| Literature DB >> 30990822 |
Stanislas Rebaudet1,2,3, Gregory Bulit4, Jean Gaudart1,5, Edwige Michel6, Pierre Gazin7, Claudia Evers4, Samuel Beaulieu4, Aaron Aruna Abedi4,8, Lindsay Osei1,4, Robert Barrais6, Katilla Pierre6, Sandra Moore9, Jacques Boncy10, Paul Adrien6, Florence Duperval Guillaume11, Edouard Beigbeder4, Renaud Piarroux12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In October 2010, Haiti was struck by a large-scale cholera epidemic. The Haitian government, UNICEF and other international partners launched an unprecedented nationwide alert-response strategy in July 2013. Coordinated NGOs recruited local rapid response mobile teams to conduct case-area targeted interventions (CATIs), including education sessions, household decontamination by chlorine spraying, and distribution of chlorine tablets. An innovative red-orange-green alert system was also established to monitor the epidemic at the communal scale on a weekly basis. Our study aimed to describe and evaluate the exhaustiveness, intensity and quality of the CATIs in response to cholera alerts in Haiti between July 2013 and June 2017. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30990822 PMCID: PMC6485755 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Activities included in the national alert-response strategy to control cholera in Haiti and core methodology of case-area targeted response interventions.
| Activities included in the national alert-response strategy to control cholera in Haiti | Actors | |
|---|---|---|
| Improve coordination | ||
| of activities implemented by national, international, governmental and non-governmental partners involved in cholera control | MOH, DINEPA, | |
| Improve cholera surveillance | ||
| in the community and in cholera treatment institutions | MOH, UNICEF, PAHO, | |
| Case-area targeted response interventions | ||
| Triggers | Every suspected case reported in a treatment center | |
| Deadline | Max. 48 hours after case admission to a treatment center | |
| ore activities | Surveillance: verification of data in register books; identification of affected sites and neighborhoods | Response teams of WaSH NGO |
| Additional medical activities | Primary care of community cases | EMIRAs |
| Cholera prevention | ||
| in the most vulnerable areas | MOH, DINEPA | |
a activities analyzed in the study
b see S1 Table for a list of NGOs
DINEPA, National Directorate for Water and Sanitation; EMIRA, MOH departmental rapid response mobile teams; MOH, Ministry of Health (Ministère de la Santé Publique et de la Population); NGO, non-governmental organization; PAHO, Pan American Health Organization; UNICEF, United Nations Children's Fund; WaSH, water sanitation and hygiene promotion
Fig 1Weekly evolution of accumulated rainfall and cases (Panel A), retrospective cholera alerts (Panel B), and implementation of the response strategy by UNICEF (Panel C) from mid-2013 (week 27) to mid-2017 (week 26). Cumulated rainfall data averaged over the entire country was obtained from NOAA. Suspected cholera case numbers were obtained from the routine surveillance databases provided by the MOH. Retrospective cholera alerts were computed for a preprint manuscript, based on cases, deaths and stool cultures positive for Vibrio cholerae O1 [19]. Details on UNICEF disbursements and rapid CATIs were provided by UNICEF (S1 Database).
Fig 2Case-area targeted interventions (CATIs) in response to cholera alerts during the same week, from July 2013 to June 2017: weekly number (Panel A) and commune number (Panel B) of responded and non-responded Retrospective cholera alerts were computed based on case numbers, death numbers and stool cultures positive for Vibrio cholerae O1 [19]. CATI records were provided by UNICEF. Oral cholera vaccine (OCV) records were provided by the MOH. The map was created using QGIS v3.0.3.
Exhaustiveness of case-area targeted interventions (CATIs) in response to cholera alerts from July 2013 to June 2017: Factors associated with the odds of CATI response to alerts (logistic mixed models).
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responded | Non-responded | cOR | aOR | |||
| Number of alerts (%) | 3824 (49%) | 4032 (51%) | ||||
| Commune | <0.0001 | |||||
| Department | 0.79 | |||||
| NGO responsible for CATI | 0.3 | |||||
| Commune, department and NGO random effects | <0.01 | |||||
| Alert level, | 2.22 | <0.0001 | 2.52 | <0.0001 | ||
| Semester since mid-2013 | 1.42 | <0.0001 | 1.43 | <0.0001 | ||
| Weekly UNICEF disbursements for CATIs, mean (SD; $10,000 USD) | 12.9 (4.7) | 12 (4.7) | 1.06 | <0.0001 | 1.01 | 0.22 |
| Weekly accumulated rainfall in the commune, mean (SD; cm) | 12.3 (14.2) | 6.4 (9.6) | 0.99 | 0.24 | 0.99 | <0.05 |
| Population of the commune, mean (SD; 10,000 inhabitants) | 12.3 (14.2) | 6.4 (9.6) | 1.03 | <0.01 | 1.01 | 0.11 |
| OCV in the commune before or during the study period, number (%) | 935 (24%) | 1091 (27%) | 1.11 | 0.67 | ND | ND |
| Distance from the capital Port-au-Prince, mean (SD; 10 km) | 14.5 (8.1) | 16.8 (7.8) | 1.02 | 0.44 | ND | ND |
| Distance from the department capital, mean (SD; 10 km) | 3.4 (2.7) | 4.3 (3) | 0.92 | <0.01 | 0.94 | 0.06 |
| Mountainous commune, no. of alerts (%) | 1456 (38%) | 1646 (41%) | 1.01 | 0.96 | ND | ND |
Comparisons between responded and non-responded alerts were estimated using generalized linear mixed models with a binomial distribution.
a Response rates for each class are summarized in S3 Table provided as supplementary information
b For each of these univariate analyses, communes, departments or NGOs was modeled as a unique random effect variable.
c For these univariate analyses, communes, departments and NGOs were modeled as random effect variables, with communes nested within departments. Models provided a common P-value for both random effects.
d For the multivariate analysis, the model included communes, departments and NGOs as random effect variables, with communes nested within departments, and all fixed variables for which univariate P-value was <0.25 The model provided a common P-value for random effect variables.
SD, standard deviation; cOR, crude odds ratio; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; 95%-CI, 95% confidence interval; ND, no data (variables not included in the multivariate analysis).
Intensity and quality of case-area targeted interventions (CATIs) in response to cholera alerts from July 2013 to June 2017: Factors associated with the incidence of complete CATIs per responded alert (negative-binomial mixed models).
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cIR | aIR | |||
| Mean number of complete CATIs per responded alert, 5.1 (SD, 7.8) | ||||
| Commune | <0.0001 | |||
| Department | <0.0001 | |||
| NGO responsible for CATI | 0.98 | |||
| Commune, department and NGO random effects | <0.001 | |||
| Alert level, | 1.72 | <0.0001 | 1.85 | <0.0001 |
| Semester since mid-2013 | 1.21 | <0.0001 | 1.22 | <0.0001 |
| Weekly UNICEF disbursements for CATIs, mean (SD; $10,000 USD) | 1.03 | <0.0001 | 1.00 | 0.84 |
| Weekly accumulated rainfall in the commune, mean (SD; cm) | 1.00 | 0.92 | ND | ND |
| Population of the commune, mean (SD; 10,000 inhab.) | 1.02 | <0.0001 | 1.02 | <0.0001 |
| OCV in the commune before or during the study period, number (%) | 1.18 | 0.18 | 0.99 | 0.91 |
| Distance from the capital Port-au-Prince, mean (SD; 10 km) | 1.01 | 0.4 | ND | ND |
| Distance from the department capital, mean (SD; 10 km) | 0.96 | <0.05 | 1.00 | 0.77 |
| Mountainous commune, number of alerts (%) | 1.05 | 0.65 | ND | ND |
Comparison of the number of complete CATIs per responded alert was estimated using generalized linear mixed models with a negative-binomial distribution.
a Number of complete CATIs for each class are summarized in S3 Table provided as supplementary information.
b For each of these univariate analyses, communes, departments or NGOs was modeled as unique random effect variables.
c For these univariate analyses, communes, departments and NGOs were modeled as random effect variables, with communes nested within departments. Models provided a common p-value for both random effects.
d For all multivariate analysis, the model included communes, departments and NGOs as random effect variables, with communes nested within departments, and all fixed variables for which univariate p-value was <0.25 The model provided a common p-value for random effect variables.
SD, standard deviation; cIR, crude incidence ratio; aIR, adjusted incidence ratio; 95%-CI, 95% confidence interval; ND, no data (variables not included in the multivariate analysis).