Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2023 Jun 20;17(6):e0011434. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011434

Nodding syndrome, a case-control study in Mahenge, Tanzania: Onchocerca volvulus and not Mansonella perstans as a risk factor

Luís-Jorge Amaral 1, Dan Bhwana 2, Athanas D Mhina 2, Bruno P Mmbando 2, Robert Colebunders 1,*
Editor: Angela Monica Ionica3
PMCID: PMC10313037  PMID: 37339148

Abstract

Background

Nodding syndrome (NS) has been consistently associated with onchocerciasis. Nevertheless, a positive association between NS and a Mansonella perstans infection was found in South Sudan. We aimed to determine whether the latter parasite could be a risk factor for NS in Mahenge.

Methods

Cases of epilepsy were identified in villages affected by NS in Mahenge, Tanzania, and matched with controls without epilepsy of the same sex, age and village. We examined blood films of cases and controls to identify M. perstans infections. The participants were also asked for sociodemographic and epilepsy information, examined for palpable onchocercal nodules and onchocerciasis-related skin lesions and tested for anti-Onchocerca volvulus antibodies (Ov16 IgG4) by ELISA. Clinical characteristics of cases and controls, O. volvulus exposure status and relevant sociodemographic variables were assessed by a conditional logistic regression model for NS and epilepsy status matched for age, sex and village.

Results

A total of 113 epilepsy cases and 132 controls were enrolled, of which, respectively, 56 (49.6%) and 64 (48.5%) were men. The median age in cases and controls was 28.0 (IQR: 22.0–35.0) and 27.0 (IQR: 21.0–33.3) years. Of the persons with epilepsy, 43 (38.1%) met the probable NS criteria and 106 (93.8%) had onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy (OAE). M. perstans infection was absent in all participants, while Ov16 seroprevalence was positively associated with probable NS (odds ratio (OR): 5.05, 95%CI: 1.79–14.27) and overall epilepsy (OR: 2.03, 95%CI: 1–07–3.86). Moreover, onchocerciasis-related skin manifestations were only found in the cases (n = 7, p = 0.0040), including persons with probable NS (n = 4, p = 0.0033). Residing longer in the village and having a family history of seizures were positively correlated with Ov16 status and made persons at higher odds for epilepsy, including probable NS.

Conclusion

In contrast to O. volvulus, M. perstans is most likely not endemic to Mahenge and, therefore, cannot be a co-factor for NS in the area. Hence, this filaria is unlikely to be the primary and sole causal factor in the development of NS. The main risk factor for NS remains onchocerciasis.

Author summary

Nodding syndrome (NS) is a rare and severe form of epilepsy that mainly affects children. The syndrome has only been found in onchocerciasis-endemic areas, and epidemiological studies suggest that it may be one of the forms of onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy caused by the parasite Onchocerca volvulus. Nevertheless, other causes have been considered, such as an infection with Mansonella perstans. To identify a main causal factor for NS, it needs to be present in all sites where the syndrome is found. Hence, our team explored 113 people with epilepsy and 132 healthy controls in Mahenge, Tanzania, to determine if M. perstans could be behind the epidemic of NS in the area. Over a third of the epilepsy cases in the study met the criteria for probable NS. None of the participants was diagnosed with an M. perstans infection. However, those exposed to onchocerciasis and with onchocerciasis-associated skin lesions were more likely to have epilepsy, including probable NS. In conclusion, onchocerciasis remains the most likely main risk factor for NS.

Introduction

Nodding syndrome (NS) is a rare and severe form of epilepsy that mostly affects children in sub-Saharan Africa [1]. A link between NS and onchocerciasis has been suspected since the former was first described in the 1960s [2]. More recent epidemiological studies suggest that NS is one of the clinical manifestations of onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy (OAE) [3]. Onchocerciasis is a disease caused by the filarial nematode Onchocerca volvulus, spread by blackflies (Simulium spp.) and that leads to skin and eye disease [4]. Onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy appears in previously healthy children between the ages of 3 and 18 years, with a peak age of onset around 8−11 years [3]. The epidemiology of epilepsy in onchocerciasis-endemic areas differs from the non-endemic regions in Africa, where most epilepsy develops in children before the age of three years due to perinatal causes and genetic antecedents [5,6] or in adulthood due to brain tumours, strokes and neurocysticercosis [7,8]. OAE presents a broad spectrum of clinical manifestations, including NS and Nakalanga syndrome [9]. Despite a large number of epidemiological studies showing the association between onchocerciasis and epilepsy, there is a reluctance to consider this association causal, mainly because there is little evidence that O. volvulus microfilariae can penetrate the brain [10] and because, so far, no indirect mechanism has been identified to explain the pathogenesis of OAE [9]. Co-factors could also play a role in the pathogenesis of OAE. A study in South Sudan suggested that certain human leukocyte antigen (HLA) types could be a risk factor for developing NS, while other HLA types could be protective [11]. It has also been suggested that parasitic co-infections could increase the risk of developing epilepsy [12].

Another filarial infection potentially associated with NS is Mansonella perstans [13]. In three case-control studies conducted between 2001 and 2002 in Mundri, Western Equatoria State in South Sudan, not only a positive association was found between NS and an O. volvulus infection (odds ratio (OR): 9.2, p-value (p) <0.001), but also between NS and M. perstans infection (OR: 3.2, p = 0.005) [13]. However, in a case-control study conducted in 2014 in Titule, an onchocerciasis-endemic area in Bas-Uéle in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a M. perstans infection was not more prevalent in persons with epilepsy than in healthy controls (p = 0.91). Moreover, cases were significantly more burdened with onchocerciasis-related skin disease (p<0.01) [14].

Despite being the least studied, M. perstans is considered the most prevalent human filaria [15]. The infection is spread by midges (Culicoides spp.) and is believed to be prevalent in Western, Eastern and Central Africa and neotropical regions in South America [15]. The spectrum of clinical symptoms and signs remains ill-defined for Mansonella infections. Various clinical manifestations have been reported, including itching, swelling, joint pain, enlarged lymph nodes, vague abdominal symptoms and eosinophilia, but mansonellosis is often asymptomatic [15]. Moreover, it is frequently difficult to attribute clinical manifestations to a M. perstans infection due to the high frequency of co-infections with other parasites [15,16].

The diagnosis of M. perstans relies on detecting blood circulating microfilariae, real-time PCR or loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays (LAMP) testing [17]. Antibody-detecting enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests are available but not specific for Mansonella spp. [17].

During the International Scientific Meeting on NS organised in 2012 by WHO in Kampala, it was recommended that further investigation was needed to study M. perstans and O. volvulus infections as potential risk factors for NS [18]. Therefore, we investigated whether an infection with M. perstans could be a risk factor in the development of NS in villages affected by NS in Mahenge, Tanzania. We also investigated the exposure to O. volvulus infection.

Methods

Ethics statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research, Tanzania (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol.IX/3746) and the Ethics Committee of the Antwerp University Hospital, Belgium (B300201837863).

Study settings

Between September 2021 and March 2022, we conducted a matched case-control study in Mahenge, Ulanga District, Tanzania. Persons with epilepsy identified in previous door-to-door surveys in 2017, 2018 and 2021 were selected from a suburban village (Vigoi) and nine rural villages in the Mahenge area known to have a high prevalence of epilepsy (Mzelezi, Mdindo, Sali and Msogezi, included in previous epilepsy studies [19,20], and Ebuyu, Euga, Isyaga, Isongo and Mgolo villages) (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Map of the Mahenge area and surveyed villages [21].

Fig 1

The Mahenge Mountains are of high altitude, abundant in banana trees and rich in fast-flowing rivers, the latter providing suitable breeding sites for blackflies (locally known as vifuna in Kiswahili) [22]. The area was one of the most onchocerciasis-endemic foci in Tanzania before the implementation in 1997 of annual community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) [23,24,25]. The latter is the main intervention to control and eliminate onchocerciasis and, in 2019, was strengthened from annual to biannual in Mahenge [19]. Most of the local population belongs to the Wapogoro ethnicity and subsists on agriculture, livestock (chickens, goats and pigs, the latter mostly kept indoors and in suburban villages) and gem mining. Loa loa and Wuchereria bancrofti filarial infections are not believed to be prevalent in the area [26,27].

Study design

The study was designed to be a case-control study where cases and controls were matched for age, sex and village. A case of epilepsy was defined according to the International League Against Epilepsy as a person with a history of at least two unprovoked seizures 24 hours or more apart [28]. Epilepsy cases and controls without epilepsy were people who screened positive or negative for epilepsy in the previous door-to-door surveys, respectively [29]. Persons with epilepsy, including NS and Nakalanga syndrome, were individually matched with controls by age (± three years), sex and village (if possible, from the same neighbourhood). When a matching control was not available in the village of a case, one was sought in adjacent villages.

A case of probable NS was defined according to the 2013 modified consensus case definition of NS [30]. In brief, as a previously healthy three to 18 years old child who developed repetitive episodes of involuntary drops of the head to the chest on two or more occasions a day or more apart. They also had to present at least one of the following criteria: 1) neurological abnormalities; 2) clustering in space and time with other cases; 3) stunting or wasting; 4) delayed sexual or physical development or; 5) psychiatric symptoms. Overall, a probable case of NS was a person that met the NS criteria but in which the nodding episode was not documented by a trained healthcare worker, videotaped or shown by EEG/EMG.

A case of Nakalanga syndrome was defined as a person with a combination of stunted growth, delayed or absent external signs of secondary sexual development (endocrine dysfunction) and mental impairment, often associated with epileptic seizures and facial and thoracic dysmorphia [31].

A person with epilepsy was recognised with OAE if the following criteria were met: 1) epilepsy onset between the ages of three and 18 years; 2) without an obvious cause of epilepsy, and; 3) living for at least three years in the study area, known to be endemic for onchocerciasis and to have geographic and familial clustering of epilepsy cases [19,32].

Participants were asked to identify their closest family member with epilepsy, if any. Family history of epilepsy was then organised in three categories based on blood relationship (consanguinity): 1) First-degree relative with epilepsy (parent, sibling or son/daughter, with approximately 50% of their genes shared with the case/control); 2) Second-degree relative with epilepsy (uncle, cousin, grandparent or nephew, with approximately 25% of their genes shared with the case/control); and 3) in-law with epilepsy (brother/sister-in-law, mother/father-in-law, daughter/son-in-law, with no genetic link with the case/control).

Sample size

In Mundri County, South Sudan, a significant association was found between NS and an M. perstans infection, with an odds ratio of 3.2 (p = 0.005). Among the NS cases, 52% (36/69) were infected with M. perstans, compared to 31% (20/65) controls without epilepsy [13]. Assuming a similar prevalence in Mahenge, at least half (50%) of NS cases and one-fourth (25%) of controls are expected to have M. perstans infection. Hence, at least 44 cases and 132 controls should be enrolled in the study, with a 1:3 matching ratio.

Study procedures

After obtaining written informed consent, participants or their guardians were interviewed in the Swahili (Kiswahili) language. They were questioned about their sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, such as ethnicity, epilepsy (kifafa in Kiswahili) status, head nodding history (amesinzia kichwa in Kiswahili) and ivermectin intake. The participants then underwent a physical examination by a medical doctor (DB). The latter included detecting palpable onchocercal nodules (onchocercomata) and dermatological lesions. The mothers of the participants present were also interviewed and examined for the presence of palpable onchocercal nodules and dermatological lesions after signing informed consent.

A finger prick of blood was obtained from all cases and controls to make a dried blood spot and thick and thin films. Samples were collected, air-dried and stored at 4°C until handled for further analysis to identify M. perstans infection and O. volvulus exposure. The latter involved the detection of IgG4 antibodies recognising O. volvulus Ov16 antigen in a dried blood spot by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), using the commercially available Ov16 IgG4 ELISA kits (Standard Diagnostics Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea) and following its manufacturer instructions. In turn, the procedure for detecting M. perstans infection encompassed staining the dried films with Giemsa and examining them for microfilariae under a microscope with a high-power objective lens. The sensitivity of a microscopic examination of a blood smear to detect a M. perstans infection is estimated to be 78% [33], while the specificity is close to 100% when a well-trained laboratory technician performs the test.

Skin snips were not obtained for O. volvulus microfilariae detection, as nearly all study participants took ivermectin during annual CDTI. The latter has been shown to mask the association between onchocerciasis and epilepsy [34].

Statistical analysis

The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of cases and controls were described with median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables and number and frequency for categorical data. Differences in sociodemographic variables between cases and controls were studied using the chi-squared test for categorical variables (or Fisher’s exact test if counts <5) and the t-test for continuous variables. Variables were also checked for correlation.

A conditional logistic regression model incorporating the case-control matching factors (sex, age and village) for epilepsy status was run for each clinical characteristic of cases and controls, M. perstans infection, O. volvulus exposure and relevant sociodemographic variables. Odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and p-values were presented. Some epilepsy cases were matched with controls from neighbouring villages, as no controls were available within the same village. Hence, a sensitivity analysis of the village matching was performed by adjusting the regression for the village of cases and controls. Variables with < 5% frequencies were compared using Fisher’s exact test instead of the regression and p-values presented. Correlations between epilepsy predictors were explored, and a logistic regression adjusted for age, sex and village type was used to explore the association between Ov16 seropositivity and a family history of seizures.

The conditional model and Fisher’s exact test were implemented a second and a third time for probable NS and for OAE by excluding from the analysis the persons with epilepsy that did not meet the criteria of these definitions. The controls of the persons with epilepsy not meeting the NS and OAE criteria were individually matched to the closest persons with epilepsy meeting the former, respectively. Two-tailed p-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using R and RStudio (4.2.1 and 2022.06.23 versions, respectively).

Results

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the study population

The median age of the study population was 28.3 (IQR: 22.0–34.0) years, with 125 (51%) females and 120 (49%) males (Table 1). Cases of epilepsy and controls without the condition were well-matched for sex (p = 0.97), age (p = 0.64), village type (1.00) and ethnicity (p = 0.86). Nevertheless, no controls were available to be matched by age and sex for 22 cases within certain villages, particularly Mzelezi [10] and Isyaga [5] villages. Hence, these cases were matched with controls from neighbouring villages (S1 Table). The search for persons without epilepsy led to the recruitment of slightly more controls (132) than cases (113), with 19 epilepsy cases (16.8%) matched to two controls.

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of epilepsy cases and controls.

Variable Cases
n = 113
Controls
n = 132
p-value
Male, n (%) 56 (49.6) 64 (48.5) 0.97
Age, median (IQR) 28.0 (22.0–35.0) 27.0 (21.0–33.3) 0.64
Village type, n (%) 1.00
Rurala 106 (93.8) 124 (93.9)
Sub-urbanb 7 (6.2) 8 (6.1)
Ethnicity, n (%) 0.86
Wapogoro 110 (97.3) 130 (98.5)
Other ethnicities c 3 (2.7) 2 (1.5)
Ivermectin intake, n (%) 105 (92.9) 126 (95.5) 0.57
Closest family member with epilepsy, n (%) <0.0001
First-degree relative with epilepsy 17 (15.0) 13 (9.9) 0.30
Parent 3 0 0.097 e
Sibling 14 11 0.40
Son 0 2 0.50 e
Second-degree relative with epilepsy 24 (21.2) 4 (3.0) <0.0001
Grandparent 3 0 0.097 e
Uncle/Aunt 13 2 0.0029
Cousin 4 1 0.19 e
Nephew 4 1 0.19e
In-law with epilepsyd 8 (7.1) 3 (2.3) 0.13
No family members with epilepsy 64 (56.7) 112 (84.9) <0.0001
Consanguine marriage within the family, n (%) 9 (8.0) 5 (3.8) 0.26
Years family lived in the village, median (IQR) 28.0 (22.0–35.0) 25.0 (20.0–31.3) <0.0001

n—Number; %—Percentage frequency; IQR—Interquartile range.

a Villages Ebuyu, Euga, Isongo, Isyaga, Mdindo, Mgolo, Msogezi, Mzelezi and Sali.

b Village Vigoi.

c Other ethnicities identified were Hehe and Mndamba.

d A brother-/sister-in-law, mother-/father-in-law, daughter-in-law.

e Fisher’s exact test was used to account for the rare frequency.

Nearly all participants reported taking ivermectin in the past. Families of persons with epilepsy have lived more years in the villages under study (p<0.0001). Persons with epilepsy were also more likely to have a family member with epilepsy (p<0.0001). Most of the first-degree relatives with epilepsy were siblings (25, 83.3%), followed by mothers (2, 6.7%), sons (2, 6.7%) and father (1, 3.3%). Second-degree relatives with epilepsy were uncles (15, 53.5%), cousins (5, 17.9%), nephews (5, 17.9%) and grandparents (3, 10.7%). Over half of the in-laws with epilepsy were brothers-in-law (7, 63.6%), followed by daughter- (1), father- (1), mother- (1) and sister-in-law (1).

Clinical characteristics of persons with epilepsy

Forty-three (38.1%) epilepsy cases met the criteria of probable NS, and 106 (93.8%) had OAE (Table 2). Those without OAE either developed epilepsy in adulthood (4), were new to the study area (1), had an obvious cause of epilepsy (1) or did not remember when they developed their first seizure (1).

Table 2. Epilepsy and treatment characteristics of persons with epilepsy.

Variable Epilepsy cases
n = 113
Onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy, n (%) 106 (93.8%)
Probably Nodding syndrome, n (%) 43 (38.1%)
Nakalanga syndrome, n (%) 5 (4.4%)
Age of seizure onset, median (IQR) 10.0 (8.0–13.0)
Antiseizure treatment, n (%) 84 (74.3%)

n—Number; %—Percentage frequency; IQR—Interquartile range.

The median age of seizure onset was ten years (IQR: 8.0–13.0), and most persons with epilepsy (74.3%) were under antiseizure treatment, usually phenobarbital (67, 79.8%). The median age of seizure onset was higher for other forms of epilepsy (11.0, IQR: 9.0–14.0) than probable NS (9.0, IQR: 7.5–11.0) (p = 0.0004).

Mansonella perstans infection and Onchocerca volvulus exposure status in epilepsy cases and controls

None of the 113 epilepsy cases (including 43 with probable NS) and 132 controls were diagnosed with an M. perstans infection. (Table 3). Ov16 seroprevalence was associated with epilepsy (OR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.07–3.86), including OAE (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.15–4.47) and probable NS (OR: 5.05, 95% CI: 1.79–14.27). Onchocercal skin manifestations were only found in persons with epilepsy (6.2%, p = 0.0040), especially among probable NS cases (9.3%, p = 0.0033). Cases and controls had a lower prevalence of onchocercal nodules than their mothers (p = 0.018). Participants with second-degree relatives with epilepsy were at higher odds of having epilepsy, including the ones with OAE and probable NS. Moreover, persons with OAE, including probable NS, were more likely to have an in-law with epilepsy. Living longer in the village was also a risk factor for epilepsy (p = 0.016), including OAE (p = 0.0024) and probable NS (p = 0.0023). The sensitivity analysis performed for the village matching did not impact the significance of any findings.

Table 3. Relevant sociodemographic variables, M. perstans infection and O. volvulus seroprevalence, ochocercal nodules and skin manifestations among epilepsy cases, including OAE and probable NS, and controls.

Variable Epilepsy cases
(n = 113)
OAE cases
(n = 106)
pNS cases
(n = 43)
Controls
(n = 132)
Level of association (OR)
Epilepsy cases
(95% CI)
OAE cases
(95% CI)
pNS cases
(95% CI)
p-value
(Epilepsy / OAE / pNS)
M. perstans blood smear (positive) 0.0%
(0 out 113)
0.0%
(0 out 106)
0.0%
(0 out 43)
0.0%
(0 out of 132)
-b -b -b -b
Ov16 ELISA (positive) 75.0%
(78 out of 104)
76.3%
(74 out of 97)
84.6%
(33 out of 39)
60.0%
(72 out of 120)
2.03
(1.07–3.86)
2.26
(1.15–4.47)
5.05
(1.79–14.27)
0.030 / 0.019 / 0.0023a
Onchocercal nodules (one or more) 17.7%
(20 out of 113)
17.9%
(19 out of 106)
16.3%
(7 out of 43)
11.4%
(15 out of 132)
1.80
(0.82–3.97)
2.02
(0.89–4.60)
1.90
(0.56–6.46)
0.15 / 0.093 / 0.31a
Onchocercal skin manifestationsf (one or more) 6.2%
(7 out of 113)
4.7%
(5 out of 106)
9.3%
(4 out of 43)
0.0%
(0 out of 132)
- - - 0.0040 / 0.017 / 0.0033g
Onchocercal nodules of mothers (one or more) 42.9%
(30 out of 70)
43.9%
(29 out of 66)
38.2%
(13 out of 34)
38.8%
(19 out of 49)
2.53
(0.97–6.60)
2.43
(0.92–6.39)
1.46
(0.49–4.40)
0.059 / 0.073 / 0.50a
Onchocercal skin manifestations of mothersf (one or more) 11.4%
(8 out of 70)
10.6%
(7 out of 66)
11.8%
(4 out of 34)
12.3%
(6 out of 49)
- - - 1.00 / 0.78 / 1.00g
Closest family member with epilepsy
First-degree relative with epilepsyc 17.7%
(20 out of 113)
17.9%
(19 out of 106)
18.6%
(8 out of 43)
9.9%
(13 out of 132)
1.76
(0.81–3.81)
2.16
(0.95–4.93)
1.63
(0.52–5.12)
0.15 / 0.067 / 0.40a
Second-degree relative with epilepsyd 18.9%
(21 out of 113)
18.9%
(20 out of 106)
14.0%
(6 out of 43)
3.0%
(4 out of 132)
10.40
(3.04–35.60)
10.77
(3.12–37.25)
11.78
(2.84–48.89)
0.0002 / 0.0002 / 0.0007a
In-law with epilepsye 7.1%
(8 out of 113)
7.5%
(8 out of 113)
7.0%
(3 out of 43)
2.3%
(3 out of 132)
4.14
(1.00–17.18)
4.35
(1.04–18.20)
11.04
(1.39–87.43)
0.051 / 0.040 / 0.023a
Years family lived in the village, median (IQR) 28.0
(22.0–35.0)
26.5
(22.0–33.0)
28.0
(20.5–31.5)
25.0
(20.0–31.3)
1.05
(1.01–1.09)
1.05
(1.01–1.09)
1.07
(1.01–1.13)
0.016 / 0.024 / 0.023a

n—Number; OAE–Onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy; pNS–Probable nodding syndrome; OR–Odds ratio; 95% CI– 95% Confidence interval.

a Conditional logistic regression model matched for village, age and sex.

b No statistical test was used, as all controls and cases tested negative for M. perstans

c A parent, sibling or son.

d A uncle, nephew, grandparent or cousin.

e A brother-/sister-in-law, mother-/father-in-law, daughter-in-law.

f Leopard skin; dry, thickened, wrinkled skin; papular rash.

g Fisher’s exact test was used to account for the rare frequency.

The length of residence in the village was correlated with Ov16 seroprevalence (cor = 0.30, p<0.0001), and the latter was also correlated to a family history of seizures (cor = 0.32, p<0.0001). When added to a univariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex and village type, having a first-degree relative with epilepsy was strongly associated with Ov16 seropositivity (adjusted OR: 15.02, 95% CI: 2.97–274.7; p = 0.0094) but not significantly related to having a second-degree relative (p = 0.21) or an in-law with epilepsy (p = 0.25). Similarly, a family history of seizures lost all significance when an interaction effect with Ov16 positivity was added to the conditional logistic regression for epilepsy, OAE or NS.

Epilepsy cases were more likely to have a relative of a previous generation with epilepsy than controls (grandparent, parent or uncle/aunt, 16.8% versus 1.5%, p<0.0001). Moreover, most epilepsy cases (92.3%, 12/13) and all controls (100.0%, 10/10) with a sibling with epilepsy were Ov16 seropositive (one case and one control were not tested).

Discussion

To identify the cause of NS, a common risk factor must be found in all areas where NS has been reported. So far, the only risk factor present in all those areas is onchocerciasis. We explored the possible association between M. perstans and NS in Mahenge, where NS and Nakalanga syndrome have been known to occur since the 1960s. We also aimed to confirm the association between onchocerciasis and NS.

None of the 132 controls and 113 persons with epilepsy, including 43 with probable NS, were diagnosed with an M. perstans infection. Therefore, M. perstans is likely not endemic in Mahenge and should no longer be considered a risk factor for NS in the area. In contrast, Ov16 seroprevalence (OR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.07–3.86) and onchocercal skin manifestations (p = 0.0040) were positively associated with cases of epilepsy, including probable NS (OR: 5.05, 95% CI: 1.79–14.27, and p = 0.0033, respectively) and OAE (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.15–4.47, and p = 0.017, respectively). Moreover, families of persons with Ov16 antibody seropositivity lived for longer in the study villages (p<0.0001), which are known to have been meso- to hyperendemic for onchocerciasis before CDTI and still have persistent transmission of O. volvulus [19,20].

A person with a second-degree relative with epilepsy had higher odds of having epilepsy, including probable NS. This observation is consistent with the fact that family members, especially first-degree relatives, often live in the same neighbourhood and thus share similar exposures to O. volvulus-infected blackflies [35]. This is supported by the fact that individuals who tested Ov16 seropositive were more likely to have a first-degree relative with epilepsy. Notably, almost all epilepsy cases (92.2%) and all controls with a sibling with epilepsy tested seropositive. This finding further suggests that the association between epilepsy and direct family members with the condition is likely related to onchocerciasis exposure. The lack of a significant association between epilepsy and having a first-degree relative with the condition can be attributed to the comparable exposure of cases and controls to blackfly bites and the small sample size of the study. In contrast, a significant association was observed between being a second-degree relative and epilepsy (p<0.001). The increased presence of uncles/aunts, cousins and nephews with epilepsy in case families can likely be attributed to their shared living environment or proximity to the cases, placing them at similar risk for developing OAE.

There were at least two adults with epilepsy in 14 (10.8%) of the 113 case families, while in 19 (9.9%) of 132 control families, there was at least one adult with epilepsy. The latter suggests that control families were likely exposed to a lesser extent and duration to infected blackfly bites than the families of cases, as evidenced by the higher Ov16 seroprevalence of cases and longer family residence in the study area (p<0.05). Hence, it is anticipated that cases would exhibit higher microfilarial loads [36].

A person with an in-law with epilepsy had higher odds of having OAE (OR: 4.35, 95% CI: 1.04–18.20) or NS (OR: 11.04, 95% CI: 1.39–87.43). The latter may also be explained by the in-law residing in the same high-risk area for onchocerciasis as the cases and the impact of epilepsy-related stigma. The stigma surrounding epilepsy can lead to social challenges, including finding a marital partner for individuals with epilepsy and their family members [37,38,39]. For instance, a recent study in Mahenge reported that a mere 15% of persons with epilepsy were married [40]. It is, therefore, plausible to consider that individuals from families affected by epilepsy may be willing to marry a person with epilepsy. Furthermore, it has been shown that persons with epilepsy in Africa frequently marry community members of lower social status, further emphasising the influence of social dynamics in forming relationships [39].

The higher epilepsy prevalence among relatives of cases may indicate that the clustering of epilepsy in families could also be due to a potential genetic predisposition, where certain families could be more susceptible to both Onchocerca parasite infection and NS development. Still, this association between epilepsy and having a family member with epilepsy was lost when the conditional regression was adjusted for Ov16 seropositivity, indicating that exposure to O. volvulus played a more significant role in the observed relationship.

Only 17.9% of the OAE cases, 16.3% of the probable NS cases and 11.4% of controls had palpable onchocercal nodules. Given the more than 20 years of distributing ivermectin to control onchocerciasis, this low prevalence of onchocercal nodules was expected. Indeed, fewer nodules were observed among the cases and controls than among their mothers. In onchocerciasis-endemic areas, the number of nodules increases with age and, therefore, may have been easier to palpate in the mothers [41]. The lack of association between the onchocercal nodules prevalence of participants and epilepsy could also be related to the low sample size and the difficulty of palpation of a low number of nodules. Ultimately, nodule palpitation is a less reliable methodology in settings with onchocerciasis control and younger populations, as they usually have fewer nodules to be detected [41]. A study in an onchocerciasis hyperendemic focus in Cameroon before the implementation of CDTI found a positive association between onchocercal nodules and cases of epilepsy [42]. In contrast, similar to our findings, a study in an onchocerciasis hyperendemic area in northern Uganda under CDTI found a lack of association between NS and onchocercal nodules but a strong association with a positive onchocerciasis serology [43].

Onchocercal skin manifestations were only prevalent in persons with epilepsy, including with probable NS. However, these were mainly chronic lesions because of a past O. volvulus infection (e.g. leopard skin; dry, thickened, wrinkled skin). The median age of the cases of epilepsy was 28.0 years (IQR: 22.0–35.0), while the median age of onset of epilepsy was 10.0 (IQR: 8.0–13.0), the latter as expected for OAE. This age difference of 18 years suggests that the incidence of OAE in Mahenge has recently decreased.

Regarding M. perstans, there is no recent information on its epidemiology in Tanzania. Previous research has identified the parasite between Lakes Tanganyika and Lake Victoria, particularly in areas with banana plantations and abundant rainfall, as the Culicoides vector can grow on decaying banana trees [44]. To our knowledge, no M. perstans studies have been conducted in Mahenge. The presence of the Culicoides vector in the area can be inferred from a report on the Schmallenberg virus in sheep and goats, also spread by this vector [45]. Our study shows the absence of M. perstans in Mahenge, which may be due to the unique ecology of the area, with a lower temperature than mainland Tanzania, higher altitude and perhaps less competent or anthropophilic Culicoides spp. It is very unlikely that M. perstans was in Mahenge before, as there was no control against the parasite. Ivermectin has little to no impact on the parasite [46,47] and does not reduce its prevalence [48]. Diethylcarbamazine and doxycycline were never distributed in Mahenge. As lymphatic filariasis is not endemic in the area, mebendazole is not given to adults; nevertheless, it is possible that preschool- to school-aged children receive the former drug or albendazole once or twice a year as part of the deworming programme [49,50]. Aside from the fact that our study population were adults (median: 28.3, IQR: 22.0–34.0), this treatment is unlikely to have had a substantial impact on M. perstans prevalence. Albendazole has been shown to exert little to no effect on a M. perstans infection, even in combination with ivermectin [17], while mebendazole should be given daily for several weeks to exert an effect [17,48].

Given the geographic distribution of M. perstans in sub-Saharan Africa, a main causal role with NS is very unlikely. Indeed, M. perstans infections are widespread in sub-Saharan Africa and are present in many areas where NS has never been reported. Furthermore, the distribution of M. perstans infections cannot explain the localisation of NS in villages and households close to rapid-flowing rivers and O. volvulus breeding sites [51,52]. In northern Uganda, in the area where a NS epidemic appeared around the year 2000 [53], the prevalence of M. perstans infection was very low and much lower than in other parts of Uganda where NS has never been reported [54]. Moreover, in a cohort study in an onchocerciasis-endemic area in Cameroon, the relative risks of children developing epilepsy depended on the O. volvulus microfilarial density in a dose-response way, but no association was found between the presence of L. loa or M. perstans microfilaremia and the development of epilepsy [55]. Nodding and Nakalanga syndromes were previously reported in an onchocerciasis and M. perstans co-endemic area in western Uganda. However, while M. perstans is still endemic in the area, NS and Nakalanga syndrome ceased to appear when O. volvulus transmission was eliminated by CDTI and vector control [13].

How to explain the association between an M. perstans infection and NS in South Sudan? One possibility could be that children with NS in South Sudan nearly never sleep under insecticide-impregnated bed nets together with other children because the local community believes that NS is transmissible through contact [56]. Therefore, children with NS are often isolated from the rest of the family and not allowed to eat from the same plate with other children or to sleep with them in the same room. The midges that transmit M. perstans are most active at night [57]. Midges are very small and hence are considered to pass through bed nets [58]. However, insecticide-treated nets have been shown to protect horses from Culicoides, the M. perstans vector, in the event of an African horse sickness virus epidemic [59]. Nevertheless, as impregnated bed nets were not distributed in 2001–2002 in Mundri, bed nets are unlikely to explain the observed association between NS and M. perstans infection in the study by Tumwine et al. [13].

Factors associated with poverty also potentially played a role in the association between M. perstans infection and NS. Indeed, a study on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea, showed that people from the lowest socioeconomic quintile were five times more likely to be infected with M. perstans [60]. Children with NS and their families also belong to the poorest and most vulnerable groups in their communities [38].

The vector Culicoides presence is often associated with aquatic environments, banana plantations and plantain stems [57]. Families with children with NS generally live close to rapid-flowing rivers [61] and blackfly breeding sites, the vector of O. volvulus [62]. However, these sites are not known to be particular sites where Culicoides bite, possibly explaining why M. perstans infection is absent from many areas with NS prevalence.

Farming could be another explanation for the association between an M. perstans infection and NS. In Maridi, South Sudan, belonging to a farming family was found to be a risk factor for NS [29]. In a study in Nigeria, the prevalence of mansonellosis was significantly higher among rural dwellers (34.6%) than among urban dwellers (22.5%), and among farmers (59.8%) than in civil servants (7.6%) (p<0.05) [63]. Moreover, farming is also a risk factor for onchocerciasis, as many fertile lands are close to blackfly breeding sites and have high biting rates [29].

In a case-control study in northern Uganda, preterm birth was found to be a risk factor for NS [64]. As preterm birth could be related to an O. volvulus infection of the pregnant mother [65], it was suggested that an O. volvulus infection of the mothers could cause a "parasitic tolerance" in their offspring. This tolerance could induce a higher load of O. volvulus microfilarial infection after the children are exposed to O. volvulus-infected blackflies than if the mothers were free of infection during pregnancy [66]. This high-level O. volvulus infection in young children was documented as a risk factor in onchocerciasis endemic areas in Cameroon for developing epilepsy [55,67]. It should be investigated whether an O. volvulus infection of mothers can also induce "parasitic tolerance" to an M. perstans infection. For instance, concomitant infection with O. volvulus and M. perstans was common in rural villages of southern Cameroon, while the opposite was seen with Loa loa [68], the latter possibly due to distinct vector ecologies [69]. Another study in central Cameroon found a positive association between O. volvulus and L. loa infections [69]. Hence, concomitant filarial infections may increase the tolerance of the human host to these parasites. Further studies could be conducted to explore this hypothesis among the different filariae.

We also need to mention the limitations of our study. Firstly, while controls were chosen among volunteers without epilepsy of the same age and area as the cases, the selection was not entirely at random. Due to the COVID-19 complot theories circulating in the community at the time of the study, it was difficult to find village-matched controls for every case in certain villages. We, therefore, added controls from neighbouring villages to achieve the desired statistical power. We mitigated this by performing a sensitivity analysis for the village of the participants in the regression to ensure a robust matching of the study population. Secondly, nearly all participants have taken ivermectin (94.3%). Therefore, no strong association between onchocerciasis and epilepsy could be documented. Thirdly, the association found between anti-O. volvulus antibodies and NS cases may have been stronger if a more sensitive test, such as the O. volvulus luciferase immunoprecipitation system (LIPS) assay, had been used instead of the Ov16 ELISA. In northern Uganda, ELISA and LIPS detected, respectively, 66.7% and 94.9% O. volvulus seropositivity in NS cases and 31.8% and 48.8% in healthy controls [43].

A fourth limitation pertains to the diagnostic test used to assess M. perstans infection status. While a test with higher sensitivity, such as PCR [33], could have been employed, all cases and controls tested negative for M. perstans infection using the blood smear, which has an estimated sensitivity of 78% [33]. This suggests the parasite is either absent from the region or present at very low levels. Lastly, it would have been beneficial to gather more detailed information regarding the family history of epilepsy, including the number of family members affected and their ages. Despite these limitations, our study provides valuable insights into the relationship between onchocerciasis, M. perstans, and NS. Further research addressing these limitations and exploring other potential risk factors is warranted to enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of nodding syndrome and improve interventions for affected populations.

Conclusion

The first step to understanding the pathogenesis of NS is to identify a common risk factor across all sites where this condition is reported. Our study in Mahenge indicates that M. perstans is unlikely to be endemic in Mahenge and, therefore, cannot play a co-factor role in developing NS in the area. While our findings suggest that M. perstans is unlikely to be the main and sole cause of NS, it is important to acknowledge that M. perstans could still potentially be a co-risk factor for NS in areas where the parasite is endemic. Evidently, more research on the parasite is needed to determine its ecology, pathogenicity, and link with other infections, including onchocerciasis.

Onchocerciasis remains the main risk factor for NS and other forms of epilepsy that meet the criteria for OAE. However, the specific mechanisms by which the O. volvulus parasite may lead to epilepsy remain to be identified. Potential explanations include the occasional passage of O. volvulus microfilariae across the blood-brain barrier in children with a high microfilarial load [67], as well as indirect mechanisms such as immunological reactions induced by the parasite or the presence of yet-to-discovered pathogens within the parasite microbiome.

In the interim, onchocerciasis elimination efforts must be strengthened in endemic regions with a high incidence and prevalence of epilepsy. Moreover, as an effort to reduce epilepsy stigma, communities living in these areas should be explained that the clustering of epilepsy in certain villages and families is linked to the common exposure to O. volvulus-infected blackflies. Hence, children with NS and other forms of epilepsy should not be isolated.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Village matching of epilepsy cases and controls.

(DOCX)

S1 Dataset. Dataset with the epilepsy cases and the controls.

(CSV)

Acknowledgments

To the study participants, community members and leaders for acceptance to participate. Health authorities in Morogoro Region and Ulanga District for their cooperation and support to the study teams. To the data collectors.

Data Availability

All data underlying the findings described in this manuscript are freely available to other researchers. See supplementary information (S1 dataset)

Funding Statement

The study was funded by VLIR-UOS (Flemish University development cooperation) under grant number 671055 to RC, Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) under grant number G0A0522N to RC, and La Caixa Foundation under the grant number B005782 to LJA. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Abd-Elfarag GOE, Edridge AWD, Spijker R, Sebit MB, van Hensbroek MB. Nodding Syndrome: A Scoping Review. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2021;6(4). doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed6040211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Aall-Jilek LM. Epilepsy in the Wapogoro tribe in Tanganyika. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1965;41(1):57–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Colebunders R, Njamnshi AK, Menon S, Newton CR, Hotterbeekx A, Preux PM, et al. Onchocerca volvulus and epilepsy: A comprehensive review using the Bradford Hill criteria for causation. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(1):e0008965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008965 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Brattig NW, Cheke RA, Garms R. Onchocerciasis (river blindness)—more than a century of research and control. Acta Trop. 2021;218:105677. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2020.105677 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kariuki SM, Kakooza-Mwesige A, Wagner RG, Chengo E, White S, Kamuyu G, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with convulsive status epilepticus in Africans with epilepsy. Neurology. 2015;84(18):1838–45. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ackermann S, Le Roux S, Wilmshurst JM. Epidemiology of children with epilepsy at a tertiary referral centre in South Africa. Seizure. 2019;70:82–9. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2019.06.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Garcia HH, Nash TE, Del Brutto OH. Clinical symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of neurocysticercosis. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(12):1202–15. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70094-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Blocher J, Schmutzhard E, Wilkins PP, Gupton PN, Schaffert M, Auer H, et al. A cross-sectional study of people with epilepsy and neurocysticercosis in Tanzania: clinical characteristics and diagnostic approaches. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(6):e1185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hadermann A, Amaral LJ, Van Cutsem G, Siewe Fodjo JN, Colebunders R. Onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy: an update and future perspectives. Trends Parasitol. 2023;39(2):126–38. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2022.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Duke BO, Vincelette J, Moore PJ. Microfilariae in the cerebrospinal fluid, and neurological complications, during treatment of onchocerciasis with diethylcarbamazine. Tropenmed Parasitol. 1976;27(2):123–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Benedek G, Abed El Latif M, Miller K, Rivkin M, Ramadhan Lasu AA, Riek LP, et al. Protection or susceptibility to devastating childhood epilepsy: Nodding Syndrome associates with immunogenetic fingerprints in the HLA binding groove. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(7):e0008436. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008436 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ngugi AK, Bottomley C, Kleinschmidt I, Wagner RG, Kakooza-Mwesige A, Ae-Ngibise K, et al. Prevalence of active convulsive epilepsy in sub-Saharan Africa and associated risk factors: cross-sectional and case-control studies. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12(3):253–63. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70003-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tumwine JK, Vandemaele K, Chungong S, Richer M, Anker M, Ayana Y, et al. Clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of nodding syndrome in Mundri County, southern Sudan. Afr Health Sci. 2012;12(3):242–8. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v12i3.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Colebunders R, Mandro M, Mokili JL, Mucinya G, Mambandu G, Pfarr K, et al. Risk factors for epilepsy in Bas-Uélé Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo: a case-control study. Int J Infect Dis. 2016;49:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2016.05.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mediannikov O, Ranque S. Mansonellosis, the most neglected human filariasis. New Microbes New Infect. 2018;26:S19–s22. doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2018.08.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tamarozzi F, Rodari P, Salas-Coronas J, Bottieau E, Salvador F, Soriano-Pérez MJ, et al. A large case series of travel-related Mansonella perstans (vector-borne filarial nematode): a TropNet study in Europe. J Travel Med. 2022;29(7). doi: 10.1093/jtm/taac048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ta-Tang TH, Crainey JL, Post RJ, Luz SL, Rubio JM. Mansonellosis: current perspectives. Res Rep Trop Med. 2018;9:9–24. doi: 10.2147/RRTM.S125750 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.World Health Organization. International Scientific Meeting on Nodding Syndrome Kampala, Uganda 30 July– 1 August 2012 Meeting Report.: World Health Organization; 2012 [Available from: https://kipdf.com/international-scientific-meeting-on-nodding-syndrome_5ab6baa71723dd339c814af2.html. Accessed 24 May 2023.
  • 19.Mmbando BP, Suykerbuyk P, Mnacho M, Kakorozya A, Matuja W, Hendy A, et al. High prevalence of epilepsy in two rural onchocerciasis endemic villages in the Mahenge area, Tanzania, after 20 years of community directed treatment with ivermectin. Infect Dis Poverty. 2018;7(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s40249-018-0450-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bhwana D, Mmbando BP, Dekker MC, Mnacho M, Kakorozya A, Matuja W, et al. Clinical presentation of epilepsy in six villages in an onchocerciasis endemic area in Mahenge, Tanzania. Epileptic Disord. 2019;21(5):425–35. doi: 10.1684/epd.2019.1093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hendy A, Krüger A, Pfarr K, De Witte J, Kibweja A, Mwingira U, et al. The blackfly vectors and transmission of Onchocerca volvulus in Mahenge, south eastern Tanzania. Acta Trop. 2018;181:50–9. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2018.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Iyengar PJ, Wamala J, Ratto J, Blanton C, Malimbo M, Lukwago L, et al. Prevalence of nodding syndrome—Uganda, 2012–2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(28):603–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Häusermann W. On the biology of Simulium damnosum Theoblad, 1903, the main vector of onchocerciasis in the Mahenge mountains, Ulanga, Tanzania. Acta Trop. 1969;26(1):29–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wegesa P. The present status of onchocerciasis in Tanzania. A review of the distribution and prevalence of the disease. Trop Geogr Med. 1970;22(3):345–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.König R, Nassri A, Meindl M, Matuja W, Kidunda AR, Siegmund V, et al. The role of Onchocerca volvulus in the development of epilepsy in a rural area of Tanzania. Parasitology. 2010;137(10):1559–68. doi: 10.1017/S0031182010000338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.World Health Organization. ESPEN: Tanzania (Mainland) ESPEN: WHO; 2022 [Available from: https://espen.afro.who.int/countries/tanzania-mainland. Accessed 24 May 2023.
  • 27.Otiti-Sengeri J, Omaido BA, Bhwana D, Nakanjako D, Missiru M, Muwonge M, et al. High Prevalence of Glaucoma among Patients in an Onchocerciasis Endemic Area (Mahenge, Tanzania). Pathogens. 2022;11(9). doi: 10.3390/pathogens11091046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fisher RS, Acevedo C, Arzimanoglou A, Bogacz A, Cross JH, Elger CE, et al. ILAE official report: a practical clinical definition of epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2014;55(4):475–82. doi: 10.1111/epi.12550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Colebunders R, Carter JY, Olore PC, Puok K, Bhattacharyya S, Menon S, et al. High prevalence of onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy in villages in Maridi County, Republic of South Sudan: A community-based survey. Seizure. 2018;63:93–101. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2018.11.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Olum S, Hardy C, Obol J, Scolding N. The neurology of chronic nodding syndrome. Brain Commun. 2022;4(3):fcac126. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcac126 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Föger K, Gora-Stahlberg G, Sejvar J, Ovuga E, Jilek-Aall L, Schmutzhard E, et al. Nakalanga Syndrome: Clinical Characteristics, Potential Causes, and Its Relationship with Recently Described Nodding Syndrome. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(2):e0005201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Colebunders R, Njamnshi AK, van Oijen M, Mukendi D, Kashama JM, Mandro M, et al. Onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy: From recent epidemiological and clinical findings to policy implications. Epilepsia Open. 2017;2(2):145–52. doi: 10.1002/epi4.12054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ta-Tang TH, Febrer-Sendra B, Berzosa P, Rubio JM, Romay-Barja M, Ncogo P, et al. Comparison of three PCR-based methods to detect Loa loa and Mansonella perstans in long-term frozen storage dried blood spots. Trop Med Int Health. 2022;27(8):686–95. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13786 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mandro M, Suykerbuyk P, Tepage F, Rossy D, Ngave F, Hasan MN, et al. Onchocerca volvulus as a risk factor for developing epilepsy in onchocerciasis endemic regions in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a case control study. Infectious Diseases of Poverty. 2018;7(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s40249-018-0465-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Filipe J, Boussinesq M, Renz A, Collins R, Vivas-Martinez S, Grillet M, et al. Human infection patterns and heterogeneous exposure in river blindness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2005;102:15265–70. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0502659102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Boussinesq M, Pion SD, Demanga N, Kamgno J. Relationship between onchocerciasis and epilepsy: a matched case-control study in the Mbam Valley, Republic of Cameroon. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2002;96(5):537–41. doi: 10.1016/s0035-9203(02)90433-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dusabimana A, Mandro MN, Siewe Fodjo JN, Dolo H, Coenen S, Colebunders R. Community perceptions and attitudes regarding epilepsy and disease cost after implementation of a community-based epilepsy treatment program in onchocerciasis-endemic communities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Epilepsy Behav. 2021;116:107773. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.107773 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Irani J, Rujumba J, Mwaka AD, Arach J, Lanyuru D, Idro R, et al. ’There Were Moments We Wished She Could Just Die’: The Highly Gendered Burden of Nodding Syndrome in Northern Uganda. Qual Health Res. 2022;32(10):1544–56. doi: 10.1177/10497323221085941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.O’Neill S, Irani J, Siewe Fodjo JN, Nono D, Abbo C, Sato Y, et al. Stigma and epilepsy in onchocerciasis-endemic regions in Africa: a review and recommendations from the onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy working group. Infect Dis Poverty. 2019;8(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s40249-019-0544-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bhwana D, Das L, Siewe Fodjo JN, Francis F, Challe DP, Makunde HW, et al. A peer support group intervention to decrease epilepsy-related stigma in an onchocerciasis-endemic area in Mahenge, Tanzania: A pilot study. Epilepsy Behav. 2021;124:108372. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.108372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Duerr HP, Raddatz G, Eichner M. Diagnostic value of nodule palpation in onchocerciasis. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008;102(2):148–54. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2007.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Pion SDS, Boussinesq M. Significant association between epilepsy and presence of onchocercal nodules: case-control study in Cameroon. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;86(3):557. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.11-0603a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Foltz JL, Makumbi I, Sejvar JJ, Malimbo M, Ndyomugyenyi R, Atai-Omoruto AD, et al. An Epidemiologic Investigation of Potential Risk Factors for Nodding Syndrome in Kitgum District, Uganda. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jordan P. Observations on Wuchereria bancrofti and acanthocheilonema perstans in Tanganyika. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1955;49(5):460–71. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(55)90013-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lovisa L. A screening for Schmallenberg Virus among sheep and goats in Tanzania. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pion SDS, Clarke P, Filipe JAN, Kamgno J, Gardon J, BasÁÑEz MG, et al. Co-infection with Onchocerca volvulus and Loa loa microfilariae in central Cameroon: are these two species interacting? Parasitology. 2006;132(6):843–54. doi: 10.1017/S003118200600984X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Asio SM, Simonsen PE, Onapa AW. A randomised, double-blind field trial of ivermectin alone and in combination with albendazole for the treatment of Mansonella perstans infections in Uganda. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009;103(3):274–9. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.10.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bregani ER, Rovellini A, Mbaïdoum N, Magnini MG. Comparison of different anthelminthic drug regimens against Mansonella perstans filariasis. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2006;100(5):458–63. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2005.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.World Health Organization. Guideline: preventive chemotherapy to control soil-transmitted helminth infections in at-risk population groups. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/258983/9789241550116-eng.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2023 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.World Health Orgnization, African Programme for Onchocerciasis C. Revitalising health care delivery in sub-saharan Africa: the potential of community-directed interventions to strengthen health systems. Ouagadougou: African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control; 2007. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/275498. Accessed 25 May 2023.
  • 51.Lakwo TL, Raimon S, Tionga M, Siewe Fodjo JN, Alinda P, Sebit WJ, et al. The Role of the Maridi Dam in Causing an Onchocerciasis-Associated Epilepsy Epidemic in Maridi, South Sudan: An Epidemiological, Sociological, and Entomological Study. Pathogens. 2020;9(4). doi: 10.3390/pathogens9040315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Dowell SF, Sejvar JJ, Riek L, Vandemaele KA, Lamunu M, Kuesel AC, et al. Nodding syndrome. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19(9):1374–84. doi: 10.3201/eid1909.130401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Raimon S, Lakwo TL, Sebit WJ, Siewe Fodjo JN, Alinda P, Carter JY, et al. "Slash and Clear", a Community-Based Vector Control Method to Reduce Onchocerciasis Transmission by Simulium sirbanum in Maridi, South Sudan: A Prospective Study. Pathogens. 2021;10(10). doi: 10.3390/pathogens10101329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Onapa AW, Simonsen PE, Baehr I, Pedersen EM. Rapid assessment of the geographical distribution of Mansonella perstans infections in Uganda, by screening schoolchildren for microfilariae. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2005;99(4):383–93. doi: 10.1179/136485905X361990 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Chesnais CB, Bizet C, Campillo JT, Njamnshi WY, Bopda J, Nwane P, et al. A Second Population-Based Cohort Study in Cameroon Confirms the Temporal Relationship Between Onchocerciasis and Epilepsy. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7(6):ofaa206. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Jada SR, Siewe Fodjo JN, Abd-Elfarag G, Tionga M, Carter JY, Logora MY, et al. Epilepsy-related stigma and cost in two onchocerciasis-endemic areas in South Sudan: A pilot descriptive study. Seizure. 2020;81:151–6. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2020.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wanji S, Tayong DB, Ebai R, Opoku V, Kien CA, Ndongmo WPC, et al. Update on the biology and ecology of Culicoides species in the South-West region of Cameroon with implications on the transmission of Mansonella perstans. Parasites & Vectors. 2019;12(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3432-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ta-Tang TH, Luz SLB, Crainey JL, Rubio JM. An Overview of the Management of Mansonellosis. Res Rep Trop Med. 2021;12:93–105. doi: 10.2147/RRTM.S274684 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Baker T, Carpenter S, Gubbins S, Newton R, Lo Iacono G, Wood J, et al. Can insecticide-treated netting provide protection for Equids from Culicoides biting midges in the United Kingdom? Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:604. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-1182-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Yoboue CA, Hosch S, Donfack OT, Guirou EA, Nlavo BM, Ayekaba MO, et al. Characterising co-infections with Plasmodium spp., Mansonella perstans or Loa loa in asymptomatic children, adults and elderly people living on Bioko Island using nucleic acids extracted from malaria rapid diagnostic tests. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(1):e0009798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Colebunders R, Tepage F, Rood E, Mandro M, Abatih EN, Musinya G, et al. Prevalence of River Epilepsy in the Orientale Province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(5):e0004478. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004478 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lakwo T, Oguttu D, Ukety T, Post R, Bakajika D. Onchocerciasis Elimination: Progress and Challenges. Res Rep Trop Med. 2020;11:81–95. doi: 10.2147/RRTM.S224364 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Anosike JC, Onwuliri CO, Payne VK, Amuta EU, Akogun OB, Adeiyongo CM, et al. Observations on mansonellosis among the Ibos of Abia and Imo States, Nigeria. Angew Parasitol. 1992;33(4):235–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gumisiriza N, Kugler M, Brusselaers N, Mubiru F, Anguzu R, Ningwa A, et al. Risk Factors for Nodding Syndrome and Other Forms of Epilepsy in Northern Uganda: A Case-Control Study. Pathogens. 2021;10(11). doi: 10.3390/pathogens10111451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Erber AC, Ariyo E, Olliaro P, Nicolas P, Chaccour C, Colebunders R. Treatment of Pregnant Women with Ivermectin during Mass Drug Distribution: Time to Investigate Its Safety and Potential Benefits. Pathogens. 2021;10(12). doi: 10.3390/pathogens10121588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Soboslay PT, Geiger SM, Drabner B, Banla M, Batchassi E, Kowu LA, et al. Prenatal immune priming in onchocerciasis-Onchocerca volvulus-specific cellular responsiveness and cytokine production in newborns from infected mothers. Clin Exp Immunol. 1999;117(1):130–7. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2249.1999.00906.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Chesnais CB, Nana-Djeunga HC, Njamnshi AK, Lenou-Nanga CG, Boullé C, Bissek AZ, et al. The temporal relationship between onchocerciasis and epilepsy: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(11):1278–86. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30425-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Wanji S, Tendongfor N, Esum M, Ndindeng S, Enyong P. Epidemiology of concomitant infections due to Loa loa, Mansonella perstans, and Onchocerca volvulus in rain forest villages of Cameroon. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2003;192(1):15–21. doi: 10.1007/s00430-002-0154-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Fischer P, Kilian AH, Bamuhiiga J, Kipp W, Büttner DW. Prevalence of Mansonella perstans in western Uganda and its detection using the QBC-fluorescence method. Appl Parasitol. 1996;37(1):32–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011434.r001

Decision Letter 0

Eva Clark, Angela Monica Ionica

23 Mar 2023

Dear Dr Colebunders,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Nodding Syndrome, a case-control study in Mahenge, Tanzania: Onchocerca volvulus and not Mansonella perstans as a risk factor" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Overall, the manuscript is well written, but requires some revisions. Particularly, Methods section requires additional clarifications.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Angela Monica Ionica, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Eva Clark

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Overall, the manuscript is well written, but requires some revisions. Particularly, Methods section requires additional clarifications.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Objectives of the study is clearly articulated with a testable hypothesis.

The authors report that informed consent was obtained, however detail report is missing. Please specify (preferably under a separate sub-heading) the details of IRB (name and #) that approved the study.

Reviewer #2: Please refer to the general comments below

Reviewer #3: The objectives of this study are clearly stated even if there is a slight problem of semantics. Indeed, the authors sometimes speak of a "causal" role when it is an observational study. They need to change some sentences and be careful about the conclusions drawn. The design of the study is adapted to the objective. The population is well described and the sample size seems correct. However, the authors should indicate how and why this size was chosen.

The statistical analyses are also adequate for the purpose, but the authors should be more specific in their method. In particular, the different models used and the variables included in these models.

Ethical and regulatory requirements are well respected.

Reviewer #4: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? YES

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? YES

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? YES

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? YES

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? YES

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? YES

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: No concern

Reviewer #2: Please refer to the general comments below

Reviewer #3: The analyses presented correspond well to the analysis plan in the method. In general, the results are simple and well presented. Some of the results are presented in easy-to-read tables except for Table 3, which does not clearly indicate the models used. An improvement in the presentation of the method would improve the understanding of some results.

Moreover, no figures are necessary for a good understanding of the results.

Reviewer #4: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? YES

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? YES

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? YES

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: M. perstans infection was assessed by examining dried blood for microfilariae under a microscope. Need to clarify the use of anti-parasitic diethylcarbamazine and albendazole or doxycycline. Prior treatment could affect the presence of M. perstans and lower the risk of active infection. Please discuss if prior treatment of M.perstans was assessed.

Reviewer #2: Please refer to the general comments below

Reviewer #3: The conclusions are in line with the results except for the semantic problem mentioned above. The limitations of the study are well established and relevant. The authors' discussion is well conducted. Although it seems clear that they have a strong view on the issue, they have good arguments and reasoning to try to explain their results. Moreover, this well-conducted discussion is totally focused on public health and will certainly lead to further research and public health actions on this topic.

Reviewer #4: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? YES

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? YES

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? YES

-Is public health relevance addressed? YES

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: minor revision

Reviewer #2: Please refer to the general comments below

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Abstract

- Lines 13-14: I suggest you change epilepsy with onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy (OAE) since OAE includes epilepsy, NS and Nakalanga syndrome. Here, your statement seems like epilepsy is synonymous to NS. Your new statement should read “Cases of onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy (OAE) were identified in villages affected by NS in Mahenge, Tanzania, and matched with 14 controls without OAE of the same sex, age and neighbourhood.”

- Line 19-20: Similar to the comment above change epilepsy with OAE. Also, you meant were men and women, respectively instead of were men, respectively; please correct. Your new statement should be “A total of 113 OAE cases and 132 controls were enrolled, of which 56 (49.6%) and 64 (48.5%) were men women, respectively”.

- Line 20: Please add “respectively” after controls.

- Line 26: Please remove the word “primary” since there is no definitive evidence that OV is the primary casual factor for NS; only association exists.

- Line 26-27: Please remove the statement “The primary risk factor for NS remains onchocerciasis”. See the previous comment.

- Lines 29-36: Please change “epilepsy” with “OAE”.

- Line 37: This statement is too strong “In conclusion, onchocerciasis remains the most likely cause of NS”. Please consider to revise.

Introduction

- Lines 30-40: Please add “s” to 1960. It should be in “1960s”.

- Lines 46-48: You should either describe the complete features of the OAE (epilepsy, NS and Nakalanga syndrome) or just mention that OAE include epilepsy, NS and Nakalanga syndrome. Stunted growth and delayed puberty are not the only features of Nakalanga syndrome that makes it distinct, NS also presents with similar features.

Methods

- Lines 91-92: Please revise the statement “Epilepsy cases and controls without epilepsy were people who screened positive or negative for epilepsy in the previous door-to-door surveys, respectively” to “OAE cases and controls were people who screened positive or negative for OAE in the previous door-to-door surveys, respectively”

- Lines 101-103: Please add “thoracic dysmorphia” and “endocrine dysfunction” to the features of Nakalanga syndrome.

Results

- Please change “epilepsy” with “OAE” throughout where necessary. See previous comments.

Discussion

- Line 183: “1960s”.

- Line 185: change “epilepsy” with “OAE”. Also, for consistency, present cases before controls.

- Please change “epilepsy” with “OAE” throughout where necessary.

- Line 207: Please change “palpitation” with “palpation”.

Conclusion

Lines 286-287: Please change “the most likely” to “a possible”.

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: In the Discussion line 194-195: “…Ov16 seropositive persons were also more likely to have a nuclear family member with epilepsy, suggesting that the association is likely related to onchocerciasis exposure.” Furthermore, the authors note that genetics might not play an important role in clustering of epilepsy. Among cases, the percentage of individuals with family history of epilepsy in another immediate family member and nuclear family member is 18.9% and 17.7% respectively, where as among in-Law with epilepsy is 7.1%. Thus, overall incidence of epilepsy is higher among related (1st and 2 nd degree relatives) family members than unrelated.

Thus, the clustering of epilepsy in family could be due to a genetic predisposition and not due to common parasitic exposure. Another possibility is that there could be increased genetic risk within families for Onchocerca parasite infection. The study did not evaluate this relationship and thus, authors should consider modifying their statement.

In Discussion, line 237-245, the authors suggests reverse causation as a reason for the association between M.perstans and nodding syndrome in South Sudan. Similar argument could be made for increase prevalence of O.volvulus among individuals with NS. In this case-control study, it cannot be ruled out if the association between Onchocerca v. and epilepsy is due to increased risk of infection in persons with epilepsy. One could consider a scenario where persons with epilepsy have an increased functional disabilities and immobility and thus, are more likely to be bitten by vector and at increased risk of OV infection. Request authors to consider such a reverse causation and discuss.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I have read with interest your manuscript title: Nodding Syndrome, a case-control study in Mahenge, Tanzania: Onchocerca volvulus and not Mansonella perstans as a risk factor.

I appreciate your efforts towards understanding nodding syndrome, a disorder that has devastated poor communities in northern Uganda, and South Sudan in recent times.

I have a few suggestions that may help improve further the quality of the manuscript: I will refer to Onchocerca volvulus as OV, and Mansonella perstans as MP.

1. The title of the study seems to suggest the putative risk factors are “either OV or MP” and nothing else! But it may be that of all risk factors, this study investigated OV and MP and of the two, OV is the risk factor. Be that as it may, the title may not have to suggest the central theme of the findings. You may want to review the title to minimize any form of an “either or” fallacy.

2. In the methods section – both abstract and main text, you refer to having conducted logistic regression analyses, and you report that you adjusted for sex, age and residence, and yet these are also the variables you matched on during recruitment. You may want to explain further why you did not use “conditional logistic regression” but ordinary logistic regression, and why you are adjusting or controlling for the same variables you already match on! Refer to line 137 for example. Second, you may want to explain why you matched on these variables during recruitment, and what was the ratio of the matching? 1:1 or 1:2 etc. and the reasons you chose that ratio for your match.

3. The results may be totally different, the same or similar when a different analytical approaches are used – conditional versus ordinary logistic regressions. I therefore think that further review of the results and discussions would be appropriate after the analytical approaches have been clarified on. But just briefly, you may want to review and report mean with standard deviations and median with interquartile ranges. Note that in line 136 mean is reported with IQR.

Regards

Reviewer #3: COMMENTS

General comment

The authors of the paper "Nodding Syndrome, a case-control study in Mahenge, Tanzania: Onchocerca volvulus and not Mansonella perstans as a risk factor" conducted a study to investigate whether a parasite (Mansonella perstans) previously associated with NS in Sudan was also associated with NS in Tanzania. In view of the data known to date on the subject, all explorations with an etiological aim on NS are of great scientific interest given the current level of our knowledge on this subject. The authors are therefore to be congratulated on the completion of this work

Overall the work is well written and the method seems to have been good even if on reading it some details are missing to improve the understanding of the paper. In addition, some of the conclusions drawn do not always seem to be in line with the work carried out. Please pay attention to this. I will start with general comments on the work and then move on to more specific comments in the manuscript.

From my perspective, there is a small discrepancy between the title (which refers to both Onchocerca volvulus (OV) and Mansonella perstans (M.perstans)) and the objective (which seems to focus on M.perstans). Please modify either one and keep it in mind throughout the work, especially in the conclusions you draw.

Throughout the work, (introduction and conclusion of the abstract; introduction of the work etc.) you say that you were trying to determine whether the M.perstans could play the sole causal role in the development of NS. How could you prove this with this type of epidemiological study? I would suggest that you were looking to see if it could be a factor associated with the occurrence of NS. Indeed, the term "causal" cannot be used in an observational survey.

In the section method you say that the controls were matched to the cases on some criteria but can you tell us more? Was it a one-case, one-control match? If so, why were there 113 cases for 132 controls? How was the number of subjects needed for the Mansonella perstans study calculated?

In general, it would be important to give a little more detail in the method and to be precise. This problem also causes problems in understanding the results.

Below are some minor revisions in the form of specific comments.

Specific comments

Comment 1

In the introduction section, line 47, you state in the text NS for "nodding seizures" and later you use it to refer to "nodding syndrome". Do you consider a syndrome and a seizure to be the same? Or is this a mistake? If so, please correct.

Comment 2

Line 120 (methods): Can you indicate the sensitivity and specificity of the test used for M.perstans at this level? Even if you want to say it again in the discussion.

Comment 3

Can you elaborate on the method? Did you run several models (one model for each variable, adjusted for age, sex and type of village) or were all variables included in the same model? Also, in the results, you give an OR for all epilepsies and an OR for NS only. Is it the same model? The same adjustment variables?

In lines 128 and 129 you mention M.perstans among the variables included in the regression model yet you have no cases of M.perstans! Can you be more precise? In other words, why include it in the models?

When you talk about exposure to onchocerciasis, are you referring to OV16 or the skin manifestations of the disease? Be specific each time.

The answer to these questions may be in Table 3, which assumes that each variable has been adjusted only for age, sex and village. Is this the case?

If yes, why did you not make a model taking into account all relevant variables?

If not, what exactly are the variables included in the model(s)?

In any case, please put this information more clearly in the method and if possible present the results of the more complete models.

Comment 4

In discussion: line 195, you explain that the fact that they are neighbours of the cases could explain why a considerable proportion of the in-laws have epilepsy. Of the in-laws with epilepsy in your sample, what percentage live in the neighbourhood of their NS case?

Comment 5

Discussion: Line 246 to 249. You mention poverty as a possible explanation for the link that has been found between M. perstans and NS in Sudan. Is your study population not also poor? And in other places where NS is found? So I don't understand your argument.

Reviewer #4: The study is of importance for the scientific community and the paper is well written. If all comments addressed by the authors, the paper is suitable for publication.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011434.r003

Decision Letter 1

Eva Clark, Angela Monica Ionica

8 May 2023

Dear Dr. Colebunders,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Nodding Syndrome, a case-control study in Mahenge, Tanzania: Onchocerca volvulus and not Mansonella perstans as a risk factor" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

The comments of the reviewers have been properly addressed, but further clarifications are required.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Angela Monica Ionica, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Eva Clark

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

The comments of the reviewers have been properly addressed, but further clarifications are required.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? The objective are clearly stated and testable.

Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? Yes, it is appropriate.

Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

Yes, the population has been clearly described.

Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

I have not seen efforts towards stating what the power of the study would be to identify a statistically significant difference between variables being tested by cases - control, status. Some statement of power and sample size calculation will help readers appreciate the study findings better.

I find aspects of matching ratio in the response to reviewers comments but can hardly find these in the main manuscript where they should actually be well embedded as the manuscript is what the readers will interface with once the manuscript is published.

Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? Yes conditional logistic regressions model have now been reported. However, table 3 that seems to have the main issues being reported on, does not quite match what are reported in the text. There is no clear labeling of table 3 with crude and adjusted OR columns. In the text, there seems to be report of both crude or univariate as well as adjusted ORs. Perhaps the table could be made more conventional and easier to read.

Maybe a biostatistician would be required to review the manuscript and ensure the reported ORs are appropriate for what are being discussed.

Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? None.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The study objectives are clearly articulated, with appropriate study designs addressing the objectives. Study population and sample size are well described and correct statistical analysis were used. Ethical issues were well addressed.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

Yes

Are the results clearly and completely presented?

I have challenges following the reporting of the results especially where the odds ratios are being reported; mainly in table 3. I have alluded to this earlier on (see above). Not that the results in the abstract in the online system still has the odd results as per ordinary logistics regressions.

Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The study results are clearly and well presented.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

For the most part, yes. But what if there were sizeable proportions of controls with evidence of M perstans but no M perstans among the cases - wat would your conclusions have looked like on the main hypothesis that OV is but not M perstans? This is not a counterfactual situation but real. Both cases and controls have 0.0% M perstans? What does that mean should controls have had M perstans and cases did not?

Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

There maybe need to explicitly report that the study only two measured putative risk for epilepsy and nodding syndrome. Whatever were not measured in the cases and controls may not have balanced out just by virtue of matching on 3 variables. Issues of trauma, and other risk factors out forward by other scholars could not be assessed and this ought to come out clearly as a limitation before the string conclusion that OV is a risk factor. What if something else other than M Perstans lurks behind OV, and that something else not measured to be adjusted for?

Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? Very much so.

Is public health relevance addressed? Yes but some about the use of treated bed nets and stigma seem quite extant.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Conclusion and recommendation are clearly stated.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: General comment

We thank the authors for taking into account the comments of the different authors, which has greatly improved the quality of the paper and thus its relevance. The clarification of the methodological aspects brings a better understanding of what has been done.

However, some questions, suggestions and comments remain.

Comment 1

Regarding the association between epilepsy and a family history of epilepsy, it is good that you have mentioned the role of genetics in your discussion. However, your discussion does not explain (or hypothesise) why the association between epilepsy in general is "much" stronger with a second-degree relative than with a first-degree relative. Indeed, whether one considers the geographical proximity of the families or the genetic aspect, one would expect the association to be stronger with first-degree relatives. Similarly, why do you think the presence of epilepsy in in-laws is "much" stronger with NS than with other types of epilepsy? This point was not raised in your discussion either, yet it seems to me to be an important point in your results

Question: Have you considered the possibility that there is a gene (or genetic predisposition) that predisposes to both NS and OV infection? This would explain the epidemiological association found between NS and OV? What do you think?

Comment 2

In Table 3, regarding the "number of years spent in the village", you do not indicate for which "year gap" the OR is calculated. I assume that it is the OR for a one year gap. However, given the medians, I wonder if a one-year difference is meaningful for comparing two people in this population. I suggest you redo the model by comparing two individuals with a one standard deviation years difference in time spent in the village.

Also in Table 3, why did you not run a multivariate conditional regression model on each epilepsy with the following covariates: Ov16, family history of epilepsy and time spent in the village? Is this also a missing data problem? If not, I think it should be done and these results would be more accurate like the association between family history of epilepsy and epilepsy that disappears when the tests (Ov16) are taken into account and that you mentioned in the discussion.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011434.r005

Decision Letter 2

Eva Clark, Angela Monica Ionica

5 Jun 2023

Dear Dr. Colebunders,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Nodding Syndrome, a case-control study in Mahenge, Tanzania: Onchocerca volvulus and not Mansonella perstans as a risk factor' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Angela Monica Ionica, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Eva Clark

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011434.r006

Acceptance letter

Eva Clark, Angela Monica Ionica

13 Jun 2023

Dear Dr Colebunders,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Nodding Syndrome, a case-control study in Mahenge, Tanzania: Onchocerca volvulus and not Mansonella perstans as a risk factor," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Village matching of epilepsy cases and controls.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Dataset. Dataset with the epilepsy cases and the controls.

    (CSV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 11.04.23response to reviewersFinal.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 24.05.23ResponsReviewers Mansonela.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data underlying the findings described in this manuscript are freely available to other researchers. See supplementary information (S1 dataset)


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES