SummaryBackgroundA city-wide sanitation intervention was started in Salvador, Brazil, in 1997 to improve sewerage coverage from 26% of households to 80%. Our aim was to investigate the epidemiological effect of this city-wide sanitation programme on diarrhoea morbidity in children less than 3 years of age.MethodsThe investigation was composed of two longitudinal studies done in 1997–98 before the intervention (the sanitation programme) and in 2003–04 after the intervention had been completed. Each study consisted of a cohort of children (841 in the preintervention study and 1007 in the postintervention study; age 0–36 months at baseline) who were followed up for a maximum of 8 months. Children were sampled from 24 sentinel areas that were randomly chosen to represent the range of environmental conditions in the study site. At the start of each study an individual or household questionnaire was applied by trained fieldworkers; an environmental survey was done in each area before and after introduction of the sanitation programme to assess basic neighbourhood and household sanitation conditions. Daily diarrhoea data were obtained during home visits twice per week. The effect of the intervention was estimated by a hierarchical modelling approach fitting a sequence of multivariate regression models.FindingsDiarrhoea prevalence fell by 21% (95% CI 18–25%)—from 9·2 (9·0–9·5) days per child-year before the intervention to 7·3 (7·0–7·5) days per child-year afterwards. After adjustment for baseline sewerage coverage and potential confounding variables, we estimated an overall prevalence reduction of 22% (19–26%).InterpretationOur results show that urban sanitation is a highly effective health measure that can no longer be ignored, and they provide a timely support for the launch of 2008 as the International Year of Sanitation.

Summary Background Although leprosy is recognised as a disease of poverty, there is little evidence on the specific socioeconomic factors associated with disease risk. To inform targeted strategies for disease elimination, we investigated socioeconomic markers of leprosy risk in Brazil. Methods Socioeconomic data from the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort were linked to the Brazilian national disease registry (Sistema de Informação de Agravos de Notificação) for leprosy from Jan 1, 2007, to Dec 31, 2014. Using Poisson regression, we assessed the association of socioeconomic factors with risk of incident leprosy in the full cohort and in children (aged 0–15 years), by leprosy subtype and region of residence. Findings In an analysis of 23 899 942 individuals including 18 518 patients with leprosy, increased levels of deprivation were associated with an increased risk of leprosy in Brazil. Directions of effect were consistent in children younger than 15 years and across disease subtypes. Individuals residing in regions with the highest poverty in the country (central-west, north, and northeast regions) had a risk of leprosy incidence five-to-eight times greater than did other individuals. Decreased levels of income and education and factors reflecting unfavourable living conditions were associated with an up to two-times increase in leprosy incidence (incidence rate ratio 1·46, 95% CI 1·32–1·62, for lowest vs highest quartile of income per capita; 2·09, 95% CI 1·62–2·72, for lowest vs highest level of education). Interpretation Within the poorest half of the Brazilian population, the most deprived individuals have the greatest risk of leprosy. Strategies focusing on early detection and treatment in the poorest populations could contribute substantially to global disease control. Funding Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazil), the Conselho Nacional das Fundações Estaduais de Amparo à Pesquisa, Economic and Social Research Council, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, and Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Distrito Federal.

Over 200,000 new cases of leprosy are detected each year, of which approximately 7% are associated with grade-2 disabilities (G2Ds). For achieving leprosy elimination, one of the main challenges will be targeting higher risk groups within endemic communities. Nevertheless, the socioeconomic risk markers of leprosy remain poorly understood. To address this gap we systematically reviewed MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, LILACS and Web of Science for original articles investigating the social determinants of leprosy in countries with > 1000 cases/year in at least five years between 2006 and 2016. Cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, and ecological studies were eligible for inclusion; qualitative studies, case reports, and reviews were excluded. Out of 1,534 non-duplicate records, 96 full-text articles were reviewed, and 39 met inclusion criteria. 17 were included in random-effects meta-analyses for sex, occupation, food shortage, household contact, crowding, and lack of clean (i.e., treated) water. The majority of studies were conducted in Brazil, India, or Bangladesh while none were undertaken in low-income countries. Descriptive synthesis indicated that increased age, poor sanitary and socioeconomic conditions, lower level of education, and food-insecurity are risk markers for leprosy. Additionally, in pooled estimates, leprosy was associated with being male (RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.06–1.67), performing manual labor (RR = 2.15, 95% CI = 0.97–4.74), suffering from food shortage in the past (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.05–1.85), being a household contact of a leprosy patient (RR = 3.40, 95% CI = 2.24–5.18), and living in a crowded household (≥5 per household) (RR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.14–1.67). Lack of clean water did not appear to be a risk marker of leprosy (RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.65–1.35). Additionally, ecological studies provided evidence that lower inequality, better human development, increased healthcare coverage, and cash transfer programs are linked with lower leprosy risks. These findings point to a consistent relationship between leprosy and unfavorable economic circumstances and, thereby, underscore the pressing need of leprosy control policies to target socially vulnerable groups in high-burden countries.