Literature DB >> 21655349

The prevalence of blinding trachoma in northern states of Sudan.

Awad Hassan1, Jeremiah M Ngondi, Jonathan D King, Balgesa E Elshafie, Ghada Al Ginaid, Mazin Elsanousi, Zeinab Abdalla, Nabil Aziz, Dieudonne Sankara, Victoria Simms, Elizabeth A Cromwell, Paul M Emerson, Kamal H Binnawi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite historical evidence of blinding trachoma, there have been no widespread contemporary surveys of trachoma prevalence in the northern states of Sudan. We aimed to conduct district-level surveys in this vast region in order to map the extent of the problem and estimate the need for trachoma control interventions to eliminate blinding trachoma. METHODS AND
FINDINGS: Separate, population based cross-sectional surveys were conducted in 88 localities (districts) in 12 northern states of Sudan between 2006 and 2010. Two-stage cluster random sampling with probability proportional to size was used to select the sample. Trachoma grading was done using the WHO simplified grading system. Key prevalence indicators were trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF) in children aged 1-9 years and trachomatous trichiasis (TT) in adults aged 15 years and above. The sample comprised 1,260 clusters from which 25,624 households were surveyed. A total of 106,697 participants (81.6% response rate) were examined for trachoma signs. TF prevalence was above 10% in three districts and between 5% and 9% in 11 districts. TT prevalence among adults was above 1% in 20 districts (which included the three districts with TF prevalence >10%). The overall number of people with TT in the population was estimated to be 31,072 (lower and upper bounds = 26,125-36,955).
CONCLUSION: Trachoma mapping is complete in the northern states of Sudan except for the Darfur States. The survey findings will facilitate programme planning and inform deployment of resources for elimination of trachoma from the northern states of Sudan by 2015, in accordance with the Sudan Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH) objectives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21655349      PMCID: PMC3104955          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis        ISSN: 1935-2727


Introduction

Trachoma is an eye disease caused by ocular infection with Chlamydia trachomatis, which can result in blindness after cycles of repeated infections. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that trachoma accounts for 2.9% of blindness globally [1]. Since 1997, the WHO has advocated for the ‘SAFE’ strategy (Surgery, Antibiotics, Facial hygiene and Environmental improvement) for trachoma control and elimination of blinding trachoma [2]. Implementation of SAFE is targeted at the district level with thresholds of disease prevalence used to determine which districts qualify for intervention. Population based prevalence surveys are the “gold standard” for estimating prevalence of the clinical signs of trachoma in populations and are therefore essential for programme planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation [3]. Trachoma has long been known to be prevalent in parts of the Sudan. A report by MacCallan in 1934 documented trachoma among school pupils in Khartoum and further north among school children in Nubia (North of Wadi Halfa) [4]. Surveys undertaken by the WHO in the Northern Province between 1963 and 1964 in Atbara Town and surrounding villages revealed trachoma to be a serious public health problem [5]. In 1975, a review of records dating from 1959 to 1969 reported the highest rate of trachoma in the Northern Province and suggested a reducing gradient as one moved further southwards [6]. In addition, the 1975 study also surveyed children aged 0–15 years in Atbara Town and revealed findings similar to those reported a decade earlier by Majcuk [5]. While this evidence demonstrates the historical presence of trachoma in Sudan, these earlier studies used trachoma diagnostic criteria which differ from the current WHO simplified grading system [7], and reflect a pattern of disease that may no longer be relevant. A survey of 14 villages in Wadi Halfa (Northern State) in 2000 revealed that prevalence of trachomatous inflammation follicular (TF) and/or trachomatous inflammation intense (TI) was 47% among children aged 1–10 years while 4% of women aged over 40 years had trachomatous trichiasis (TT); confirming trachoma as a serious public health problem according to the WHO standards [8]. Despite the historical evidence of trachoma in northern Sudan, there had been no large scale surveys to map trachoma prevalence at the district level in this vast region. This study aimed to assess the northern states of Sudan using contemporary trachoma survey methods in order to estimate the need for trachoma control interventions and plan for elimination of trachoma in the region.

Methods

Ethical statement

The surveys were a routine public health practice to inform implementation of SAFE interventions. We used verbal informed consent which is routine practice during surveys undertaken by National Trachoma Control Programs. The Institutional Review Board of Emory University (IRB # 079-2006) and the Sudan Federal Ministry of Health approved the survey protocol and verbal consent procedures. Verbal informed consent to participate was given by the head of the household, each individual and parents of children in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. Consent for household interviews and trachoma examination was documented by interviewers and examiners on the data collection forms. Personal identifiers were removed from the data set before analyses were undertaken.

Study site

Sudan is the largest country in Africa covering an area of 2.5 million square kilometres. The survey was undertaken in 88 localities (districts) from 2006 to 2010, which together compose 12 out of 15 northern states of Sudan (Figure 1, Map). It was not possible to conduct population-based probability sampling in the three states in the Darfur region (34 districts total) due to internal migration and security concerns.
Figure 1

Map of Sudan showing the prevalence of inflammation-follicular (TF) in children aged 1–9 years.

Sampling

The sample size was calculated to allow for estimation of at least 10% prevalence of trachomatous inflammation follicular (TF) in children aged 1–9 years within a precision of 5% given a 95% confidence limit and a design effect of 3. We also aimed to estimate at least 3% prevalence of trachoma trichiasis (TT) in persons aged 15 years and above within a precision of 2% at 95% confidence limit and a design effect of 2. Additionally we assumed a 10% non-response rate. Therefore at least 456 children aged 1–9 years and 614 persons aged 15 years and above were to be examined per district. In each district, a two-stage cluster random sampling design with probability proportional to size was used to select the sample. A cluster was defined as the smallest administrative area (i.e. a village in the rural districts or recognised administrative units in the urban districts). A line list (sampling frame) of the names and estimated populations of all clusters in the district was prepared. In the first stage, clusters were randomly selected with probability proportional to the estimated population using computer generated random numbers. Fifteen clusters were selected at random in each district; however, fewer clusters (six) were selected in eight districts comprising densely populated urban areas. In the second stage, 20 households were selected from each cluster using the mapping and segmentation method [9]. All residents of selected households were identified by the heads of household and enumerated by the survey teams. Eligible participants who were present underwent eye examination. An attempt was made to examine absentees by returning to households where people were absent on the day of the survey. It was not possible to return to the village on a different day to follow-up any absentees due to logistical constraints.

Trachoma grading

Examination for trachoma signs was conducted by doctors and ophthalmic medical assistants trained in using the WHO simplified grading system [7]. Potential examiners underwent training to apply the simplified grading scheme led by an ophthalmologist experienced in trachoma grading. A reliability study was conducted using a set of standardised photographs and an additional reliability study of 50 patients was performed at each training. Examiners had to achieve at least 80% inter-observer agreement in identifying trachoma signs compared to the ophthalmologist to participate in the survey. All eligible household residents present on the day of the survey were invited to undergo eye examination. Prior to screening for signs of trachoma, faces of children were briefly inspected for cleanliness and defined as “clean” if nasal and/or ocular discharge were absent. Participants were examined for trachoma signs using a ×2.5 magnifying binocular loupe and torch if the ambient light was insufficient. Each eye was examined first trachomatous trichiasis (TT, defined as the presence of at least one eyelash rubbing on the eyeball or evidence of recent removal of in-turned eyelashes), and the cornea was then inspected for corneal opacities (CO). The upper conjunctiva was subsequently examined for inflammation (TF, and TI) and scarring (TS). Both eyes were examined and findings for the worst affected eye recorded. Signs had to be clearly visible in accordance with the simplified grading system in order to be considered present. Alcohol-soaked cotton-swabs were used to clean the examiner's fingers between examinations. Individuals with signs of active trachoma (TF and/or TI) and residents within the same household were offered free treatment with antibiotics according to national guidelines. TT patients were referred to the health system where free surgery was available.

Household interviews and observations

Structured interviews with adult household respondents and observations were used to assess demographic and household characteristics. Interviews were conducted by trained local health volunteers under supervision by experienced health officers. Prior to the survey, the questionnaire was translated and printed in Arabic language. The questionnaire was then pilot-tested in a non-survey cluster to standardise interviews, observations and completion of the pre-coded answers.. During household interviews, respondents were asked about: source of drinking water and walking time to fetch water; frequency of washing faces of children; sanitation facilities; and livestock, radio and television ownership. In households reporting latrine ownership, the presence of the latrine was verified by observation. Improved water sources were defined according to the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation categories (http://www.wssinfo.org/en/definitions-methods/watsan-categories); and included piped water, borehole, protected dug well, protected spring and rainwater.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata 8.2 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas). Descriptive statistics were used to examine the sample characteristics and the prevalence of trachoma signs. Confidence intervals for the point estimates were derived using the Huber/White sandwich estimator of variance to adjust for the clustering effects of trachoma. We investigated household factors associated with active trachoma by comparing households where one or more children aged 1–9 years had been diagnosed with TF and/or TI with households where no children had TF and/or TI. Univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted for each potential explanatory factor. Multivariable analysis was then undertaken by stepwise regression analysis for model selection. This involved starting with a null model then proceeding in a sequential fashion of adding/deleting explanatory variables if they satisfied the entry/removal criterion which was set at 5% significance level using a log-likelihood ratio test. To derive estimates of the total number of people with TT, prevalence of TT was adjusted for age and sex according to the population structure. The 95% confidence intervals of the adjusted TT prevalence estimates were multiplied by the population estimates to derive the lower and upper bounds of those requiring TT surgery. Finally, based on the survey findings, we estimated the targets for latrine construction by calculating the number of household latrines required to halve the proportion of households that did not have access to a latrine (millennium development goal [MDG] indicator 7.9) [10].

Results

Characteristics of the study population

Table 1 summarises the sample, participants and household characteristics by locality (district). The survey was undertaken in 88 districts and the sample comprised 1,260 clusters from which 25,624 households were surveyed. A total of 106,697 participants (out of the 130,700 enumerated, a response rate of 81.6%) were examined for trachoma signs. Of the 24,003 participants not examined, 88.3% were absent during the household visit and majority (69.1%) were male. Of the participants included in the analysis the mean age was 20.9 (standard deviation [sd] = 19.1) and males comprised 42.0%.
Table 1

Characteristics of the sample population by district.

StatesLocalitySampleParticipantsProportion of households (%)
Number of clustersHouses SurveyedNumber of participantsProportion male (%)Number of people per HH Mean (SD)Improved water sourceTime to collect water ≤30 minutesWash Faces ≥2 times per dayOwn pit latrineOwn LivestockOwn radioOwn Television
NorthernDalgo153001,12038.45.0 (2.2)97.790.370.338.082.372.047.3
Dongola618289336.45.7 (2.5)0.098.953.392.358.276.973.6
El Dabbah153001,20742.56.2 (2.7)91.393.064.072.382.068.753.3
Halfa153001,08938.05.0 (2.3)91.788.760.961.071.359.364.0
Merawi153001,22940.55.7 (2.6)92.393.763.093.379.973.879.0
River NileAbu Hamad153001,21347.74.7 (2.0)22.076.072.771.389.071.059.7
Atbra153001,27642.95.3 (2.2)97.7100.061.3100.020.061.386.3
Barber153001,15340.44.4 (1.9)100.099.762.798.353.759.369.3
Eldamar153001,44846.35.2 (2.3)94.093.355.785.776.367.748.3
Elmatama153001,16043.84.8 (1.9)93.088.365.087.376.755.349.7
Shendi153001,28040.25.4 (2.0)94.094.074.792.362.030.769.0
Red SeaAgeeg1530096340.44.2 (1.8)68.383.083.715.392.715.30.3
Gabeet El Ma'adin153001,03643.34.3 (2.0)0.06.766.21.397.716.313.0
Halayeb1530088548.13.2 (1.7)0.083.353.76.388.05.06.7
Haya153001,04242.14.2 (1.8)20.736.740.14.791.04.04.0
Port Sudan153001,03841.34.5 (1.8)20.345.059.067.320.744.751.3
Dordeeb1530093135.94.2 (1.9)41.737.036.734.763.714.724.0
Elginab1530096842.33.9 (2.0)32.352.058.019.785.011.09.7
Sawaken153001,07839.74.9 (2.2)1.367.073.335.372.710.316.3
Sinkat1530097939.44.0 (1.6)18.364.766.323.069.314.416.7
Tokar153001,00639.03.6 (1.8)46.721.764.328.080.317.77.7
KassalaHamashkorieb1530079035.73.7 (1.5)20.052.346.012.070.00.00.0
Kassala rural617898040.76.5 (3.2)0.065.059.650.075.442.110.7
Kassala urban618190043.17.2 (2.8)0.083.477.288.439.465.765.2
Refi Halfa Eljadidah153001,24139.45.1 (2.2)63.065.039.077.777.071.763.7
Refi Nahr Attbara153001,27046.94.4 (1.7)13.713.376.319.793.028.09.0
Rifi Aroma153001,04636.24.8 (2.5)30.323.363.222.769.322.38.3
Rifi Elgirba153001,19140.84.9 (2.0)60.092.774.751.567.951.735.3
Shemal Eldalta1530083538.43.7 (2.0)29.057.367.756.036.714.77.0
Talkok153001,20352.34.0 (1.5)23.012.329.011.386.00.30.0
Wad El Hilio153001,04642.64.2 (1.8)21.057.753.328.773.024.06.3
GedarefAlbutana153001,36945.74.9 (2.0)0.354.081.36.394.041.00.0
El Fashga153001,28143.25.3 (2.7)28.091.068.737.777.363.79.3
El Faw153001,36145.05.6 (2.2)49.740.076.327.075.357.318.7
El Galabat East153001,42046.05.3 (2.4)16.043.076.322.058.055.34.0
El Galabat West153001,40543.25.5 (2.3)16.396.066.328.071.572.320.7
El Rahd153001,43144.65.0 (2.2)61.983.366.276.764.061.320.0
Gadaref Center153001,26341.05.5 (2.6)16.782.745.721.368.363.322.3
Gal Alnahal153001,33541.65.6 (2.6)56.752.372.78.373.068.39.3
Gadaref153001,44941.55.4 (2.4)55.371.674.376.027.763.364.3
Gorisha153001,37339.55.0 (2.4)6.791.378.324.066.747.32.7
KhartoumJabal Awliya610871943.98.3 (3.1)59.384.575.769.434.374.155.6
Sharg En Nile61801,11642.18.2 (3.4)2.873.986.787.219.464.461.1
GeziraEl Hasaheisa153001,36540.56.0 (2.7)80.777.071.760.069.070.355.0
El Kamlin153001,37140.56.4 (2.9)79.984.379.264.956.271.059.3
El Managil153001,59041.16.5 (2.9)38.064.372.834.682.373.724.6
Jnaub El Gezira152991,47041.36.4 (2.9)71.678.972.940.167.972.565.2
Madani Elkubra153001,41439.06.3 (2.9)83.081.367.960.543.472.674.8
Sharg El Gezira152981,66841.57.1 (3.2)71.586.979.573.866.175.868.5
Umm El Gura152981,60044.17.2 (3.1)0.784.875.844.070.564.647.5
White NileAlgetina153001,43839.75.8 (2.5)58.793.361.329.081.362.025.1
Alsalm152991,07343.34.8 (2.0)0.060.234.411.086.646.50.3
Ed Douiem152991,39837.35.3 (2.2)30.491.064.532.858.274.241.8
El Jabalian152991,28545.26.4 (2.7)14.066.978.929.189.367.918.4
Kosti153001,32543.75.2 (2.1)18.045.356.321.078.365.316.3
Omramta153001,25837.16.5 (2.8)0.088.381.730.392.769.714.8
Rabak152991,53440.95.9 (2.8)59.281.363.567.643.534.853.7
Tendelti153001,27741.35.3 (2.3)0.057.075.711.784.361.73.3
SinnarAbuhojar153001,41544.55.4 (2.3)52.388.370.058.374.051.026.3
Eldali & Elmazmoom153001,24946.34.5 (2.0)25.344.360.757.076.063.713.7
Eldindir153001,24741.34.8 (2.2)69.095.070.721.075.059.79.7
Elsoki153001,35641.45.2 (2.0)73.082.339.566.765.745.334.1
Sennar153001,21641.15.6 (2.4)50.388.065.734.055.066.029.3
Sharg Sinnar152991,32343.35.4 (2.4)90.080.372.239.885.351.217.1
Singa153001,29941.05.3 (2.2)62.081.368.370.348.866.360.0
Blue NileBaw102761,43543.17.1 (3.4)56.543.173.615.286.242.42.2
Ed Damazin102501,00844.85.7 (3.3)20.473.258.856.844.862.034.4
El Roseires102791,41946.26.4 (3.7)14.066.768.068.874.257.79.1
Geissan153001,31146.35.6 (2.6)29.058.361.735.073.659.310.2
Kurmuk153001,22042.74.6 (2.1)70.366.364.025.767.040.70.7
North KordofanAbo Zaid153001,26340.25.1 (2.4)77.380.062.076.393.368.014.0
Bara153001,18341.54.3 (1.9)34.763.364.042.188.330.78.7
Elnihood153001,21240.54.6 (2.1)14.033.074.888.369.357.020.3
Ghebeish153001,26644.54.7 (2.1)13.778.046.381.377.370.012.0
Jabrat Elshiekh153001,26050.24.3 (1.9)52.346.056.314.391.717.73.0
Om Roaba153001,06840.04.1 (1.9)10.058.352.033.370.753.311.3
Shikan1530099140.04.3 (1.9)61.089.368.079.031.373.753.0
Sowdari1530099333.34.0 (1.9)26.053.381.346.083.029.05.7
Wad Banda153001,12437.64.6 (1.6)46.759.765.786.380.742.09.3
South KordofanAbu Jubaiyeh153001,30240.34.8 (2.3)51.350.072.314.362.726.32.0
Abyei153001,13239.84.5 (1.8)7.070.324.769.760.736.316.0
El Salam153001,22640.55.3 (2.2)2.088.781.386.053.048.720.3
Eldalang153001,46348.75.4 (2.7)92.364.961.213.868.243.14.3
Kadugli153001,03839.54.0 (1.7)71.397.360.742.748.020.08.3
Kaylak153001,17744.44.0 (1.9)2.366.363.310.089.75.00.3
Lagawa153001,07536.04.1 (1.8)72.376.353.740.377.756.08.0
Rashad153001,13439.74.4 (2.1)50.057.376.326.372.031.32.0
Talodi153001,20842.84.7 (2.1)79.375.754.711.775.343.32.0

HH household; SD, standard deviation.

HH household; SD, standard deviation. Table 1 lists locality level estimates for each household characteristic. Overall, the mean number of people per household was 5.1(sd = 2.5). Overall, household access to an improved water source was 43.1% (range by district 0.0–100) and proportion of households reporting round trip to collect water within 30 minutes was 69.2% (range by district 6.7–100). Washing children's faces at least two times a day was reported in 64.5% (range by district 24.7–88.2) of households. Household latrine ownership was 45.2% (range by district 1.3–100). Proxy indicators of household wealth were: livestock ownership (70.2% [range by district 19.4–97.7]); radio ownership (48.4% [range by district 0.0–76.9]); and television ownership (26.1% [range by district 0.0–86.3]).

Prevalence of trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF), clean face and trachomatous trichiasis (TT)

The prevalence of trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF), clean face and trachomatous trichiasis (TT) are shown in Table 2 and Figures 1, 2 and 3. The prevalence of TF in children aged 1–9 years by district ranged from 0.0–19.8%. TF prevalence was above 10% in three districts: two in Blue Nile State (Geissan and Kurmuk); and one in Gederaf State (El Galabat East). A total of 11 districts had TF prevalence of between 5 and 9%, including: Dongola in Northern State; Port Sudan and Sawaken in Red Sea State; El Fashga, El Rahd, Gedaref and Gorisha in Gedaref State; El Jabalian in White Nile State; Eldindir in Sinnar State; Baw in Blue Nile State; and Abu Jubaiyeh in South Kordufan State. Overall, 84.7% (range by district 46.9–100) of children aged 1–9 years had a clean face. The prevalence of TT in adults aged 15 years and older by district ranged from 0 to 6.7%. TT prevalence was above the WHO threshold for community based intervention of 1% in 20 districts (which included the three districts with TF prevalence >10%). The prevalence of TT increased with age with an overall significantly higher prevalence among females compared to males (OR [Odds Ratio] = 1.7; 95% CI 1.4–2.2) [Figure 3].
Table 2

Prevalence of TF, clean face, TT and SAFE intervention objectives by district.

StatesLocalityChildren 1–9 years of ageAdults 15 years and aboveSAFE intervention objectives
Number examinedTF % (95% CI)Clean face: % (95% CI)Number examinedTT % (95% CI)TT cases (Lower & upper bounds)Antibiotic distribution strategyEligible for hygiene promotionPit latrines required to meet MDG indicator 7.9
NorthernDalgo3350.3 (0.0–2.1)80.6 (76.0–84.5)6600.9 (0.4–2.0)106 (91–123)Yes1,925
Dongola315 8.6 (5.9–12.2) 96.5 (93.8–98.1)497 1.4 (0.7–2.9) 757 (646–886)TargetedYes1,853
El Dabbah3360.3 (0.0–2.1)86.9 (82.9–90.1)7560.7 (0.3–1.6)270 (230–318)Yes2,401
Halfa345085.5 (81.4–88.8)626 2.4 (1.4–3.9) 89 (76–104)Yes1,116
Merawi378096.3 (93.8–97.8)7280.8 (0.4–1.8)445 (380–522)Yes1,021
River NileAbu Hamad341093.0 (89.7–95.2)7070.6 (0.2–1.5)176 (149–209)Yes1,916
Atbra3530.6 (0.1–2.2)94.9 (92.1–96.8)7850Yes0
Barber297097.6 (95.1–98.9)709 1.1 (0.6–2.2) 615 (529–716)Yes289
Eldamar4150.2 (0.0–1.7)88.9 (85.5–91.6)8560Yes2,875
Elmatama3670.3 (0.0–1.9)95.9 (93.3–97.5)6440Yes1,331
Shendi396093.2 (90.2–95.3)7360Yes1,590
Red SeaAgeeg3600.3 (0.0–1.9)90.3 (86.8–92.9)4940.2 (0.0–1.4)137 (116–163)Yes4,397
Gabeet El Ma'adin383094.8 (92.0–96.6)5220Yes3,018
Halayeb3330.3 (0.0–2.1)99.1 (97.2–99.7)4870.2 (0.0–1.4)64 (55–76)Yes2,085
Haya4661.1 (0.4–2.6)86.7 (83.3–89.5)4830Yes4,951
Port Sudan387 5.4 (3.6–8.2) 84.8 (80.8–88.0)5540.7 (0.3–1.9)1066 (900–1262)TargetedYes12,844
Dordeeb3613.3 (1.9–5.8)87.3 (83.4–90.3)4460Yes1,508
Elginab4410.9 (0.3–2.4)77.3 (73.2–81.0)4380Yes1,782
Sawaken449 6.5 (4.5–9.1) 84.0 (80.3–87.1)4880.2 (0.0–1.4)95 (79–113)TargetedYes2,609
Sinkat4144.6 (2.9–7.1)76.8 (72.5–80.6)5020.2 (0.0–1.4)119 (101–141)Yes3,427
Tokar4071.2 (0.5–2.9)99.0 (97.4–99.6)539 1.1 (0.5–2.5) 165 (139–195)Yes4,453
KassalaHamashkorieb365093.7 (90.7–95.8)3410.3 (0.0–2.1)192 (162–227)Yes5,915
Kassala rural3840.3 (0.0–1.8)90.1 (86.7–92.7)462 1.1 (0.5–2.6) 669 (559–800)Yes14,708
Kassala urban296099.0 (96.9–99.7)4710Yes2,764
Refi Halfa Eljadidah4180.2 (0.0–1.7)100.06640.2 (0.0–1.1)705 (597–832)Yes5,746
Refi Nahr Attbara469097.4 (95.5–98.5)6520.2 (0.0–1.1)318 (266–379)Yes10,774
Rifi Aroma4170.5 (0.1–1.9)81.8 (77.8–85.2)5060.4 (0.1–1.6)224 (188–266)Yes7,127
Rifi Elgirba4940.6 (0.2–1.9)85.8 (82.5–88.6)5540.5 (0.2–1.7)197 (165–235)Yes4,159
Shemal Eldalta2901.0 (0.3–3.2)83.4 (78.7–87.3)435 2.3 (1.2–4.2) 298 (252–353)Yes4,918
Talkok5380.4 (0.1–1.5)98.5 (97.1–99.3)6110Yes8,798
Wad El Hilio4162.9 (1.6–5.0)89.2 (85.8–91.8)5020.4 (0.1–1.6)218 (183–260)Yes6,326
GedarefAlbutana5210100.06680.1 (0.0–1.1)99 (83–118)Yes3,874
El Fashga477 6.1 (4.3–8.6) 87.2 (83.9–89.9)6020.8 (0.3–2.0)404 (338–483)TargetedYes10,980
El Faw4903.1 (1.9–5.0)85.3 (81.9–88.2)6370.5 (0.2–1.4)427 (357–513)Yes14,056
El Galabat East561 19.8 (16.7–23.3) 76.6 (73.0–80.0)625 1.9 (1.1–3.3) 369 (307–443)MassYes13,410
El Galabat West561 3.4 (2.2–5.2) 67.7 (63.8–71.5)635 1.3 (0.6–2.5) 0 (0–0)Yes9,146
El Rahd709 7.1 (5.4–9.2) 71.4 (67.9–74.6)585 4.8 (3.3–6.8) 486 (401–590)TargetedYes6,235
Gadaref Center4762.7 (1.6–4.6)85.9 (82.5–88.8)6000.5 (0.2–1.5)202 (169–242)Yes7,133
Gal Alnahal5470.9 (0.4–2.2)71.7 (67.7–75.3)609 1.8 (1.0–3.2) 174 (146–208)Yes6,816
Gadaref473 5.9 (4.1–8.4) 85.4 (81.9–88.3)7530.8 (0.4–1.8)873 (736–1035)TargetedYes8,158
Gorisha638 8.5 (6.5–10.9) 81.3 (78.1–84.2)537 1.1 (0.5–2.5) 190 (156–231)TargetedYes8,379
KhartoumJabal Awliya3765.1 (3.2–7.8)63.6 (58.6–68.3)270 3.0 (1.5–5.8) 163 (134–197)Yes2,668
Sharg En Nile4253.1 (1.8–5.2)68.0 (63.4–72.3)532 1.1 (0.5–2.5) 132 (110–158)Yes766
GeziraEl Hasaheisa4180.2 (0.0–1.7)86.8 (83.3–89.8)755 1.1 (0.5–2.1) 2124 (1800–2507)Yes30,430
El Kamlin4490.2 (0.0–1.6)93.5 (90.9–95.5)7410.9 (0.5–2.0)2128 (1791–2529)Yes29,748
El Managil4882.0 (1.1–3.8)84.4 (80.9–87.4)861 1.9 (1.1–3.0) 796 (671–943)Yes19,999
Jnaub El Gezira4730.4 (0.1–1.7)81.2 (77.4–84.5)783 1.1 (0.6–2.2) 1539 (1299–1823)Yes34,974
Madani Elkubra414087.9 (84.4–90.7)8040.6 (0.3–1.5)1316 (1115–1553)Yes18,402
Sharg El Gezira5260.8 (0.3–2.0)88.0 (85.0–90.5)8760Yes2,733
Umm El Gura5622.5 (1.5–4.2)77.2 (73.6–80.5)776 1.0 (0.5–2.0) 882 (738–1054)Yes21,184
White NileAlgetina4720.4 (0.1–1.7)89.6 (86.5–92.1)7890.6 (0.3–1.5)517 (436–613)Yes14,283
Alsalm5140.4 (0.1–1.5)72.8 (68.7–76.4)455 1.1 (0.5–2.6) 228 (189–273)Yes9,380
Ed Douiem5600.2 (0.0–1.3)93.4 (91.0–95.2)6370.2 (0.0–1.1)574 (479–687)Yes17,683
El Jabalian533 6.4 (4.6–8.8) 82.6 (79.1–85.5)5860.5 (0.2–1.6)387 (322–465)TargetedYes12,781
Kosti4900.2 (0.0–1.4)82.4 (78.8–85.6)6550.2 (0.0–1.1)845 (709–1006)Yes27,232
Omramta444089.2 (85.9–91.8)6370Yes6,631
Rabak5160.8 (0.3–2.0)80.4 (76.8–83.6)8190Yes7,229
Tendelti550068.0 (64.0–71.8)5620.2 (0.0–1.3)259 (216–311)Yes10,711
SinnarAbuhojar5344.5 (3.0–6.6)83.5 (80.1–86.4)6800.9 (0.4–1.9)304 (255–363)Yes5,386
Eldali and Elmazmoom4420.7 (0.2–2.1)94.8 (92.3–96.5)6640.0 (0.0–0.0)Yes2,475
Eldindir532 8.5 (6.4–11.1) 89.1 (86.2–91.5)5380.2 (0.0–1.3)313 (259–377)TargetedYes12,657
Elsoki5100.6 (0.2–1.8)84.5 (81.1–87.4)6580.5 (0.1–1.4)524 (438–627)Yes7,711
Sennar4020.5 (0.1–2.0)78.9 (74.6–82.6)6290.8 (0.3–1.9)758 (638–899)Yes19,616
Sharg Sinnar4825.0 (3.4–7.3)82.6 (78.9–85.7)6380.5 (0.2–1.4)553 (463–661)Yes14,306
Singa4470.2 (0.0–1.6)87.9 (84.6–90.6)6650.5 (0.1–1.4)424 (358–502)Yes4,734
Blue NileBaw5978.7 (6.7–11.3)62.0 (58.0–65.8)6650.3 (0.1–1.2)169 (141–202)TargetedYes6,485
Ed Damazin3391.5 (0.6–3.5)84.4 (80.1–87.9)5450.7 (0.3–1.9)275 (231–328)Yes4,763
El Roseires5972.2 (1.3–3.7)77.7 (74.2–80.9)6300.8 (0.3–1.9)166 (138–200)Yes2,418
Geissan599 17.4 (14.5–20.6) 71.5 (67.7–74.9)556 6.7 (4.9–9.1) 154 (127–185)MassYes5,092
Kurmuk473 12.3 (9.6–15.5) 70.8 (66.6–74.7)543 4.4 (3.0–6.5) 273 (227–327)MassYes9,393
North KordofanAbo Zaid452079.9 (75.9–83.3)6490Yes3,027
Bara4612.8 (1.6–4.8)86.6 (83.1–89.4)5790669 (559–800)Yes17,260
Elnihood5061.0 (0.4–2.4)83.2 (79.7–86.2)5330Yes2,398
Ghebeish5410.6 (0.2–1.7)85.4 (82.2–88.1)5540Yes4,153
Jabrat Elshiekh4711.5 (0.7–3.1)90.2 (87.2–92.6)6660Yes5,705
Om Roaba4150.2 (0.0–1.7)88.0 (84.5–90.7)5260.8 (0.3–2.0)1362 (1148–1616)Yes35,834
Shikan3411.8 (0.8–3.9)88.3 (84.4–91.3)5280Yes9,997
Sowdari4510.4 (0.1–1.8)92.2 (89.4–94.4)4210Yes5,251
Wad Banda4911.4 (0.7–3.0)90.4 (87.5–92.7)4680Yes1,530
South KordofanAbu Jubaiyeh605 6.1 (4.5–8.3) 82.8 (79.6–85.6)5270.2 (0.0–1.3)410 (340–495)TargetedYes17,932
Abyei479096.0 (93.9–97.5)5070.6 (0.2–1.8)409 (342–489)Yes5,478
El Salam485085.4 (81.9–88.2)5760.3 (0.1–1.4)224 (186–270)Yes1,501
Eldalang5010.6 (0.2–1.8)46.9 (42.6–51.3)7370.1 (0.0–1.0)585 (490–699)Yes21,270
Kadugli4830.2 (0.0–1.5)85.7 (82.3–88.6)4660.2 (0.0–1.5)594 (496–710)Yes15,234
Kaylak5270.2 (0.0–1.3)100.05460Yes3,340
Lagawa4760.4 (0.1–1.7)92.4 (89.7–94.5)4830Yes7,258
Rashad4751.1 (0.4–2.5)75.2 (71.1–78.8)5140.2 (0.0–1.4)501 (417–602)Yes17,583
Talodi521090.8 (88.0–93.0)5330.2 (0.0–1.3)367 (305–441)Yes15,488

MDG, millennium development goal; SAFE, Surgery, Antibiotics, Facial cleanliness, and Environmental improvement; TF, trachomatous inflammation-follicular; TT, trachomatous trichiasis.

The figures in bold show districts with TF prevalence ≥5% and/or prevalence of TT≥1%.

Figure 2

Map of Sudan showing prevalence of trachomatous trichiasis (TT) in adults aged 15 years and above.

Figure 3

Age-specific prevalence of trachomatous trichiasis (TT) with 95% confidence intervals, by gender.

MDG, millennium development goal; SAFE, Surgery, Antibiotics, Facial cleanliness, and Environmental improvement; TF, trachomatous inflammation-follicular; TT, trachomatous trichiasis. The figures in bold show districts with TF prevalence ≥5% and/or prevalence of TT≥1%.

Household factors associated with active trachoma

Table 3 summarises the univariable and multivariable logistic regression of associations between presence of children with active trachoma in a household and potential risk factors. Univariable analysis showed that increasing household size (OR[per additional person] = 1.2; 95% CI 1.2–1.3), head of household with no formal education (OR = 1.7; 95% CI 1.4–2.1), and keeping livestock within the household compound (OR = 3.0; 95% CI 2.3–4.1) were associated with higher odds of children with active trachoma in a household. On the other hand, reporting washing children's faces 2 or more times a day (OR = 0.7; 95% CI 0.6–0.9); pit latrine ownership (OR = 0.7; 95% CI 0.6–0.9); and television ownership (OR = 0.4; 95% CI 0.3–0.6) were associated with decreased odds of active trachoma. Factors independently associated with increasing odds of active trachoma were: increasing household size (OR[per additional person] = 1.2; 95% CI 1.2–1.3); head of household with no formal education (OR = 1.4; 95% CI 1.1–1.7); and keeping livestock within the household compound (OR = 2.5; 95% CI 01.9–3.7). On the other hand, reporting washing children's faces 2 or more times a day (OR = 0.8; 95% CI 0.6–0.9) and television ownership (OR = 0.4 ; 95% CI 0.3–0.6) were independent predictors of reduced odds of active trachoma.
Table 3

Associations of household characteristics and presence of ≥ one children with active trachoma in household.

Household characteristicUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysis
Odds Ratio (95%CI)p valueOdds Ratio (95%CI)p value
Increasing household size (per additional person)1.2 (1.2–1.3)<0.0011.2 (1.2–1.3)<0.001
Head of household with no formal education1.7 (1.4–2.1)<0.0011.4 (1.1–1.7)0.003
Head of house has heard about trachoma0.8 (0.6–1.0)0.068
Head of house not knowing what causes trachoma1.1 (0.9–1.3)0.515
Improved water source0.8 (0.6–1.1)0.184
Round trip to collect water <30 minutes0.8 (0.6–1.0)0.072
Report of washing children's faces 2 or more times a day0.7 (0.6–0.9)0.0020.8 (0.6–0.9)0.018
Own pit latrine0.7 (0.6–0.9)0.003
Owning livestock (sheep, cows, goats or camels)1.1 (0.9–1.4)0.408
Keeping livestock in compound3.0 (2.3–4.1)<0.0012.5 (1.9–3.7)<0.001
Owning radio0.9 (0.7–1.0)0.101
Owning television0.4 (0.3–0.6)<0.0010.4 (0.3–0.6)<0.001

CI, confidence interval.

CI, confidence interval.

SAFE intervention goals

The estimated objectives for the implementation of SAFE in the northern states of Sudan, by locality, are summarised in Table 2. It was estimated that 31,072 people in the northern states had TT (lower and upper bounds = 26,125–36,955) [Figure 4]. Based on TF prevalence estimates, three and 11 districts were eligible for mass antibiotic distribution and targeted antibiotic distribution, respectively. We estimated that all 88 localities surveyed were eligible for facial hygiene promotion while 548,678 household latrines were required to meet the MDG indicator 7.9 in all areas surveyed.
Figure 4

Distribution of estimated cases of trachomatous trichiasis (TT) by age and gender (n = 31,072).

Discussion

Trachoma surveys are essential for quantifying disease prevalence in order to facilitate programme planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Population-based prevalence surveys are the “gold standard” for estimating prevalence of trachoma in populations. These surveys demonstrate that district-level surveys are feasible to conduct over such a large geographical area district by district and are comparable to surveys in Morocco, The Gambia, and Ethiopia [11]–[13]. This contemporary population-based trachoma prevalence survey covered nearly all of the northern states of Sudan. With the Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH) having set goals to eliminate trachoma from these northern states by the year 2015 [14], these data will be important in establishing health priorities. These surveys have a number of potential limitations. The desired sample size was obtained in only 56/88 localities. This is largely explained by the pre-survey sample size calculations which assumed 6 persons per household; however, our results revealed a mean household size of 5. In addition the proportion of persons absent from selected households was 16.3% rather than our estimated non-response rate of 10%. Many adult men were absent from the households at the time of the survey team's visit. This may have potentially biased the prevalence of TT in adult men, as healthy men may have been more likely not to be examined while older men may have been more likely to be at home and examined. The number of clusters sampled per district ranged from 6 to 15. Fewer clusters with more households were sampled in the more urban localities since a more pragmatic approach of segmenting the households was required in these densely populated areas. Also, we were not able to survey three states in Darfur region due to security concerns. This limits the ability of the national trachoma program to plan SAFE interventions to reach elimination in the entire northern states. Nonetheless, these areas will require surveying once the security situation improves. The survey revealed that trachoma is still a public health problem according to the WHO standards in the 3/88 districts where the prevalence of TF in children exceeded 10% and 20/88 districts where the prevalence TT exceeded 1% in adults. In addition, eleven districts had a TF prevalence of between 5 and 9% and were thus eligible for implementation of SAFE with targeted distribution of antibiotics. Household data, specifically latrine ownership, enabled the estimation of the total number of household latrines required to be built in the 88 districts to meet the MDG indicator 7.9 (i.e. reduce the proportion of households without access to sanitation by half) [10]. Identification of risk factors is essential for planning and implementing effective trachoma control programmes. Our risk factor analysis revealed that literacy among household heads, increased frequency of washing children's faces, and proxy indicators of wealth such as livestock and television ownership were associated with a lower prevalence of active trachoma. This supports the need for provision of water and as well as promotion of face hygiene. The results showed that radio and television access were relatively high in most districts, which presents the national program with an opportunity to use state-run media to broadcast trachoma health education and mobilize the population to participate in SAFE interventions. Compared to previous surveys in the Northern State which showed high prevalence of active trachoma and trichiasis [5], [6] our surveys suggests that active trachoma has declined substantially and trachoma now presents as TT. The distribution of trachoma in the northern states of Sudan appears to be confined to small pockets bordering known endemic areas in Southern Sudan and Ethiopia. Nonetheless, efforts to underpin implementation of the SAFE strategy are required if elimination of trachoma is to be realised. This patchy distribution is a striking contrast to the disease pattern that has been observed in other areas bordering the northern states of Sudan such as Southern Sudan [15] and Amhara Region of Ethiopia [13], where trachoma is still hyper-endemic. Properly conducted surveys are crucial if the objective of global elimination of blinding trachoma by the year 2020 is to be charted and realised. Our survey used the CRS design advocated by the WHO, to survey vast areas comprising 88 districts in 12 northern states of Sudan. While there are rapid assessment methods used to identify trachoma endemicity, a recent review of survey methods highlighted the benefits of CRS: it is simple; efficient; repeatable; and provides population-based prevalence estimates of all signs of trachoma [3]. Other survey designs that have been proposed for trachoma have limitations. Trachoma rapid assessment (TRA) pitfalls include: non representative sampling; does not estimate prevalence; and lacks consistency and accuracy [16], [17]. Acceptance sampling trachoma rapid assessment (ASTRA) advocates small sample sizes but it is relatively complex, may result in imprecise prevalence estimates and does not estimate cicatricial signs of trachoma [3]. Our survey demonstrates that CRS can be applied on a large scale to provide district level estimates of TF and TT as recommended by the WHO [18]. Our survey revealed that trachoma is a public health problem in nearly a quarter of all districts surveyed. Based on the survey findings, we have estimated intervention objects for the implementation of the SAFE strategy in all areas surveyed. These data are important and will facilitate programme planning and inform deployment of resources for elimination of trachoma from the northern states of Sudan by 2015, in accordance with the FMOH objectives. STROBE Checklist. (DOC) Click here for additional data file.
  13 in total

1.  Trial of the Trachoma Rapid Assessment methodology in The Gambia.

Authors:  H Limburg; M Bah; G J Johnson
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 1.648

2.  Trachoma rapid assessment: rationale and basic principles.

Authors:  A D Negrel; S P Mariotti
Journal:  Community Eye Health       Date:  1999

3.  Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004.

Authors:  Serge Resnikoff; Donatella Pascolini; Silvio P Mariotti; Gopal P Pokharel
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 9.408

4.  TRACHOMA IN THE BRITISH COLONIAL EMPIRE.-ITS RELATION TO BLINDNESS; THE EXISTING MEANS OF RELIEF; MEANS OF PROPHYLAXIS.

Authors:  A F Maccallan
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1934-11       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  A simple system for the assessment of trachoma and its complications.

Authors:  B Thylefors; C R Dawson; B R Jones; S K West; H R Taylor
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 9.408

6.  Sampling studies on the epidemiology and control of trachoma in southern Morocco.

Authors:  K Kupka; B Nizetic; J Reinhards
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  1968       Impact factor: 9.408

7.  A study of trachoma and associated infections in the Sudan.

Authors:  J F Majcuk
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  1966       Impact factor: 9.408

8.  Trachoma in the Sudan. An epidemiological study.

Authors:  A R Salim; H A Sheikh
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1975-10       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Trachoma in The Gambia.

Authors:  P J Dolin; H Faal; G J Johnson; J Ajewole; A A Mohamed; P S Lee
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 10.  Trachoma survey methods: a literature review.

Authors:  Jeremiah Ngondi; Mark Reacher; Fiona Matthews; Carol Brayne; Paul Emerson
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 9.408

View more
  13 in total

1.  Importance of including borderline cases in trachoma grader certification.

Authors:  Bruce D Gaynor; Abdou Amza; Sintayehu Gebresailassie; Boubacar Kadri; Baido Nassirou; Nicole E Stoller; Sun N Yu; Puja A Cuddapah; Jeremy D Keenan; Thomas M Lietman
Journal:  Am J Trop Med Hyg       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 2.345

Review 2.  Trachoma: an update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

Authors:  Satasuk Joy Bhosai; Robin L Bailey; Bruce D Gaynor; Thomas M Lietman
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.761

3.  Reliability of trachoma clinical grading--assessing grading of marginal cases.

Authors:  Salman A Rahman; Sun N Yu; Abdou Amza; Sintayehu Gebreselassie; Boubacar Kadri; Nassirou Baido; Nicole E Stoller; Joseph P Sheehan; Travis C Porco; Bruce D Gaynor; Jeremy D Keenan; Thomas M Lietman
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2014-05-01

4.  The Epidemiology of Trachoma in Darfur States and Khartoum State, Sudan: Results of 32 Population-Based Prevalence Surveys.

Authors:  Balgesa Elkheir Elshafie; Kamal Hashim Osman; Colin Macleod; Awad Hassan; Simon Bush; Michael Dejene; Rebecca Willis; Brian Chu; Paul Courtright; Anthony W Solomon
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 1.648

5.  Piloting a trachomatous trichiasis patient case-searching approach in two localities of Sudan.

Authors:  Angelia M Sanders; Maha Adam; Nabil Aziz; E Kelly Callahan; Belgesa E Elshafie
Journal:  Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 2.184

6.  Global Elimination of Trachoma by 2020: A Work in Progress.

Authors:  Caleb Mpyet; Amir Bedri Kello; Anthony W Solomon
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.648

Review 7.  Effect of water, sanitation, and hygiene on the prevention of trachoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Meredith E Stocks; Stephanie Ogden; Danny Haddad; David G Addiss; Courtney McGuire; Matthew C Freeman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  A Cross-Sectional Population-Based Survey of Trachoma among Migrant School Aged Children in Shanghai, China.

Authors:  Wenwen Xue; Lina Lu; Jianfeng Zhu; Xiangui He; Jiangnan He; Rong Zhao; Haidong Zou
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Progress Towards Elimination of Trachoma as a Public Health Problem in Eritrea: Results of a Systematic Review and Nine Population-based Prevalence Surveys Conducted in 2014.

Authors:  Andeberhan Tesfazion; Alem Zecarias; Solomon Zewengiel; Rebecca Willis; Goitom Mebrahtu; Eva Capa; Caleb Mpyet; Tawfik Al-Khatib; Paul Courtright; Anthony W Solomon
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.648

10.  Prevalence of trachoma in four marakez of Elmenia and Bani Suef Governorates, Egypt.

Authors:  Khaled Amer; Andreas Müller; Hussein Mohamed Abdelhafiz; Tawfik Al-Khatib; Ana Bakhtiari; Sophie Boisson; Gamal Ezz El Arab; Hema Gad; Bruce A Gordon; Ahmad Madian; Ahmed Tarek Mahanna; Samir Mokhtar; Omar H Safa; Mohamed Samy; Mohammad Shalaby; Ziad Atta Taha; Rebecca Willis; Ashraf Yacoub; Abdul Rahman Mamdouh; Ahmed Kamal Younis; Mohamed Bahaa Eldin Zoheir; Paul Courtright; Anthony W Solomon
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.648

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.