# Risk factors for post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL): Challenges in understanding pathophysiology

## TL;DR

This paper explores the risk factors and immune response differences in post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis across two regions, aiming to improve understanding and control strategies.

## Contribution

The study systematically reviews regional differences in PKDL risk factors and immune responses, highlighting the need for integrated control approaches.

## Key findings

- Young age and male gender are risk factors for PKDL in Eastern Africa.
- Decreased expression of IFNGR1 is observed in PKDL but not in visceral leishmaniasis in both regions.
- Co-infections and environmental factors like arsenic and UV light may influence PKDL development.

## Abstract

Post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) occurs mainly in Eastern Africa (EA) and the Southeast Asia region (SEAR), but with important differences. In EA PKDL occurs in young children shortly after treatment of VL (within 1–13 months) when the immune response to leishmania is developing. In contrast, in the SEAR VL and PKDL occur in adolescents and young adults with an interval of 1–4 years or more after successful VL treatment with possible downgrading of the immune response. The risk factors for PKDL in both regions are poorly understood.

From a literature search, data was extracted with regard to risk factors, epidemiology, genetics, pathophysiology, immune responses, or co-infections in PKDL.

Among host factors, young age and male gender are risk factors in EA, and in both EA and the SEAR decreased expression of the IFNGR1 was found in PKDL but not VL. Parasite-related factors included differences in strains of VL and PKDL as well as co-infection with symbionts such as Leptomonas seymouri. Previous treatment of VL was a major risk factor in Sudan, India, and Bangladesh. PK and PD of drugs used in VL and PKDL may differ. Environmental factors include naturally occurring arsenic and exposure to UV light. Lastly, co-infection with other microbes is not uncommon and may result in downgrading of the immune response after successful VL treatment in the SEAR.

A better understanding of the pathophysiology in PKDL is needed to describe factors that influence (excessive) upgrading or downgrading of the immune response. For control efforts, optimalization of VL treatment (multidrug approach, immune modifiers) may result a stronger immune response and therefore lower PKDL rates. Lastly, the approach to PKDL should be integrated in a joint skin disease approach to look for risk factors such as co-infection with a strategy for combined management and control.