Background With visceral leishmaniasis (VL) incidence at its lowest level since the 1960s, increasing attention has turned to early detection and investigation of outbreaks. Methods Outbreak investigations were triggered by recognition of case clusters in the VL surveillance system established for the elimination program. Investigations included ascertainment of all VL cases by date of fever onset, household mapping and structured collection of risk factor data. Results VL outbreaks were investigated in 13 villages in 10 blocks of 7 districts. Data were collected for 20,670 individuals, of whom 272 were diagnosed with VL between 2012 and 2019. Risk was significantly higher among 10–19 year-olds and adults 35 or older compared to children younger than 10 years. Outbreak confirmation triggered vector control activities and heightened surveillance. VL cases strongly clustered in tolas (hamlets within villages) in which > 66% of residents self-identified as scheduled caste or scheduled tribe (SC/ST); 79.8% of VL cases occurred in SC/ST tolas whereas only 24.2% of the population resided in them. Other significant risk factors included being an unskilled non-agricultural laborer, migration for work in a brick kiln, living in a kuccha (mud brick) house, household crowding, habitually sleeping outside or on the ground, and open defecation. Conclusions Our data highlight the importance of sensitive surveillance with triggers for case cluster detection and rapid, careful outbreak investigations to better respond to ongoing and new transmission. The strong association with SC/ST tolas suggests that efforts should focus on enhanced surveillance in these disadvantaged communities.

As India moves toward the elimination of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) as a public health problem, comprehensive timely case detection has become increasingly important, in order to reduce the period of infectivity and control outbreaks. During the 2000s, localized research studies suggested that a large percentage of VL cases were never reported in government data. However, assessments conducted from 2013 to 2015 indicated that 85% or more of confirmed cases were eventually captured and reported in surveillance data, albeit with significant delays before diagnosis. Based on methods developed during these assessments, the CARE India team evolved new strategies for active case detection (ACD), applicable at large scale while being sufficiently effective in reducing time to diagnosis. Active case searches are triggered by the report of a confirmed VL case, and comprise two major search mechanisms: 1) case identification based on the index case’s knowledge of other known VL cases and searches in nearby houses (snowballing); and 2) sustained contact over time with a range of private providers, both formal and informal. Simultaneously, house-to-house searches were conducted in 142 villages of 47 blocks during this period. We analyzed data from 5030 VL patients reported in Bihar from January 2018 through July 2019. Of these 3033 were detected passively and 1997 via ACD (15 (0.8%) via house-to-house and 1982 (99.2%) by light touch ACD methods). We constructed multinomial logistic regression models comparing time intervals to diagnosis (30-59, 60-89 and ≥90 days with <30 days as the referent). ACD and younger age were associated with shorter time to diagnosis, while male sex and HIV infection were associated with longer illness durations. The advantage of ACD over PCD was more marked for longer illness durations: the adjusted odds ratios for having illness durations of 30-59, 60-89 and >=90 days compared to the referent of <30 days for ACD vs PCD were 0.88, 0.56 and 0.42 respectively. These ACD strategies not only reduce time to diagnosis, and thus risk of transmission, but also ensure that there is a double check on the proportion of cases actually getting captured. Such a process can supplement passive case detection efforts that must go on, possibly perpetually, even after elimination as a public health problem is achieved.

BackgroundIndia has made major progress in improving control of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in recent years, in part through shortening the time infectious patients remain untreated. Active case detection decreases the time from VL onset to diagnosis and treatment, but requires substantial human resources. Targeting approaches are therefore essential to feasibility.MethodsWe analyzed data from the Kala-azar Management Information System (KAMIS), using village-level VL cases over specific time intervals to predict risk in subsequent years. We also graphed the time between cases in villages and examined how these patterns track with village-level risk of additional cases across the range of cumulative village case-loads. Finally, we assessed the trade-off between ACD effort and yield.ResultsIn 2013, only 9.3% of all villages reported VL cases; this proportion shrank to 3.9% in 2019. Newly affected villages as a percentage of all affected villages decreased from 54.3% in 2014 to 23.5% in 2019, as more surveillance data accumulated and overall VL incidence declined. The risk of additional cases in a village increased with increasing cumulative incidence, reaching approximately 90% in villages with 12 cases and 100% in villages with 45 cases, but the vast majority of villages had small cumulative case numbers. The time-to-next-case decreased with increasing case-load. Using a 3-year window (2016–2018), a threshold of seven VL cases at the village level selects 329 villages and yields 23% of cases reported in 2019, while a threshold of three cases selects 1,241 villages and yields 46% of cases reported in 2019. Using a 6-year window increases both effort and yield.ConclusionDecisions on targeting must consider the trade-off between number of villages targeted and yield and will depend upon the operational efficiencies of existing programs and the feasibility of specific ACD approaches. The maintenance of a sensitive, comprehensive VL surveillance system will be crucial to preventing future VL resurgence.

Background: With visceral leishmaniasis (VL) incidence at its lowest level since the 1960s, increasing attention has turned to early detection and investigation of outbreaks. Methods: Outbreak investigations were triggered by recognition of case clusters in the VL surveillance system established for the elimination program. Investigations included ascertainment of all VL cases by date of fever onset, household mapping and structured collection of risk factor data. Results: VL outbreaks were investigated in 13 villages in 10 blocks of 7 districts. Data were collected for 20,670 individuals, of whom 272 were diagnosed with VL between 2012 and 2019. Risk was significantly higher among 10-19 year-olds and adults 35 or older compared to children younger than 10 years. Outbreak confirmation triggered vector control activities and heightened surveillance. VL cases strongly clustered in tolas (hamlets within villages) in which >66% of residents self-identified as scheduled caste or scheduled tribe (SC/ST); 79.8% of VL cases occurred in SC/ST tolas whereas only 24.2% of the population resided in them. Other significant risk factors included being an unskilled non-agricultural laborer, migration for work in a brick kiln, living in a kuccha (mud brick) house, household crowding, habitually sleeping outside or on the ground, and open defecation. Conclusions: Our data highlight the importance of sensitive surveillance with triggers for case cluster detection and rapid, careful outbreak investigations to better respond to ongoing and new transmission. The strong association with SC/ST tolas suggests that efforts should focus on enhanced surveillance in these disadvantaged communities.

Background Effective case identification strategies are fundamental to capturing the remaining visceral leishmaniasis (VL) cases in India. To inform government strategies to reach and sustain elimination benchmarks, this study presents costs of active- and passive- case detection (ACD and PCD) strategies used in India’s most VL-endemic state, Bihar, with a focus on programme outcomes stratified by district-level incidence. Methods Expenditure analysis was complemented by onsite micro-costing to compare the cost of PCD in hospitals alongside index case-based ACD and a combination of blanket (house-to-house) and camp ACD from January to December 2018. From the provider’s perspective, a cost analysis evaluated the overall programme cost of each activity, the cost per case detected, and the cost of scaling up ACD. Results During 2018, index case-based ACD, blanket and camp ACD, and PCD reported 1,497, 131, and 1,983 VL-positive cases at a unit cost of $522.81, $4,186.81, and $246.79, respectively. In high endemic districts, more VL cases were identified through PCD while in meso- and low-endemic districts more cases were identified through ACD. The cost of scaling up ACD to identify 3,000 additional cases ranged from $1.6–4 million, depending on the extent to which blanket and camp ACD was relied upon. Conclusion Cost per VL test conducted (rather than VL-positive case identified) may be a better metric estimating unit costs to scale up ACD in Bihar. As more VL cases were identified in meso-and low-endemic districts through ACD than PCD, health authorities in India should consider bolstering ACD in these areas. Blanket and camp ACD identified fewer cases at a higher unit cost than index case-based ACD. However, the value of detecting additional VL cases early outweighs long-term costs for reaching and sustaining VL elimination benchmarks in India.