Armadillo meat intake was not associated with leprosy in a case control study, Curitiba (Brazil)

Leprosy's progression and its maintained endemic status, despite the availability of effective treatments, are not fully understood and recent studies have highlighted the possibility of involved Mycobacterium leprae ambient reservoirs. Wild armadillos can carry leprosy and, because their meat is eaten by humans, development of the disease among armadillo meat consumers has been investigated. This study evaluated the frequency of armadillo meat intake among leprosy patients as well as age and gender matched controls with other skin diseases from a dermatological unit. Armadillo meat consumption among both groups was adjusted by demographic and socioeconomic covariates based on a conditional multiple logistic regression model. One hundred twenty-one cases and 242 controls were evaluated; they differed in socioeconomic variables such as family income, hometown population and access to treated water. The multivariate analysis did not show an association between the intake of armadillo meat and leprosy (odds ratio = 1.07; CI 95% 0.56-2.04), even when only cases with no known contacts were analyzed. We conclude that leprosy is not associated with the intake of armadillo meat in these patients.

Comparison of baseline data between chronic kidney disease patients starting hemodialysis who live near and far from the dialysis center

Introduction: The treatment offered to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients before starting hemodialysis (HD) impacts prognosis. Objective: We seek differences among incident HD patients according to the distance between home and the dialysis center. Methods: We included 179 CKD patients undergoing HD. Patients were stratified in two groups: "living near the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was in cities up to 100 km from the dialysis center) or as "living far from the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was more than 100 km from the dialysis center). Socioeconomic status, laboratory results, awareness of CKD before starting HD, consultation with nephrologist before the first HD session, and type of vascular access when starting HD were compared between the two groups. Comparisons of continuous and categorical variables were performed using Student's t-test and the Chi-square test, respectively. Results: Ninety (50.3%) patients were classified as "living near the dialysis center" and 89 (49.7%) as "living far from the dialysis center". Patients living near the dialysis center were more likely to know about their condition of CKD than those living far from the dialysis center, respectively 46.6% versus 28.0% (p = 0.015). Although without statistical significance, patients living near the dialysis center had more frequent previous consultation with nephrologists (55.5% versus 42.6%; p = 0.116) and first HD by fistula (30.0% versus 19.1%; p = 0.128) than those living far from the dialysis center. Conclusion: There are potential advantages of CKD awareness, referral to nephrologists and starting HD through fistula among patients living near the dialysis center.