Trachoma is the commonest infectious cause of blindness. Recurrent episodes of infection with serovars A–C of Chlamydia trachomatis cause conjunctival inflammation in children who go on to develop scarring and blindness as adults. It was estimated that in 2002 at least 1.3 million people were blind from trachoma, and currently 40 million people are thought to have active disease and 8.2 million to have trichiasis. The disease is largely found in poor, rural communities in developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. The WHO promotes trachoma control through a multifaceted approach involving surgery, mass antibiotic distribution, encouraging facial cleanliness and environmental improvements. This has been associated with significant reductions in the prevalence of active disease over the past 20 years, but there remain a large number of people with trichiasis who are at risk of blindness.
BackgroundThe World Health Organization has recommended three rounds of mass drug administration (MDA) with antibiotics in districts where the prevalence of follicular trachoma (TF) is ≥10% in children aged 1–9 years, with treatment coverage of at least 80%. For districts at 5–10% TF prevalence it was recommended that TF be assessed in 1–9 year olds in each community within the district, with three rounds of MDA provided to any community where TF≥10%. Worldwide, over 40 million people live in districts whose TF prevalence is estimated to be between 5 and 10%. The best way to treat these districts, and the optimum role of testing for infection in deciding whether to initiate or discontinue MDA, are unknown.MethodsIn a community randomized trial with a factorial design, we randomly assigned 48 communities in four Gambian districts, in which the prevalence of trachoma was known or suspected to be above 10%, to receive annual mass treatment with expected coverage of 80–89% (“Standard”), or to receive an additional visit in an attempt to achieve coverage of 90% or more (“Enhanced”). The same 48 communities were randomised to receive mass treatment annually for three years (“3×”), or to have treatment discontinued if Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) infection was not detected in a sample of children in the community after mass treatment (stopping rule(“SR”)). Primary outcomes were the prevalence of TF and of Ct infection in 0–5 year olds at 36 months.ResultsThe baseline prevalence of TF and of Ct infection in the target communities was 6.5% and 0.8% respectively. At 36 months the prevalence of TF was 2.8%, and that of Ct infection was 0.5%. No differences were found between the arms in TF or Ct infection prevalence either at baseline (Standard-3×: TF 5.6%, Ct 0.7%; Standard-SR: TF 6.1%, Ct 0.2%; Enhanced-3×: TF 7.4%, Ct 0.9%; and Enhanced-SR: TF 6.2%, Ct 1.2%); or at 36 months (Standard-3×: TF 2.3%, Ct 1.0%; Standard-SR TF 2.5%, Ct 0.2%; Enhanced-3× TF 3.0%, Ct 0.2%; and Enhanced-SR TF 3.2%, Ct 0.7% ). The implementation of the stopping rule led to treatment stopping after one round of MDA in all communities in both SR arms. Mean treatment coverage of children aged 0–9 in communities randomised to standard treatment was 87.7% at baseline and 84.8% and 88.8% at one and two years, respectively. Mean coverage of children in communities randomized to enhanced treatment was 90.0% at baseline and 94.2% and 93.8% at one and two years, respectively. There was no evidence of any difference in TF or Ct prevalence at 36 months resulting from enhanced coverage or from one round of MDA compared to three.ConclusionsThe Gambia is close to the elimination target for active trachoma. In districts prioritised for three MDA rounds, one round of MDA reduced active trachoma to low levels and Ct infection was not detectable in any community. There was no additional benefit to giving two further rounds of MDA. Programmes could save scarce resources by determining when to initiate or to discontinue MDA based on testing for Ct infection, and one rou...
BackgroundTrachoma, caused by ocular infection with Chlamydia trachomatis, is hyperendemic on the Bijagós Archipelago of Guinea Bissau. An understanding of the risk factors associated with active trachoma and infection on these remote and isolated islands, which are atypical of trachoma-endemic environments described elsewhere, is crucial to the implementation of trachoma elimination strategies.Methodology/Principal FindingsA cross-sectional population-based trachoma prevalence survey was conducted on four islands. We conducted a questionnaire-based risk factor survey, examined participants for trachoma using the World Health Organization (WHO) simplified grading system and collected conjunctival swab samples for 1507 participants from 293 randomly selected households. DNA extracted from conjunctival swabs was tested using the Roche Amplicor CT/NG PCR assay. The prevalence of active (follicular and/or inflammatory) trachoma was 11% (167/1508) overall and 22% (136/618) in 1–9 year olds. The prevalence of C. trachomatis infection was 18% overall and 25% in 1–9 year olds. There were strong independent associations of active trachoma with ocular and nasal discharge, C. trachomatis infection, young age, male gender and type of household water source. C. trachomatis infection was independently associated with young age, ocular discharge, type of household water source and the presence of flies around a latrine.Conclusions/SignificanceIn this remote island environment, household-level risk factors relating to fly populations, hygiene behaviours and water usage are likely to be important in the transmission of ocular C. trachomatis infection and the prevalence of active trachoma. This may be important in the implementation of environmental measures in trachoma control.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.