IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0002415.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Randomized Trial of Two Coverage Targets for Mass Treatment with Azithromycin for Trachoma

Author

Listed:
  • Sheila K West
  • Robin Bailey
  • Beatriz Munoz
  • Tansy Edwards
  • Harran Mkocha
  • Charlotte Gaydos
  • Thomas Lietman
  • Travis Porco
  • David Mabey
  • Thomas C Quinn

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization recommends at least 3 annual antibiotic mass drug administrations (MDA) where the prevalence of trachoma is >10% in children ages 1–9 years, with coverage at least at 80%. However, the additional value of higher coverage targeted at children with multiple rounds is unknown. Trial Design: 2×2 factorial community randomized, double blind, trial. Trial methods: 32 communities with prevalence of trachoma ≥20% were randomized to: annual MDA aiming for coverage of children between 80%–90% (usual target) versus aiming for coverage>90% (enhanced target); and to: MDA for three years versus a rule of cessation of MDA early if the estimated prevalence of ocular C. trachomatis infection was less than 5%. The primary outcome was the community prevalence of infection with C. trachomatis at 36 months. Results: Over the trial's course, no community met the MDA cessation rule, so all communities had the full 3 rounds of MDA. At 36 months, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of infection, 4.0 versus 5.4 (mean adjusted difference = 1.4%, 95% CI = −1.0% to 3.8%), nor in the prevalence of trachoma, 6.1 versus 9.0 (mean adjusted difference = 2.6%, 95% CI = −0.3% to 5.3%) comparing the usual target to the enhanced target group. There was no difference if analyzed using coverage as a continuous variable. Conclusion: In communities that had pre-treatment prevalence of follicular trachoma of 20% or greater, there is no evidence that MDA can be stopped before 3 annual rounds, even with high coverage. Increasing coverage in children above 90% does not appear to confer additional benefit. Author Summary: The World Health Organization recommends at least 3 annual antibiotic mass drug administrations (MDA) where the prevalence of trachoma is >10% in children ages 1–9 years, with coverage at least at 80%. However, the additional value of higher coverage targeted at children with multiple rounds is unknown. We randomized 32 communities in Kongwa, Tanzania, with starting prevalence estimated at >20% to four arms: annual MDA aiming for coverage of children between 80%–90% (usual target) versus aiming for coverage>90% (enhanced target); and to: MDA for three years versus a rule of cessation of MDA early if the estimated prevalence of ocular C. trachomatis infection was less than 5%. After three rounds of MDA, infection with C. trachomatis and trachoma had declined significantly from baseline but no communities had treatment stopped. There was no difference in infection or in trachoma at three years comparing the usual coverage communities to the enhanced coverage communities. We conclude that in communities that had pre-treatment prevalence of follicular trachoma of 20% or greater, there is no evidence that MDA can be stopped before 3 annual rounds, even with high coverage. Increasing coverage in children above 90% does not appear to confer additional benefit.

Suggested Citation

  • Sheila K West & Robin Bailey & Beatriz Munoz & Tansy Edwards & Harran Mkocha & Charlotte Gaydos & Thomas Lietman & Travis Porco & David Mabey & Thomas C Quinn, 2013. "A Randomized Trial of Two Coverage Targets for Mass Treatment with Azithromycin for Trachoma," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-7, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0002415
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0002415
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0002415&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002415?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0002415. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.