Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2014 Jun 5;8(6):e2759. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002759

African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control 1995–2015: Updated Health Impact Estimates Based on New Disability Weights

Luc E Coffeng 1,*, Wilma A Stolk 1, Honorat G M Zouré 2, J Lennert Veerman 1,3, Koffi B Agblewonu 2, Michele E Murdoch 4, Mounkaila Noma 2, Grace Fobi 2, Jan Hendrik Richardus 1, Donald A P Bundy 5, Dik Habbema 1, Sake J de Vlas 1, Uche V Amazigo 6
Editor: Thomas S Churcher7
PMCID: PMC4046979  PMID: 24901642

Viewpoint

Since 1995, the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) has coordinated mass treatment with ivermectin in 16 sub-Saharan countries (Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Liberia, Malawi, Nigeria, North Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda, and the United Republic of Tanzania) with the aim to control morbidity due to infection with Onchocerca volvulus, a filarial nematode. Recently, we predicted trends in prevalence of infection, visual impairment, blindness, and troublesome itch due to onchocerciasis in APOC countries for the period 1995–2015, based on extensive data on pre-control infection levels, population coverage of ivermectin mass treatment, and the association between infection and morbidity [1]. We also estimated the associated health impact, expressed in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). However, the estimated health impact was based on disability weights from the 2004 update of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study [2], which have been criticized for being based solely on the opinions of health professionals [3], [4]. The recently published GBD 2010 study addressed this criticism by providing updated disability weights based on household surveys in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania, an open internet survey, and a telephone survey in the United States [5]. As a result of this population-based approach, the disability weights for visual impairment, blindness, and troublesome itch have changed considerably and should better reflect our ideas and beliefs as a society of what constitutes health. For future reference, we provide an updated estimate of the health impact of APOC activities, based on previously predicted trends in averted number of cases with infection and morbidity, but using updated disability weights for visual impairment, blindness, and troublesome itch.

Identical to previously used methods [1], we calculated the health impact of APOC for each year between 1995 and 2015, expressed in DALYs averted. The DALY metric is the sum of years of life lost (YLL) due to premature mortality (from blindness) and years lived in disability (YLD), weighted by a disability weight representing the loss of quality of life [5]. DALYs averted were calculated as the difference between two scenarios: a factual scenario in which APOC activities have taken place as documented, and a counterfactual scenario in which APOC activities have not taken place at all, effectively translating to Inline graphic Inline graphic Inline graphic. Here, Inline graphic is the averted number of YLL related to premature mortality from blindness (as previously estimated [1]), and Inline graphic is the averted number of YLD due to symptom x. Averted YLD were calculated as Inline graphic , where Inline graphic is the averted number of person-years of symptom x (i.e., difference in annually prevalent cases between the factual and counterfactual scenarios, as previously estimated [1]), and Inline graphic is the associated updated disability weight, derived from the GBD 2010 study [5].

Compared to previous disability weights [2], updated weights were considerably lower for visual impairment (0.033, previously 0.282) and blindness (0.195, previously 0.594), reflecting that the loss in quality of life because of these manifestations is considerably lower than previously assumed. On the contrary, the disability weight for troublesome itch has increased (0.108, previously 0.068). The disability weight for visual impairment represents “moderate visual impairment” in the GBD 2010 study. The updated disability weights do not include a category for itch alone. Hence the disability weight for troublesome itch was derived from a generic class of disability weights for “disfigurement with itch or pain.” This class consists of three severity levels, characterized as “causing some worry and discomfort” (disability weight 0.029), “a person having trouble concentrating and sleeping” (disability weight 0.187), and “causing a person to avoid social contact, feel worried, sleep poorly, and think about suicide” (disability weight 0.562). Based on original precontrol data from a previously published, multicountry study [6] (excluding data from Ghana and Cameroon, which were collected based on convenience sampling rather than household surveys), we assumed that onchocercal itch regularly causes insomnia in about half of the cases and, therefore, calculated YLD due to itch using the mean of the disability weights for the first two severity levels (0.108). We assumed that this disability weight also applies during ivermectin mass treatment, even though the fraction of insomniacs among cases of itch might decrease with repeated mass treatments (due to lower infection loads and consequent lower severity of itch). Unfortunately, previous studies on trends of onchocercal itch during ivermectin mass treatment do not report on insomnia [7], [8]. Therefore, if anything, we may be underestimating the impact of ivermectin mass treatment on the burden of itch (and the associated DALYs averted).

Figure 1 illustrates trends in DALYs lost due to troublesome itch, visual impairment, and blindness, and DALYs averted by APOC. Table 1 gives more detailed information on the number of prevalent cases (according to the factual scenario) and DALYs lost and averted per year. For onchocercal visual impairment and blindness, the updated estimates of the averted burden turned out lower than the previous estimates. In contrast, for troublesome itch, the updated estimate of the burden averted turned out higher than the previous estimate. For visual impairment and troublesome itch, the difference between previous and updated estimates was proportional to the change in values of the associated disability weights. For blindness, however, this difference was not proportional, as the burden of blindness also included years of life lost due to premature mortality (which is exactly the same for previous and updated estimates).

Figure 1. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost due to onchocerciasis from 1995 to 2015.

Figure 1

The total height of the bars (colored plus blank) represents the estimated number of DALYs lost in a counterfactual scenario without ivermectin mass treatment (increasing trend due to population growth). The colored part of each bar represents the estimated actual number of DALYs lost (declining trend due to ivermectin mass treatment). The blank part of each bar therefore represents the annual number of DALYs averted by ivermectin mass treatment in the total APOC population.

Table 1. Population at risk, number of cases, and disability-adjusted life years lost and averted due to onchocerciasis in areas covered by APOC.

Year Population size and number of cases of infection and disease in APOC areas (thousands) Disability-adjusted life years lost (thousands) Disability-adjusted life years averted (thousands)
Population (At risk of infection) Infecteda Troublesome itch Visual impairment Blindness Troublesome itch Visual impairment Blindness Total Troublesome itch Visual impairment Blindness Total
1995 71,474 32,330 10,202 889 404 1,102 29 523 1,654 0 0 0 0
1996 73,310 33,209 10,499 910 410 1,134 30 530 1,694 0 0 0 0
1997 75,195 34,073 10,780 931 418 1,164 31 558 1,753 0 0 0 0
1998 77,132 34,951 10,925 957 427 1,180 32 573 1,785 9 0 21 30
1999 79,122 35,816 10,692 974 430 1,155 32 530 1,717 65 0 79 144
2000 81,165 36,522 10,749 981 427 1,161 32 489 1,683 90 1 135 226
2001 83,144 36,998 10,653 987 420 1,151 33 457 1,640 131 1 180 312
2002 85,172 37,338 10,456 995 410 1,129 33 421 1,583 183 2 231 416
2003 87,249 37,502 10,073 990 402 1,088 33 417 1,538 256 3 251 510
2004 89,377 37,458 9,705 977 391 1,048 32 397 1,477 329 4 288 621
2005 91,558 37,196 9,357 965 379 1,011 32 363 1,405 400 6 338 744
2006 93,928 36,779 8,684 951 369 938 31 373 1,342 509 7 349 864
2007 96,360 36,093 8,111 931 358 876 31 349 1,256 608 9 390 1,007
2008 98,857 35,085 7,539 910 345 814 30 327 1,171 708 10 431 1,149
2009 101,419 33,811 6,564 885 330 709 29 285 1,024 852 12 492 1,356
2010 104,050 32,246 5,836 854 310 630 28 234 892 971 14 563 1,549
2011 106,750 30,355 5,157 825 290 557 27 206 790 1,086 16 611 1,713
2012 109,521 28,244 4,417 797 271 477 26 189 692 1,208 18 648 1,875
2013 112,366 25,979 3,724 762 254 402 25 188 615 1,327 21 670 2,018
2014 115,287 23,591 3,074 724 237 332 24 165 521 1,442 23 715 2,179
2015 118,285 21,115 2,478 690 220 268 23 145 435 1,552 25 757 2,334
Subtotal 19952010 16,289 498 6,827 23,614 5,110 70 3,748 8,929
Total 19952015 18,325 623 7,719 26,667 11,724 174 7,149 19,048
a

Infection defined as presence of at least one adult female worm.

Overall, we estimated that APOC has cumulatively averted 8.9 million DALYs due to onchocerciasis through 2010, and will avert another 10.1 million DALYs between 2011 and 2015, adding up to a total of 19.0 million DALYs averted through 2015. These updated estimates do not differ much from previous estimates (8.2 million DALYs averted through 2010, and another 9.2 million between 2011 and 2025). In relative terms, the burden of onchocerciasis in APOC areas has decreased from 23.1 DALYs per 1,000 persons in 1995 to 8.6 DALYs per 1,000 persons in 2010, and is expected to further decrease to 3.7 DALYs per 1,000 persons in 2015.

The updated disability weights provided by the GBD 2010 study are based on population surveys rather than expert opinion. Therefore, they are presumably less subjective and should better reflect our ideas and beliefs as a society of what constitutes health than previous disability weights [5]. However, it has been argued that the disability weights for visual impairment and blindness underestimate the burden of vision loss in rural Africa [9], [10]. One of the main arguments is that the surveys used to establish new disability weights did not adequately cover rural Africa (Tanzania only). Furthermore, being strictly a metric of health loss rather than wellbeing [5], DALYs do not capture the effects of vision loss and skin disease on socioeconomic status [11] and productivity [12], [13]. Therefore, the impact of APOC most likely encompasses more than what we report here in terms of health impact.

According to our updated estimates, skin disease is now the most important contributor to the burden of onchocerciasis, rather than eye disease. Moreover, the true disease burden of onchocercal skin disease (and the burden averted by APOC) is still larger than we estimate here, as our updated estimates do not include disfiguring skin disease, or other sequelae potentially associated with onchocerciasis, such as epilepsy [14] and head-nodding syndrome [15]. The additional burden of disfiguring skin disease is probably considerable, given the relatively high values of the updated disability weights for disfiguring skin disease and the high precontrol prevalence of disfiguring skin disease in areas endemic for onchocerciasis [6]. This underlines the importance of onchocercal skin disease, especially in forest areas where vision loss is relatively rare [16].

Acknowledgments

We thank Drs. M. C. Asuzu, M. Hagan, W. H. Makunde, P. Ngoumou (deceased), K. F. Ogbuagu, D. Okello, G. Ozoh, and J. H. F. Remme for their contributions to precontrol data on nodule prevalence and prevalence of itch.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the World Health Organization/African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC/CEV/322/07,www.who.int/apoc). HGMZ, KBA, MN, GF, and UVA are or have been employees of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC), World Health Organization, and were responsible for collection of data on pre-control infection levels and coverage of mass treatment, and contributed to the interpretation of the results and preparation of the manuscript, but were not involved in the data analysis.

References

  • 1. Coffeng LE, Stolk WA, Zouré HGM, Veerman JL, Agblewonu KB, et al. (2013) African Programme For Onchocerciasis Control 1995–2015: model-estimated health impact and cost. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 7: e2032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization (2008) The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. World Health Organization.Available: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/2004_report_update/en/. Accessed 8 May 2014.
  • 3. Mont D (2007) Measuring health and disability. Lancet 369: 1658–1663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. King CH, Bertino A-M (2008) Asymmetries of poverty: why global burden of disease valuations underestimate the burden of neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2: e209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Salomon JA, Vos T, Hogan DR, Gagnon M, Naghavi M, et al. (2012) Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380: 2129–2143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Murdoch ME, Asuzu MC, Hagan M, Makunde WH, Ngoumou P, et al. (2002) Onchocerciasis: the clinical and epidemiological burden of skin disease in Africa. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 96: 283–296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Brieger WR, Awedoba AK, Eneanya CI, Hagan M, Ogbuagu KF, et al. (1998) The effects of ivermectin on onchocercal skin disease and severe itching: results of a multicentre trial. Trop Med Int Health 3: 951–961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Ozoh GA, Murdoch ME, Bissek A-C, Hagan M, Ogbuagu K, et al. (2011) The African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control: impact on onchocercal skin disease. Trop Med Int Health 16: 875–883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Taylor HR, Jonas JB, Keeffe J, Leasher J, Naidoo K, et al. (2013) Disability weights for vision disorders in Global Burden of Disease study. Lancet 381: 23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Salomon JA, Vos T, Murray CJL (2013) Disability weights for vision disorders in Global Burden of Disease study – Authors' reply. Lancet 381: 23–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Alonso LM, Alvar J (2010) Stigmatizing neglected tropical diseases: a systematic review. Soc Med 5: 218–227. [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Benton B (1998) Economic impact of onchocerciasis control through the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control: an overview. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 92 Suppl 1S33–S39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kim AK, Tandon A, Hailu A (1997) Health and labor productivity: the economic impact of onchocercal skin disease. Policy Research Working Paper 1836. Ethiopia: Onchocerciasis Coordination Unit, Africa Human Development Department, The World Bank and Institute of Pathobiology, University of Addis Ababa.
  • 14. Pion SDS, Kaiser C, Boutros-Toni F, Cournil A, Taylor MM, et al. (2009) Epilepsy in onchocerciasis endemic areas: systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 3: e461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Williams SCP (2012) Nodding syndrome leaves baffled scientists shaking their heads. Nat Med 18: 334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Murdoch ME (2010) Onchodermatitis. Curr Opin Infect Dis 23: 124–131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES