4.5 Article

Treatment outcomes and risk factors for relapse in patients with early-stage human African trypanosomiasis (HAT) in the Republic of the Congo

Journal

BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Volume 84, Issue 10, Pages 777-782

Publisher

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.05.028399

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective In 2002-03, the Republic of the Congo increased the threshold separating stage 1 and 2 cases of human African trypanosomiasis (HAT)from a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) white cell count of 5 cells/mm(3) to 10 cells/mm(3). We aimed to assess whether the increased threshold of 10 cells/mm(3) is a safe indicator of stage 2 disease. Methods We assessed patients treated for stage 1 HAT caused by Trypanosoma brucei gambiense in the Republic of the Congo between April 2001 and April 2005. Patients with 0-10 cells/mm(3) in CSF were classed as stage 1 and treated with pentamidine. Patients with CSF of > 10 cells/mm(3) were classed as stage 2 and treated with either melarsoprol or eflornithine. We did a retrospective analysis of all patients treated after the September 2002 increase in threshold for classification of HAT disease stage 2, and who were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up. Primary outcome was survival without death or relapse within I year of discharge. Risk factors for treatment failure, in particular CSF white cell count on diagnosis, were assessed. Findings Between September 2002 to April 2004, 692 patients eligible for our analysis were treated with pentamidine. All were discharged alive. Relapse rate was 5% (n = 33). The only identified risk factor for relapse was a CSF white cell count of 6-10 cells/mm(3) rather than 0-5 cells/mm(3) (adjusted hazard ratio 3.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.52-7.01); P = 0.002). Conclusion A threshold of 5 white cells/mm(3) in CSF is safer than 10 cells/mm(3) to determine stage 2 HAT and reduce risk of relapse.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available