4.8 Article

Intensive insecticide spraying for fly control after mass antibiotic treatment for trachoma in a hyperendemic setting: a randomised trial

期刊

LANCET
卷 368, 期 9535, 页码 596-600

出版社

LANCET LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69203-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background There are no data on the cumulative effect of fly control and antibiotic distribution on trachoma in hyperendemic communities. We sought to determine whether insecticide spray intervention after mass antibiotic treatment could reduce trachoma and ocular infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in hyperendemic neighbourhoods in Tanzania. Methods We did a single-blind, randomised clinical trial in 16 neighbourhoods (balozi) in Kongwa, Tanzania. All children aged 1-7 years were enrolled, with 119 children in the eight balozi of the intervention group and 183 in the eight control balozi. Children were examined at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year for clinical trachoma and ocular C trachomatis infection. one dose of azithromycin was offered to all residents of both intervention and control balozi after the baseline survey. Households (and surrounding areas) in the intervention group were then sprayed with insecticide throughout the ensuing year and monitored for reductions in fly counts. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00347763. Findings The intervention balozi had significantly lower fly counts than controls at all monitored weeks (p < 0.05), apart from weeks 7-9. The trachoma rate did not differ significantly in the intervention and control balozi at 6 months post-treatment (20% vs 33%, p = 0.07), nor did it at 1 year (43% vs 44%, p = 0.90). Infection with C trachomatis did not differ between groups at 6 months post-treatment (9% vs 7%, p = 0.45). Interpretation Intensive insecticide spraying reduced flies in the environment, but our results suggest that fly reduction after mass antibiotic treatment has no added benefit on reduction of trachoma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据