monitoring for adverse effects from systemic drugs used in dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992; 26 (5 Pt 1): 661–679.

  207. Wolverton S.E., Remlinger K. Suggested guidelines for patient monitoring: hepatic and hematologic toxicity attributable to systemic dermatologic drugs. Dermatol Clin. 2007; 25 (2): 195–205.

  208. Molinelli E., Paolinelli M., Campanati A. et al. Metabolic, pharmacokinetic, and toxicological issues surrounding dapsone. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2019; 15 (5): 367–379.

  209. Zhu Y.I., Stiller M.J. Dapsone and sulfones in dermatology: overview and update. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001; 45 (3): 420–434.

  210. Ozturk S, Ozturk T, Can I. Renal involvement in leprosy: evaluation of patients in Turkey. Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2017; 34 (3): 240–244.

  211. Silva Junior G.B., Daher Ede F., Pires Neto Rda J. et al. Leprosy nephropathy: a review of clinical and histopathological features. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2015; 57 (1): 15–20.

  212. Hossain D. Using methotrexate to treat patients with ENL unresponsive to steroids and clofazimine: a report on 9 patients. Lepr Rev. 2013 Mar;84(1):105-12. 

  213. Cohen J.C., de Miranda S.T. Orthopedic surgical foot management in Hansen disease. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020; 51 (2): 279–291.

  214. Moonot P., Ashwood N., Lockwood D. Orthopaedic complications of leprosy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (10): 1328–1332.

  215. Balestrino A., Fiaschi P., Riccardi N. et al. Neurosurgical treatment of leprosy neuropathy in a low-incidence, European country. Neurol Sci. 2019; 40 (7): 1371–1375.

  216. Anderson G.A. The surgical management of deformities of the hand in leprosy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88 (3): 290–294.

  217. Klioze A.M., Ramos-Caro F.A. Visceral leprosy. Int J Dermatol. 2000 Sep;39(9):641–658.

  218. Lastória J.C., Abreu M.A. Leprosy: review of the epidemiological, clinical, and etiopathogenic aspects - part 1. An Bras Dermatol. 2014; 89 (2): 205–218.

  219. Singh R.K., Bhasin R., Bisht Y.S., Kumar K.V. Endocrine dysfunction in patients of leprosy. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2015; 19 (3): 369–372.

  220. Leal A.M., Foss N.T. Endocrine dysfunction in leprosy. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009; 28 (1): 1–7.

  221. Pavezzi P.D., do Prado R.B., Boin Filho P.Â. et al. Evaluation of ocular involvement in patients with Hansen's disease. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020 Sep 21; 14 (9): e0008585.

  222. Gurnani B., Kaur K., Savla H.R. et al. Navigating diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in ocular manifestations of Hansen's disease and trachoma: A narrative review. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2024; 72 (6): 816–823.

  223. Saporta L., Yuksel A. Androgenic status in patients with lepromatous leprosy. Br J Urol. 1994; 74 (2): 221–224.

  224. Moet F.J., Meima A., Oskam L., Richardus J.H. Risk factors for the development of clinical leprosy among contacts, and their relevance for targeted interventions. Lepr Rev. 2004; 75 (4): 310– 326.

  225. Duyko V.V. Features of the organization of antileprotic measures in Russia at the present stage. Problemy sotsialnoy gigieny, zdravookhraneniya i istorii meditsiny. 2013; (2): 31–32.

  226. Efanova E.N., Vasilyeva E.A. Leprosy: current state of the problem. Vestnik SurGU. Meditsina. 2024; 17 (2): 17–25.

  227. Belopasov V.V., Grigoryeva Yu.G. Neuralgic crises in leprosy. Manage Pain. 2014; (3): 62–68.

  228. Furness MA. Physiotherapy in leprosy. Aust J Physiother. 1982 Dec;28(6):9-12. doi: 10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60779-0. PMID: 25026306.

Appendix A1. Working Group Composition

  1. Kubanov Alexey Alekseevich – Academician of the RAS, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Director of the State Research Center of Dermatovenereology and Cosmetology of the Russian Ministry of Health, President of the Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists.

  2. Shelepova Tatyana Nikolaevna – Candidate of Medical Sciences, Member of the Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists.

  3. Saroyants Lyudmila Valentinovna – Doctor of Medical Sciences, Member of the Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists.

  4. Nabieva Antonina Ramazanovna – Candidate of Medical Sciences, Member of the Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists.

  5. Shats Evgeny Ilyich – Candidate of Medical Sciences, Member of the Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists.

  6. Yushin Mikhail Yurievich – Candidate of Medical Sciences, Member of the Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists.

  7. Naumov Valentin Zakharovich – Candidate of Medical Sciences, Member of the Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists.

  8. Lutsenko Anna Viktorovna – Candidate of Biological Sciences, Member of the Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists.

  9. Plakhova Ksenia Ilyinichna – Doctor of Medical Sciences, Scientific Secretary, State Research Center of Dermatovenereology and Cosmetology of the Russian Ministry of Health, Member of the Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists. No conflict of interest.

  10. Karamova Arfenya Eduardovna – Candidate of Medical Sciences, Head of the Department of Dermatology, State Research Center of Dermatovenereology and Cosmetology of the Russian Ministry of Health; Member of the Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists.

  11. Chikin Vadim Viktorovich – Doctor of Medical Sciences, Senior Researcher at the Department of Dermatology, State Research Center of Dermatovenereology and Cosmetology of the Russian Ministry of Health; Member of the Russian Society of Dermatovenereologists and Cosmetologists.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A2. Methodology for Developing Clinical Guidelines

Target audience for these clinical guidelines:

1. Medical specialists: dermatovenereologist, general practitioner (family physician), neurologist.

2. Residents and trainees of continuing professional education cycles in the specified specialties.

Table 1. Levels of Evidence (LoE) grading scale for diagnostic methods (diagnostic interventions)

LoE

Definition

1

Systematic reviews of studies with reference standard control or systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials with meta-analysis

2

Individual studies with reference standard control or individual randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of studies of any design, except randomized controlled trials, with meta-analysis

3

Studies without consecutive reference standard control or studies with a reference standard not independent of the test method, or non-randomized comparative studies, including cohort studies

4

Non-comparative studies, case report

5

Only justification of mechanism of action or expert opinion is available

Table 2. Scale for grading levels of evidence (LoE) for prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation methods (preventive, therapeutic, rehabilitative interventions)

LoE

Definitions

1

Systematic review of RCTs with meta-analysis

2

Individual RCTs and systematic reviews of studies of any design except RCTs, with meta-analysis

3

Non-randomized comparative studies, including cohort studies

4

Non-comparative studies, case reports or case series, case-control studies

5

Only justification of the mechanism of action of the intervention (preclinical studies) or expert opinion is available

Table 3. Scale for grading grades of recommendation (GoR) for prevention, diagnostic, treatment, and rehabilitation methods (preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitation interventions)

GoR

Definition

A

Strong recommendation (all considered efficacy criteria (outcomes) are important, all studies are of high or acceptable methodological quality, and their conclusions on the outcomes of interest are consistent)

B

Conditional recommendation (not all considered efficacy criteria (outcomes) are important, not all studies are of high or acceptable methodological quality, and/or their conclusions on the outcomes of interest are inconsistent)

C

Weak recommendation (lack of adequate quality evidence (all considered efficacy criteria (outcomes) are unimportant, all studies are of low methodological quality, and their conclusions on the outcomes of interest are inconsistent)

Procedure for updating clinical guidelines.

The mechanism for updating clinical guidelines provides for their systematic revision at least once every three years, as well as upon the emergence of new evidence-based medicine data on the diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation of specific diseases, or in the presence of justified additions/comments to previously approved clinical guidelines, but no more frequently than once every 6 months.

Appendix A3. Reference Materials

These clinical guidelines were developed taking into account the following regulatory legal documents:

  1. Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 1681n dated December 29, 2012, "On Approval of the Standard of Specialized Medical Care for Leprosy, Active Stage".

Table A3.1 Differential diagnosis of leprosy.

Disease

Clinical manifestations

Clinical and

laboratory

diagnostics

Diagnostic tests

Erysipelas

inflammation

Onset is acute, abrupt, with pronounced symptoms of intoxication syndrome,

regional lymph nodes are very painful, lesion borders are sharper, brighter, painful. Localization is highly diverse. There is no damage to

the peripheral nervous system

Acid-fast

mycobacteria are not detected

by bacterioscopic method.

Bacteriological examination identifies

Streptococcus.

Mustard plaster test and nicotinic acid test

negative

Darier's annular erythema

Acute onset and chronic course due to the appearance of new annular eruptions that give the sensation of a "cord" embedded in the skin, rapid eccentric growth and rupture of the rings, forming arcs and scalloped borders.

Peripheral nervous

system involvement is absent.

Acid-fast

acid-fast mycobacteria are not detected by the method

The test with

a mustard plaster and

nicotinic acid

test

negative

Syphilis

Syphilitic roseola is pinkish-red, with indistinct borders and no scaling. Syphilitic

leukoderma develops rapidly, localized to the posterior neck and upper trunk. Concomitant

signs of syphilis (primary chancre, papules).

No peripheral nervous system involvement

Acid-fast mycobacteria are not detected by bacterioscopy.

Detection of antibodies to *Treponema pallidum* in the blood (positive result).

The test with

a mustard plaster and

nicotinic acid

test

negative

Psoriasis

Typical localization (elbows, knees, scalp, sacral region), pronounced infiltrate is absent, characteristic phenomena of stearin spot, terminal film, and auspitz sign (bloody dew), abundant silvery-white scales.

Peripheral nervous

system involvement is absent.

Acid-fast

control

acid-fast mycobacteria are not

detected

The test with

a mustard plaster and

nicotinic acid

test

negative

Systemic

lupus

erythematosus

Typical localization on the face as a "butterfly", sharper borders of the lesion, mild infiltrate usually only at the edges, bright red color, typical spiky scales terminating in atrophy. Peripheral nervous

system involvement is absent.

Acid-fast

mycobacteria are not detected

mycobacteria are not

detected.

Assay for the determination of

antinuclear antibodies to dsDNA (Sm/RNP) – positive titers in the majority of

patients.

Testing for other autoantibodies (antibodies to double-stranded DNA, to

ribonucleoprotein (RNP), anti-Ro, anti-La) – one or more of these tests are positive in SLE

The test with

a mustard plaster and

nicotinic acid

test

negative

Pink

lichen

Gibert's

Pinkish "medallions" with a yellowish center, covered with epidermis resembling crumpled tissue paper, accompanied by itching. The face, hands, and feet are generally spared; presence of a herald patch and a cyclical course (about 6 weeks). The rash is most abundant on the lateral surfaces of the trunk, back, and shoulders. The lesions are characterized by desquamation in the center of the spots, while the periphery features a scale-free red border, making the spots resemble medallions. Individual spots do not merge with one another. There are no peripheral nervous system lesions.

Acid-fast

control

acid-fast mycobacteria are not

detected

The test with

a mustard plaster and

nicotinic acid

test

negative

Vitiligo

Common localization includes the hands, the dorsum of the hands, the genital area, complete depigmentation, and a slowly progressive course.

Hair turns gray in the affected skin areas.

Acid-fast

control

acid-fast mycobacteria are not

detected

The test with

a mustard plaster and

nicotinic acid

test

negative

Red

planus

lichen

Polygonal papules, waxy and shiny, often with a central depression; a grayish network appears when lubricated with oil or water. There are no peripheral nervous system lesions.

Acid-fast

control

acid-fast mycobacteria are not

detected

The test with

a mustard plaster and

nicotinic acid

test

negative

Actinomycosis

Begins with the formation of a nodule, followed by a confluent tumor-like formation of woody consistency,

fused with surrounding tissues, with purple-colored skin and crumbly pus. Tendency to affect all tissues, muscles, and bones.

No peripheral nervous system involvement

Acid-fast

control

acid-fast mycobacteria are not

detected

The test with

a mustard plaster and

nicotinic acid

test

negative

Leishmaniasis

Late ulcerating (anthroponotic, urban) with an incubation period of up to 3–6 months and longer. Appears as a dense, painless papule, which develops scaling after 2–3 months, and an ulcer covered with a dense crust after 4–6 months. By the end of the year, dense infiltrates develop, and self-healing occurs.

Acute necrotizing (zoonotic, rural) with an incubation period of no more than 2–3 weeks. Acute onset, furuncle-like eruptions. After 5–7 days, breakdown occurs with the formation of an ulcer covered by a crust. Before ulceration, it may resemble tuberculoid or

lepromatous leprosy. Eyebrows are completely preserved. On the face, cutaneous leishmaniasis predominantly affects the central parts, whereas leprosy affects the lateral parts. There are no peripheral nervous system lesions.

Microscopic examination of skin scrapings, papules, and ulcer edges for Leishmania reveals

a large number of Leishmania (Borovsky bodies); acid-fast mycobacteria are not detected.

The infiltrate is polymorphic and consists of histiocytes,

epithelioid cells,

plasma cells, and giant cells.

Mustard plaster test and nicotinic acid test are negative.

Appendix B. Physician Action Algorithms

Appendix B1. Physician Action Algorithms

Appendix B2. Physician Action Algorithms (relapse of leprosy)

Appendix B. Physician Action Algorithms — Leprosy [Hansen's disease]

Appendix C. Patient Information

Specific anti-leprosy treatment requires regularity in taking combination therapy.

At the first signs of neurotrophic complications or exacerbation of the disease, it is necessary to promptly contact a leprosarium or a local dermatologist-venereologist.

Patients need to follow a high-protein diet during the acute period of the disease.

What you should know about leprosy (patient information leaflet):

Leprosy is a chronic infectious disease known to humanity since ancient times. The disease is still widespread in certain regions of the world (Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America), and sporadic cases can occur in any country.

The disease mainly affects the skin, mucous membranes of the upper respiratory tract, peripheral nerves, and, if left untreated, involves the musculoskeletal system, eyes, and other organs, leading to severe disability. Leprosy is usually transmitted through prolonged contact with an infected person. The risk of infection increases with poor personal hygiene, unsatisfactory quality of life, increased population migration, and low sanitary culture. However, only a small fraction of the population develops the disease, which is explained by the presence of congenital immunity to this illness in most people.

It should be noted that leprosy usually begins insidiously, with an incubation period from infection to the appearance of the first signs averaging 2–4 years, and sometimes longer. The main initial signs of the disease are varied (non-painful, non-itching) skin patches with clear or unclear borders, loss of sensitivity (pain, temperature, and tactile), darkening and thickening of the skin on the face and extremities, and painful or thickened nerves. Sometimes patients complain of weakness, nosebleeds, a "crawling sensation" (paresthesia), or numbness in the extremities.

If you or your loved ones have any skin rashes, if you have developed dark or light patches on your skin with loss of sensitivity, if your facial features have changed, your hands are swelling, your joints are not working properly, if you do not feel burns or already have signs of paralysis and non-healing ulcers, you should urgently consult a physician, preferably a dermatologist-venereologist. Modern medicine has highly effective drugs for the treatment and rehabilitation of leprosy patients. Timely and adequate treatment ensures complete recovery and prevents disability.

Appendix G. Assessment Scales, Questionnaires, and Other Evaluation Tools

Rating scales, questionnaires, and other assessment tools for evaluating the condition of patients with leprosy have not been developed.

ClinRevs Pro690 ₽ per month · cancel anytime

Clinical calculators and scalesRisk calculation, dosing, and scoring using scales from clinical guidelines — online, no registration required.

Open calculators

Answers based on Russian clinical guidelines directly in ChatGPT and Claude Connect the WhiteCoat Pro connector, and the assistant will answer based on the guideline "Leprosy [Hansen's disease]" and other active Ministry of Health clinical guidelines with references to the section, rather than paraphrasing foreign guidelines. Address: mcp.pervoklassno.ru/mcp. How to configure ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity for Russian clinical guidelines

Subscribe in 2 minutes

AI Research DigestEvery morning — fresh PubMed articles in your specialty: translation, AI analysis, and link to the original. Reads in four minutes.

Subscribe for 990 ₽

Related clinical guidelines