Search

Background Control of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) on the Indian subcontinent has been highly successful. Control efforts such as indoor residual spraying and active case detection will be scaled down or even halted over the coming years. We explored how after scale-down, potential recurrence of VL cases may be predicted based on population-based surveys of antibody or antigenemia prevalence. Methods Using a stochastic age-structured transmission model of VL, we predicted trends in case incidence and biomarker prevalence over time after scaling down control efforts when the target of 3 successive years without VL cases has been achieved. Next, we correlated biomarker prevalence with the occurrence of new VL cases within 10 years of scale-down. Results Occurrence of at least 1 new VL case in a population of 10 000 was highly correlated with the seroprevalence and antigenemia prevalence at the moment of scale-down, or 1 or 2 years afterward. Receiver operating characteristic curves indicated that biomarker prevalence in adults provided the most predictive information, and seroprevalence was a more informative predictor of new VL cases than antigenemia prevalence. Thresholds for biomarker prevalence to predict occurrence of new VL cases with high certainty were robust to variation in precontrol endemicity. Conclusions The risk of recrudescence of VL after scaling down control efforts can be monitored and mitigated by means of population-based surveys. Our findings highlight that rapid point-of-care diagnostic tools to assess (preferably) seroprevalence or (otherwise) antigenemia in the general population could be a key ingredient of sustainable VL control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Control of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) on the Indian subcontinent relies on prompt detection and treatment of symptomatic cases. Detection efforts influence the observed VL incidence and how well it reflects the underlying true incidence. As control targets are defined in terms of observed cases, there is an urgent need to understand how changes in detection delay and population coverage of improved detection affect VL control.Methods: Using a mathematical model for transmission and control of VL, we predict the impact of reduced detection delays and/or increased population coverage of the detection programs on observed and true VL incidence and mortality.Results: Improved case detection, either by higher coverage or reduced detection delay, causes an initial rise in observed VL incidence before a reduction. Relaxation of improved detection may lead to an apparent temporary (1 year) reduction in VL incidence, but comes with a high risk of resurging infection levels. Duration of symptoms in detected cases shows an unequivocal association with detection effort.Conclusions: VL incidence on its own is not a reliable indicator of the performance of case detection programs. Duration of symptoms in detected cases can be used as an additional marker of the performance of case detection programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) has been targeted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and 5 countries in the Indian subcontinent for elimination as a public health problem. To achieve this target, the WHO has developed guidelines consisting of 4 phases of different levels of interventions, based on vector control through indoor residual spraying of insecticide (IRS) and active case detection (ACD). Mathematical transmission models of VL are increasingly used for planning and assessing the efficacy of interventions and evaluating the intensity and timescale required to achieve the elimination target. Methods. This paper draws together the key policy-relevant conclusions from recent transmission modeling of VL, and presents new predictions for VL incidence under the interventions recommended by the WHO using the latest transmission models. Results. The model predictions suggest that the current WHO guidelines should be sufficient to reach the elimination target in areas that had medium VL endemicities (up to 5 VL cases per 10 000 population per year) prior to the start of interventions. However, additional interventions, such as extending the WHO attack phase (intensive IRS and ACD), may be required to bring forward elimination in regions with high precontrol endemicities, depending on the relative infectiousness of different disease stages. Conclusions. The potential hurdle that asymptomatic and, in particular, post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis cases may pose to reaching and sustaining the target needs to be addressed. As VL incidence decreases, the pool of immunologically naive individuals will grow, creating the potential for new outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]