CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS TO CONTROL LEPROSY AND THE PERSPECTIVE OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN BRAZIL: A PRIMER FOR NON-EPIDEMIOLOGISTS / Quimioprofilaxia para prevenção de hanseníase e sua implantação no Brasil: uma explicação introdutória para não epidemiologistas

The occurrence of leprosy has decreased in the world but the perspective of its elimination has been questioned. A proposed control measure is the use of post-exposure chemoprophylaxis (PEP) among contacts, but there are still questions about its operational aspects. In this text we discuss the evidence available in literature, explain some concepts in epidemiology commonly used in the research on this topic, analyze the appropriateness of implementing PEP in the context of Brazil, and answer a set of key questions. We argue some points: (1) the number of contacts that need to receive PEP in order to prevent one additional case of disease is not easy to be generalized from the studies; (2) areas covered by the family health program are the priority settings where PEP could be implemented; (3) there is no need for a second dose; (4) risk for drug resistance seems to be very small; (5) the usefulness of a serological test to identify a higher risk group of individuals among contacts is questionable. Given that, we recommend that, if it is decided to start PEP in Brazil, it should start on a small scale and, as new evidence can be generated in terms of feasibility, sustainability and impact, it could move up a scale, or not, for a wider intervention.

A ocorrência de hanseníase tem diminuído no mundo apesar de que a perspectiva de sua eliminação tem sido questionada. Uma proposta para o controle da endemia é a quimioprofilaxia pós-exposição entre contatos (post-exposure chemoprophylaxis, PEP), embora ainda existam dúvidas quanto aos seus aspectos operacionais e generalização de resultados. Nesse texto nós discutimos as evidências disponíveis na literatura, explicamos alguns conceitos epidemiológicos comumente encontrados em pesquisa sobre PEP e a implantação da PEP no contexto brasileiro. Nós argumentamos que: (1) a estimativa em diferentes estudos do numero de contatos necessário para receber PEP para prevenir um novo caso de hanseníase (number needed to treat, NNT) não é facilmente generalizável; (2) áreas cobertas pelo programa de saúde da família são as áreas prioritárias onde PEP poderia ser implantado; (3) não existe necessidade de segunda dose da quimioprofilaxia; (4) o risco de resistência à droga usada na PEP parece ser muito pequeno; (5) questionamos a necessidade de teste sorológico para identificar indivíduos entre os contatos que tenham maior risco de doença. Nós opinamos que, se houver uma decisão para se iniciar PEP no Brasil, essa intervenção deveria ser iniciada em pequena escala e, à proporção que novas evidências são geradas sobre a factibilidade, sustentabilidade e impacto da intervenção, a intervenção com PEP poderia ou não ser usada em larga escala.

CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS TO CONTROL LEPROSY AND THE PERSPECTIVE OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN BRAZIL: A PRIMER FOR NON-EPIDEMIOLOGISTS.

The occurrence of leprosy has decreased in the world but the perspective of its elimination has been questioned. A proposed control measure is the use of post-exposure chemoprophylaxis (PEP) among contacts, but there are still questions about its operational aspects. In this text we discuss the evidence available in literature, explain some concepts in epidemiology commonly used in the research on this topic, analyze the appropriateness of implementing PEP in the context of Brazil, and answer a set of key questions. We argue some points: (1) the number of contacts that need to receive PEP in order to prevent one additional case of disease is not easy to be generalized from the studies; (2) areas covered by the family health program are the priority settings where PEP could be implemented; (3) there is no need for a second dose; (4) risk for drug resistance seems to be very small; (5) the usefulness of a serological test to identify a higher risk group of individuals among contacts is questionable. Given that, we recommend that, if it is decided to start PEP in Brazil, it should start on a small scale and, as new evidence can be generated in terms of feasibility, sustainability and impact, it could move up a scale, or not, for a wider intervention.

Neglected tropical diseases: survey and geometry of randomised evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quantity and distribution of evidence from randomised controlled trials for the treatment of the major neglected tropical diseases and to identify gaps in the evidence with network analysis. DESIGN: Systematic review and network analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed from inception to 31 August 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials that examined treatment of 16 neglected tropical diseases or complications thereof published in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, or Dutch. RESULTS: We identified 971 eligible randomised trials. Leishmaniasis (184 trials, 23,039 participants) and geohelminth infections; 160 trials, 46,887 participants) were the most studied, while dracunculiasis (nine trials, 798 participants) and Buruli ulcer (five trials, 337 participants) were least studied. Relative to its global burden of disease, lymphatic filariasis had the fewest trials and participants. Only 11% of trials were industry funded. Either a single trial or trials with fewer than 100 participants comprised the randomised evidence for first or second line treatments for Buruli ulcer, human African trypanosomiasis, American trypanosomiasis, cysticercosis, rabies, echinococcosis, New World cutaneous leishmaniasis, and each of the foodborne trematode infections. Among the 10 disease categories with more than 40 trials, five lacked sufficient head to head comparisons between first or second line treatments. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the amount of evidence from randomised controlled trials for each of the 16 major neglected tropical diseases. Even in diseases with substantial evidence, such as leishmaniasis and geohelminth infections, some recommended treatments have limited supporting data and lack head to head comparisons.

Smooth bootstrap methods for analysis of longitudinal data.

In analysis of longitudinal data, the variance matrix of the parameter estimates is usually estimated by the 'sandwich' method, in which the variance for each subject is estimated by its residual products. We propose smooth bootstrap methods by perturbing the estimating functions to obtain 'bootstrapped' realizations of the parameter estimates for statistical inference. Our extensive simulation studies indicate that the variance estimators by our proposed methods can not only correct the bias of the sandwich estimator but also improve the confidence interval coverage. We applied the proposed method to a data set from a clinical trial of antibiotics for leprosy.

Summarizing data through a piecewise linear growth curve model.

Most of the research in clinical trials is based on longitudinal designs, which involve repeated measurements of a variable of interest. Such designs are very powerful, both statistically and scientifically. Recent advances in statistical theory and software development incorporate the covariance structures such as unstructured, compound symmetry, auto-regressive and random effects, etc., for analysing longitudinal data. Hathaway et al. propose a technique for summarizing longitudinal data using linear growth curve model and establish that the number of summary statistics is fixed as four irrespective of the length of study. In this paper, we develop a procedure for analysing the longitudinal data through a piecewise linear growth curve model on the lines of Hathaway et al. Under different covariance structures, the linear model is fitted for Leprosy data and the residual sum of squares computed. Goodness of fit has also been considered for various models. In order to prove that the proposed method is robust and better than the others in terms of goodness of fit, simulation studies are carried out and the results presented.

Simultaneous confidence intervals for ratios with applications to the comparison of several treatments with a control.

OBJECTIVES: In this article, we illustrate and compare exact simultaneous confidence sets with various approximate simultaneous confidence intervals for multiple ratios as applied to many-to-one comparisons. Quite different datasets are analyzed to clarify the points. METHODS: The methods are based on existing probability inequalities (e.g., Bonferroni, Slepian and Sidak), estimation of nuisance parameters and re-sampling techniques. Exact simultaneous confidence sets based on the multivariate t-distribution are constructed and compared with approximate simultaneous confidence intervals. RESULTS: It is found that the coverage probabilities associated with the various methods of constructing simultaneous confidence intervals (for ratios) in manyto-one comparisons depend on the ratios of the coefficient of variation for the mean of the control group to the coefficient of variation for the mean of the treatments. If the ratios of the coefficients of variations are less than one, the Bonferroni corrected Fieller confidence intervals have almost the same coverage probability as the exact simultaneous confidence sets. Otherwise, the use of Bonferroni intervals leads to conservative results. CONCLUSIONS: When the ratio of the coefficient of variation for the mean of the control group to the coefficient of variation for the mean of the treatments are greater than one (e.g., in balanced designs with increasing effects), the Bonferroni simultaneous confidence intervals are too conservative. Therefore, we recommend not using Bonferroni for this kind of data. On the other hand, the plug-in method maintains the intended confidence coefficient quite satisfactorily; therefore, it can serve as the best alternative in any case.