Prevalence of trachoma in the Republic of Chad: results of 41 population-based surveys.

PURPOSE: To estimate the prevalence of trachoma in suspected-endemic areas of Chad, and thereby determine whether trachoma is a public health problem requiring intervention. METHODS: We divided the suspected-endemic population living in secure districts into 46 evaluation units (EUs), and used the standardized methodologies of the Global Trachoma Mapping Project. A two-stage cluster-sampling procedure was adopted. In each EU, the goal was to examine at least 1019 children aged 1-9 years by recruiting 649 households; all consenting residents aged ≥ 1 year living in those households were examined. Each participant was examined for trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF), trachomatous inflammation-intense (TI), and trichiasis. RESULTS: Two EUs had data that could not be validated, and were excluded from the analysis. GPS data for three other pairs of EUs suggested that EU divisions were inaccurate; data for each pair were combined within the pair. In the 41 resulting EUs, 29,924 households in 967 clusters were visited, and 104,584 people were examined. The age-adjusted EU-level prevalence of TF in 1-9-year-olds ranged from 0.0% to 23.3%, and the age- and gender-adjusted EU-level prevalence of trichiasis in ≥ 15-year-olds ranged from 0.02% to 1.3%. TF was above the WHO elimination threshold in 16 EUs (39%) and trichiasis was above the WHO elimination threshold in 29 EUs (71%). Women had a higher prevalence of trichiasis than did men in 31 EUs (76%). A higher ratio of trichiasis prevalence in women to trichiasis prevalence in men was associated (p = 0.03) with a higher prevalence of trichiasis at EU level. CONCLUSION: Public health-level interventions against trachoma are needed in Chad. Over 10,000 people need management of their trichiasis; women account for about two-thirds of this total. The association between a higher ratio of trichiasis prevalence in women to that in men with higher overall trichiasis prevalence needs further investigation

Prevalence of trachoma in the Republic of Chad: results of 41 population-based surveys.

PurposeTo estimate the prevalence of trachoma in suspected-endemic areas of Chad, and thereby determine whether trachoma is a public health problem requiring intervention.MethodsWe divided the suspected-endemic population living in secure districts into 46 evaluation units (EUs), and used the standardized methodologies of the Global Trachoma Mapping Project. A two-stage cluster-sampling procedure was adopted. In each EU, the goal was to examine at least 1019 children aged 1-9 years by recruiting 649 households; all consenting residents aged ≥ 1 year living in those households were examined. Each participant was examined for trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF), trachomatous inflammation-intense (TI), and trichiasis.ResultsTwo EUs had data that could not be validated, and were excluded from the analysis. GPS data for three other pairs of EUs suggested that EU divisions were inaccurate; data for each pair were combined within the pair. In the 41 resulting EUs, 29,924 households in 967 clusters were visited, and 104,584 people were examined. The age-adjusted EU-level prevalence of TF in 1-9-year-olds ranged from 0.0% to 23.3%, and the age- and gender-adjusted EU-level prevalence of trichiasis in ≥ 15-year-olds ranged from 0.02% to 1.3%. TF was above the WHO elimination threshold in 16 EUs (39%) and trichiasis was above the WHO elimination threshold in 29 EUs (71%). Women had a higher prevalence of trichiasis than did men in 31 EUs (76%). A higher ratio of trichiasis prevalence in women to trichiasis prevalence in men was associated (p = 0.03) with a higher prevalence of trichiasis at EU level.ConclusionPublic health-level interventions against trachoma are needed in Chad. Over 10,000 people need management of their trichiasis; women account for about two-thirds of this total. The association between a higher ratio of trichiasis prevalence in women to that in men with higher overall trichiasis prevalence needs further investigation

Grand Challenges in global eye health: a global prioritisation process using Delphi method

Background: We undertook a Grand Challenges in Global Eye Health prioritisation exercise to identify the key issues that must be addressed to improve eye health in the context of an ageing population, to eliminate persistent inequities in health-care access, and to mitigate widespread resource limitations. Methods: Drawing on methods used in previous Grand Challenges studies, we used a multi-step recruitment strategy to assemble a diverse panel of individuals from a range of disciplines relevant to global eye health from all regions globally to participate in a three-round, online, Delphi-like, prioritisation process to nominate and rank challenges in global eye health. Through this process, we developed both global and regional priority lists. Findings: Between Sept 1 and Dec 12, 2019, 470 individuals complete round 1 of the process, of whom 336 completed all three rounds (round 2 between Feb 26 and March 18, 2020, and round 3 between April 2 and April 25, 2020) 156 (46%) of 336 were women, 180 (54%) were men. The proportion of participants who worked in each region ranged from 104 (31%) in sub-Saharan Africa to 21 (6%) in central Europe, eastern Europe, and in central Asia. Of 85 unique challenges identified after round 1, 16 challenges were prioritised at the global level; six focused on detection and treatment of conditions (cataract, refractive error, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, services for children and screening for early detection), two focused on addressing shortages in human resource capacity, five on other health service and policy factors (including strengthening policies, integration, health information systems, and budget allocation), and three on improving access to care and promoting equity. Interpretation: This list of Grand Challenges serves as a starting point for immediate action by funders to guide investment in research and innovation in eye health. It challenges researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to build collaborations to address specific challenges. Funding: The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Moorfields Eye Charity, National Institute for Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Sightsavers, The Fred Hollows Foundation, The Seva Foundation, British Council for the Prevention of Blindness, and Christian Blind Mission. Translations: For the French, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Arabic and Persian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.</p