Environmental and Behavioral Risk Factors for Severe Leptospirosis in Thailand.

A nationwide prevention and control campaign for leptospirosis in Thailand has led to a decreased incidence rate, but the mortality and case fatality rates have remained stable. Regarding the limited knowledge of risk factors, a case-control study of the association between environmental and behavioral exposure with severe leptospirosis was implemented to identify the risk factors among adults in Thailand. The study was conducted in 12 hospital-based sites. Hospitalized patients with suspected clinical symptoms of leptospirosis were tested for leptospirosis by culture, loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), real-time PCR, and the microscopic agglutination test (MAT). All participants answered a standardized questionnaire about potential risk factors. Risk factors were identified by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Of the 44 confirmed cases, 33 (75.0%) presented with severe illness, as determined by clinical criteria, and were categorized as severe cases. Non-severe cases were defined as patients with non-severe symptoms of leptospirosis. Living nearby a rubber tree plantation (adjusted OR 11.65, 95% CI 1.08-125.53) and bathing in natural bodies of water (adjusted OR 10.45, 95% CI 1.17-93.35) were both significantly associated with an increased risk of severe leptospirosis. We recommend designating rubber plantations in Thailand as high-risk zones and closely monitoring hospitalized patients in those areas.

Clinical Epidemiology of 7126 Melioidosis Patients in Thailand and the Implications for a National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System.

BACKGROUND: National notifiable diseases surveillance system (NNDSS) data in developing countries are usually incomplete, yet the total number of fatal cases reported is commonly used in national priority-setting. Melioidosis, an infectious disease caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei, is largely underrecognized by policy-makers due to the underreporting of fatal cases via the NNDSS. METHODS: Collaborating with the Epidemiology Division (ED), Ministry of Public Health (MoPH), we conducted a retrospective study to determine the incidence and mortality of melioidosis cases already identified by clinical microbiology laboratories nationwide. A case of melioidosis was defined as a patient with any clinical specimen culture positive for B. pseudomallei. Routinely available microbiology and hospital databases of secondary care and tertiary care hospitals, the national death registry, and NNDSS data were obtained for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 7126 culture-confirmed melioidosis patients were identified from 2012 to 2015 in 60 hospitals countrywide. The total number of cases diagnosed in Northeast, Central, South, East, North, and West Thailand were 5475, 536, 374, 364, 358, and 19 cases, respectively. The overall 30-day mortality was 39% (2805/7126). Only 126 (4%) deaths were reported to the NNDSS. Age, presentation with bacteremia and pneumonia, prevalence of diabetes, and 30-day mortality differed by geographical region (all P < .001). The ED at MoPH has agreed to include the findings of our study in the next annual report of the NNDSS. CONCLUSIONS: Melioidosis is an important cause of death in Thailand nationwide, and its clinical epidemiology may be different by region. In developing countries, NNDSS data can be supplemented by integrating information from readily available routine data sets.

Melioidosis in Thailand: Present and Future.

A recent modelling study estimated that there are 2800 deaths due to melioidosis in Thailand yearly. The Thailand Melioidosis Network (formed in 2012) has been working closely with the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) to investigate and reduce the burden of this disease. Based on updated data, the incidence of melioidosis is still high in Northeast Thailand. More than 2000 culture-confirmed cases of melioidosis are diagnosed in general hospitals with microbiology laboratories in this region each year. The mortality rate is around 35%. Melioidosis is endemic throughout Thailand, but it is still not uncommon that microbiological facilities misidentify Burkholderia pseudomallei as a contaminant or another organism. Disease awareness is low, and people in rural areas neither wear boots nor boil water before drinking to protect themselves from acquiring B. pseudomallei. Previously, about 10 melioidosis deaths were formally reported to the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (Report 506) each year, thus limiting priority setting by the MoPH. In 2015, the formally reported number of melioidosis deaths rose to 112, solely because Sunpasithiprasong Hospital, Ubon Ratchathani province, reported its own data (n = 107). Melioidosis is truly an important cause of death in Thailand, and currently reported cases (Report 506) and cases diagnosed at research centers reflect the tip of the iceberg. Laboratory training and communication between clinicians and laboratory personnel are required to improve diagnosis and treatment of melioidosis countrywide. Implementation of rapid diagnostic tests, such as a lateral flow antigen detection assay, with high accuracy even in melioidosis-endemic countries such as Thailand, is critically needed. Reporting of all culture-confirmed melioidosis cases from every hospital with a microbiology laboratory, together with final outcome data, is mandated under the Communicable Diseases Act B.E.2558. By enforcing this legislation, the MoPH could raise the priority of this disease, and should consider implementing a campaign to raise awareness and melioidosis prevention countrywide.

An Assessment of Epidemiology Capacity in a One Health Team at the Provincial Level in Thailand.

A multi-sectoral core epidemiology capacity assessment was conducted in provinces that implemented One Health services in order to assess the efficacy of a One Health approach in Thailand. In order to conduct the assessment, four provinces were randomly selected as a study group from a total of 19 Thai provinces that are currently using a One Health approach. As a control group, four additional provinces that never implemented a One Health approach were also sampled. The provincial officers were interviewed on the epidemiologic capacity of their respective provinces. The average score of epidemiologic capacity in the provinces implementing the One Health approach was 66.45%, while the provinces that did not implement this approach earned a score of 54.61%. The epidemiologic capacity of surveillance systems in provinces that utilized the One Health approach earned higher scores in comparison to provinces that did not implement the approach (75.00% vs. 53.13%, p-value 0.13). Although none of the capacity evaluations showed significant differences between the two groups, we found evidence that provinces implementing the One Health approach gained higher scores in both surveillance and outbreak investigation capacities. This may be explained by more efficient capacity when using a One Health approach, specifically in preventing, protecting, and responding to threats in local communities.