Kittur Nupur, Binder Sue, Campbell Carl H, King Charles H, Kinung'hi Safari, Olsen Annette, Magnussen Pascal, Colley Daniel G
Schistosomiasis Consortium for Operational Research and Evaluation (SCORE), Center for Tropical and Emerging Global Diseases (CTEGD), University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Center for Global Health and Diseases, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Dec;97(6):1810-1817. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.17-0368. Epub 2017 Sep 21.
Preventive chemotherapy with praziquantel for schistosomiasis morbidity control is commonly done by mass drug administration (MDA). MDA regimen is usually based on prevalence in a given area, and effectiveness is evaluated by decreases in prevalence and/or intensity of infection after several years of implementation. Multiple studies and programs now find that even within well-implemented, multiyear, annual MDA programs there often remain locations that do not decline in prevalence and/or intensity to expected levels. We term such locations "persistent hotspots." To study and address persistent hotspots, investigators and neglected tropical disease (NTD) program managers need to define them based on changes in prevalence and/or intensity. But how should the data be analyzed to define a persistent hotspot? We have analyzed a dataset from an operational research study in western Tanzania after three annual MDAs using four different approaches to define persistent hotspots. The four approaches are 1) absolute percent change in prevalence; 2) percent change in prevalence; 3) change in World Health Organization guideline categories; 4) change (absolute or percent) in both prevalence and intensity. We compare and contrast the outcomes of these analyses. Our intent is to show how the same dataset yields different numbers of persistent hotspots depending on the approach used to define them. We suggest that investigators and NTD program managers use the approach most suited for their study or program, but whichever approach is used, it should be clearly stated so that comparisons can be made within and between studies and programs.
使用吡喹酮进行预防性化疗以控制血吸虫病发病率通常通过群体药物给药(MDA)来完成。MDA方案通常基于特定地区的流行率,其有效性通过实施数年之后流行率和/或感染强度的下降来评估。现在多项研究和项目发现,即使在实施良好的多年度年度MDA项目中,往往仍存在一些地区,其流行率和/或感染强度并未降至预期水平。我们将这些地区称为“持续热点地区”。为了研究和应对持续热点地区,研究人员和被忽视热带病(NTD)项目管理人员需要根据流行率和/或感染强度的变化来对其进行定义。但是应该如何分析数据来定义一个持续热点地区呢?我们对坦桑尼亚西部一项运营研究的数据进行了分析,该研究在进行了三次年度MDA之后,使用四种不同方法来定义持续热点地区。这四种方法分别是:1)流行率的绝对百分比变化;2)流行率的百分比变化;3)世界卫生组织指南类别变化;4)流行率和感染强度的变化(绝对变化或百分比变化)。我们对这些分析结果进行了比较和对比。我们的目的是展示同一数据集如何根据用于定义持续热点地区的方法产生不同数量的持续热点地区。我们建议研究人员和NTD项目管理人员使用最适合其研究或项目的方法,但无论使用哪种方法,都应明确说明,以便在研究和项目内部及之间进行比较。