Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2020 Dec 22;14(12):e0008902. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008902

A scabies outbreak in the North East Region of Ghana: The necessity for prompt intervention

Yaw Ampem Amoako 1,2,*, Richard Odame Phillips 2,3, Joshua Arthur 1, Mark Ayaaba Abugri 4, Emmanuel Akowuah 2, Kwabena Oppong Amoako 2, Benjamin Aboagye Marfo 5, Michael Frimpong 2, Tjip van der Werf 6, Sofanne Jacobine Ravensbergen 6, Ymkje Stienstra 6
Editor: Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr7
PMCID: PMC7787682  PMID: 33351803

Abstract

Background

There is a dearth of data on scabies from Ghana. In September 2019, local health authorities in the East Mamprusi district of northern Ghana received reports of scabies from many parts of the district. Due to on-going reports of more cases, an assessment team visited the communities to assess the effect of the earlier individual treatment on the outbreak. The assessment team furthermore aimed to contribute to the data on scabies burden in Ghana and to demonstrate the use of the International Alliance for the Control of Scabies (IACS) diagnostic tool in a field survey in a resource limited setting.

Methodology/Principal findings

This was a cross sectional study. Demographic information and medical history was collected on all participants using a REDCap questionnaire. A standardised skin examination of exposed regions of the body was performed on all participants. Scabies was diagnosed based on the criteria of the International Alliance for the Control of Scabies (IACS). Participants were mostly female (61.5%) and had a median age of 18.8 years (IQR 13–25). Two hundred out of 283 (71%) of participants had scabies with most (47%) presenting with moderate disease. Impetigo was found in 22% of participants with scabies and 10.8% of those without scabies [RR 2.27 (95% CI 1.21–4.27)]. 119 participants who received scabies treatment in the past months still had clinical evidence of the disease. 97% of participants reported a recent scabies contact. Scabies was commoner in participants ≤16 years compared to those >16 years [RR 3.06 (95% CI 1.73–5.45)].

Conclusion/Significance

The prevalence of scabies was extremely high. The lack of a systematic approach to scabies treatment led to recurrence and ongoing community spread. The IACS criteria was useful in this outbreak assessment in Ghana. Alternative strategies such as Mass drug administration may be required to contain outbreaks early in such settings.

Author summary

Scabies, recently categorised as a Neglected Tropical Disease by the WHO is caused by infestation with Sarcoptes scabiei and is characterised by intense pruritus and rash that typically involves the genitalia and the web spaces of the fingers and toes. It has a large global burden and is associated with significant morbidity and socio-economic burden. Secondary bacterial infections following scabies can lead to significant complications including chronic kidney disease from glomerulonephritis and possibly rheumatic heart disease. An outbreak of scabies was reported in Ghana’s East Mamprusi district in September 2019. Despite earlier treatment of individual cases, scabies prevalence was 71%. About 19% of participants had impetigo which was mostly mild in severity. Absence of a systematic approach to treat scabies led to recurrence and ongoing community spread. The recently published IACS criteria for diagnosing scabies proved useful in this outbreak assessment in Ghana. Alternative strategies such as Mass drug administration may be required to contain outbreaks in such settings.

Introduction

Scabies is an intensely pruritic skin disease caused by the mite Sarcoptes scabiei and significantly impacts the quality of life of affected persons [1]. The Global Burden of Diseases study estimates that scabies affects 455 million persons leading to approximately 3.8 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs); making scabies one of the most common neglected tropical diseases [2]. Recently, the WHO has classified scabies as a Neglected Tropical Disease (NTD) to highlight the need for prioritisation of the condition in low and middle income countries [1].

Scabies and its associated acute symptoms and secondary complications pose a significant socioeconomic burden to affected persons, families, communities and the health system. Direct financial costs of scabies relate to the cost of medicines, loss of productivity, and institutional outbreaks resulting from hospitalization of cases [1]. The intense pruritus (during the initial illness or the post scabies itch) severely affects sleep, work, and the quality of life [3]. Scabetic lesions and the excoriations following skin scratching can result in superinfection with bacteria (commonly, Streptococcus pyogenes and Staphylococcus aureus) that can result in complications such as pyoderma, impetigo, and cellulitis. Infection with S. pyogenes can also lead to immune-mediated complications including post streptococcal glomerulonephritis and possibly acute rheumatic fever, which can further lead to chronic kidney disease and rheumatic heart disease respectively [1,4].

Scabies transmission is predominantly by direct contact (including sexual contact) with infected skin [5,6]. Although less common, contact with infested fomites including clothing, bedding and towels have been thought to play a role [5,7]. Outbreaks of scabies have occurred during wars, refugees/migration crisis [8] and in situations of overcrowding such as in schools [911], prisons and care homes [12]. Scabies has been reported to be associated with household size, low socioeconomic status and poor access to healthcare [1315].

A systematic review conducted in 2015 estimated scabies prevalence worldwide to range from 0.2% to 71.4% depending on the populations studied [16]. The greatest burden of scabies is in low- and middle-income countries where overcrowding and inadequate access to effective treatment serve as drivers of disease transmission.

Two hospital-based studies conducted in Accra and Kumasi, the two largest cities of Ghana, reported scabies rates of 5.1% and 12.4% respectively [17,18]. In September 2019, local authorities received reports of scabies among communities in the East Mamprusi district in the North East Region of Ghana The district health team treated individual patients with scabies within the communities with topical benzyl benzoate. Due to continued reports of scabies, our medical team visited the district more than 3 weeks after individual treatment efforts by the local health authorities to further assess the scabies burden. This was an opportunistic assessment that was undertaken in the context of an outbreak investigation in Northern Ghana. The assessment team aimed to study the outbreak to contribute to the data on scabies burden in Ghana and to demonstrate the use of the International Alliance for the Control of Scabies (IACS) diagnostic tool in a field survey in a resource limited setting. In this study we report the use of the IACS diagnostic tool which allowed for systematic evaluation of scabies in a field survey in rural Ghana.

Methods

Ethics statement

All participants provided written informed consent. Written permission was also obtained from the district health authorities. For young children within the communities, written consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians. In the school, in addition to obtaining verbal permission from the school authorities which informed parents about the research activities, school children age < 18 years provided verbal assent and verbal consent was also obtained from their parents or legal guardians. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Committee on Human Research, Publications and Ethics (CHRPE) of the School of Medical Sciences of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (approval number: CHRPE/AP/671/19) in Ghana and the University Medical Center Groningen Institutional Review Board (approval number 201900650) in the Netherlands.

Study procedures

This was a cross-sectional study conducted in the East Mamprusi district which is located in the recently created North-East region of Ghana. Dwellings in this region are typically round mud houses with thatch roofs; although the houses have variable sizes, most households have 2–3 rooms where all inhabitants of the household sleep.

Community members and senior high school students were invited to participate in an interview during house to house visits and a school visit. The assessment team started their activities in the communities and a boarding school where local health authorities reported the burden to be high. The assessment team consisted of medical doctors with clinical experience diagnosing scabies based on earlier activities in infectious diseases and/or public health. In addition, a supplemental training program on the diagnosis of scabies, impetigo and other locally common skin conditions as well as the use of the IACS criteria for scabies diagnosis was provided to assessment team members. In the school, there was a random selection of student participants; per classroom, one tenth of the students were invited to participate based on students’ seating in the classroom. Per community, a house to house visit was performed. All persons present in the house at the time of the visit were invited to participate. Five different communities were visited.

Basic demographic information of the participants were recorded using a REDCap based questionnaire (S1 Text) which was hosted in a database located at the University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. A medical history was followed by a standardised skin examination of the exposed regions of the skin as was done in a previous study from Solomon Islands [10]. Briefly skin examination consisted of assessment of exposed areas: the feet and legs to the thighs, hands to the upper arms, neck, face and scalp. Students were in school uniform which consisted of above-knee shorts and above-elbow shirts or dresses. Shoes were removed prior to examination. Adults were also required to have the designated body regions exposed prior to their skin examination. The examination excluded breasts and genitals, unless requested by participants and then only in a separate, private examination area. A focused history of standardized questions was taken of all participants consisting of information required for the IACS criteria classification. Questions included whether participants experienced itch. Contact history was assessed by asking if participants lived with someone, or had a friend or classmate with itch, or if they lived with someone, or had a friend or classmate with a rash that looks like scabies. Participants were shown images of people with typical scabies rashes to assist these questions. Questions on treatment included whether participants had received any scabies treatment in the preceding two months, what treatment was received if any and a description of how the treatment was used. History was taken in the local language (with the assistance of interpreters where required) or in English.

The diagnosis of scabies was based on the B1, B3, C1 and/or C2 criteria developed by the IACS as shown in Table 1 [19]. The assessment team also looked for crusted scabies.

Table 1. Case definitions for scabies using the IACS criteria.

Clinical category Used in survey
Confirmed scabies
    A1
    A2
    A3
Mites, eggs or faeces on light microscopy of skin samples
Mites, eggs or faeces visualised on individual using high powered imaging device
Mite visualised on individual using dermoscopy

No
No
No
Clinical scabies
*B1
    B2
    B3

Presence of burrows
Typical lesions affecting male genitalia
Typical lesions in a typical distribution and two history features (itch and contact history)

Yes
No
Yes
Suspected scabies
    C1
    C2
Typical lesions in a typical distribution and one history feature (itch or contact history)
Atypical lesions or atypical distribution and two history features (itch and close contact with an individual who has itch or typical scabies lesions in a typical distribution)

Yes
Yes

*Burrows were not confirmed with dermoscopy in the study

Impetigo was diagnosed based on the presence of papules, pustules or ulcerative lesions with associated erythema, crusting or pus. The severity of scabies and impetigo were assessed using previously published criteria [20] based on the number of lesions present. Scabies was categorized as: mild, 1 to 10 lesions; moderate, 11 to 49 lesions; or severe, 50 or more lesions. Impetigo was classified as: very mild, 1 to 5 lesions; mild, 6 to 10 lesions; moderate, 11 to 49 lesions; or severe, 50 or more lesions. Benzyl benzoate was supplied to participants with scabies and their contacts as per standard protocol in Ghana [21]. Participants with impetigo were also treated as per standard protocol in Ghana [21].

Statistical analysis

We conducted descriptive and inferential statistical analyses to present the data of the outbreak. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and proportions; and results for continuous variables were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR). The severity of scabies and impetigo in the earlier treated and untreated groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. The Relative Risk (RR) of impetigo in participants with or without scabies was calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI). A p value <0.05 was set as the level of statistical significance. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS statistics Version 20 (IBM Company, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

In total, 283 participants were interviewed. No one refused participation. Ninety three students (of 448 in session) and 5 different communities were visited, including 190 participants in the house-to-house visit. The majority were female (61%) and the median age of the participants was 19 (IQR 13–25) years (Table 2). The most frequently reported occupation was farming (30%).

Table 2. Baseline characteristics of participants.

Number n = 283
Female (%)
Missing information (%)
174 (61.5)
4 (1.4)
Age median (IQR)
Missing information (%)
18.8 (13.0–25.0)
3 (1.0)
Education/work
Preschool (%) 11 (3.9)
Primary school (%) 26 (9.2)
Junior high school (%) 2 (0.7)
Senior high school (%) 94 (33.2)
Farmer (%) 86 (30.3)
Other*(%) 50 (17.7)
Missing information (%) 14 (4.9)

*Other includes occupations such as trading and sewing

Based on the IACS criteria, 71% of the 283 participants were diagnosed with scabies (Table 3). Skin examination revealed burrows in 37.0% and rash typical for scabies in 97% of the scabies cases. Most participants with scabies had moderate disease. Scabies lesions were mostly located on hands, fingers and finger webs (Fig 1). No cases of crusted scabies were observed. Fifty three participants had impetigo of varying severity.

Table 3. Scabies and impetigo severity in participants with or without clinical scabies.

Clinical scabies, not treated Clinical scabies, previously treated No clinical scabies, not treated No clinical scabies, previously treated
Total (n = 283) 81 119 68 15
IACS category B1 (%) 49 (60.5) 25 (21.0) NA NA
B3 (%) 23 (28.4) 84 (70.6)
C1 (%) 4 (4.9) 7 (5.9)
C2 (%) 5 (6.2) 3 (2.5)
Positive contact history (%) 81 (100) 118 (99.2) 61 15
Scabies severity
Mild (%) 34 (42.0) 37 (31.1) NA NA
Moderate (%) 38 (46.9) 56 (47.1)
Severe (%) 9 (11.1) 23 (19.3)
Missing information (%) 0 (0.0) 3 (2.5)
Impetigo severity
Very mild (%) 10 (12) 6 (5) 2 (3) 1 (7)
Mild (%) 9 (11) 9 (8) 3 (4) 1 (7)
Moderate (%) 3 (4) 7 (6) 2 (3) 0 (0)
Severe (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

NA = not applicable

Fig 1. Scabies lesions seen on exposed body regions in four selected participants.

Fig 1

Compared to participants previously treated with benzyl benzoate, scabies burrows were more prevalent among untreated participants. In a post-hoc analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in B3 and B1 diagnostic classification between the participants who were treated with benzyl benzoate in the past months and untreated participants (p < 0.05). Itch was reported by 79% participants with a median duration of 30 days (IQR 21–60). Only 3% of the participants had no previous known scabies contact in the past weeks. At the time of the interview, 59.4% of the 200 participants with scabies had recently received treatment with topical benzyl benzoate (first line treatment in Ghana) in the past two months because of their skin problems. 117 of these 119 previously treated did not only have an itch but also demonstrated skin manifestations which lead to an IACS scabies diagnosis. No one received permethrin or ivermectin. Only nine persons with scabies reported using herbal medicine as treatment for their scabies. There was no statistically significant difference in the severity of scabies between the participants, who were treated with benzyl benzoate in the past months and the untreated participants (p = 0.068). Only 15 of the participants previously treated for scabies were free of the disease at the time of the interview. Even in participants without clinically evident scabies, itch and rash were common (40.9% and 26.5% respectively) but this was much less than in those with scabies (95% and 95.5% respectively) as shown in Table 4. Impetigo was found in 22% of participants with scabies and 10.8% of those without scabies [RR 2.27 (95% CI 1.21–4.27)]. One hundred and nineteen (119) participants who had been previously treated still had clinical evidence of scabies. Scabies was commoner in participants ≤16 years compared to those >16 years [RR 3.06 (95% CI 1.73–5.45)].

Table 4. Skin problems and contact history in participants with and without scabies.

Participants with scabies, n = 200 (%) Participants without scabies, n = 83 (%) All participants n = 283 (%)
Itch present 190 (95.0) 34 (40.9) 224 (79.2)
Rash present 191 (95.5) 22 (26.5) 213 (75.3)
*Contact history positive 199 (99.5) 76 (91.6) 275 (97.2)

*Contact history is considered positive if school or house contact with itch or rash was reported

Discussion and conclusion

The scabies prevalence worldwide varies widely and depending on the population studied ranges from 0.2% to 87% [16,22] with the highest prevalence in the island nations of the Pacific and countries in Latin America. Scabies is reported to be more prevalent in children than in adolescents and adults. In a national survey in Fiji, the overall prevalence of scabies was found to be 23.6% with rates of 43.7% and 36.5% in children aged 5–9 years and <5 years respectively [23]. The prevalence of 71% reported in the present study is extremely high but lower than the 87% reported previously from a village in Papua New Guinea [22]. It is however higher than the 32% reported from Fiji by Haar and colleagues [24]. A scabies rate of 17.6% with peak infection occurring in children 5–9 years was reported when villagers in a community in the Ashanti region of Ghana were studied over 3 decades ago [25]. More recently, two hospital based studies and one school based study conducted in Accra and Kumasi, the two largest cities of Ghana, reported rates of 5.1%, 12.4% and 11.5% respectively [9,17,18]. A degree of selection bias may have impacted the high prevalence found in the present study as the study was conducted among communities where the local health authorities had reported a high scabies burden at the onset of the outbreak. The much higher prevalence found in our study is probably due to the fact that the population of East Mamprusi is predominantly rural, have larger-sized households and higher level of poverty compared to especially, southern parts of Ghana. Such an extremely high prevalence of scabies as reported in this study has its impact on the communities’ quality of life and likely results in loss of productivity at school and work.

The relative risk of impetigo in participants with scabies was 2.27 (95% CI 1.21–4.27). Eighty three (83%) of participants with impetigo also had scabies. This is similar to findings from the Solomon Islands where 63.5% of those with impetigo had scabies [10]. These findings have implications for the control of scabies and impetigo in endemic populations like described in the current study. Indeed, mass drug administration (MDA) with ivermectin has been reported to result in a decrease in prevalence of scabies with an added benefit of about 90% relative reduction in the prevalence of impetigo [26].

The IACS criteria of scabies consist of three diagnostic categories (confirmed, clinical and/or suspected scabies) [19]. The clinical and suspected categories are practical for use, help to standardize reporting on scabies, and can easily be applied in field surveys like ours. Scabies and impetigo infections are reported to be under-recognised and hence under-treated by clinicians [1,27] as laboratory diagnosis is impossible in most settings [1]. The use of the IACS criteria for diagnosis may result in improvements in the recognition and treatment of scabies infections by clinicians. The IACS criteria proved its utility when used for a school survey in the Solomon Islands [10]. The current study has further demonstrated the use of the IACS diagnostic criteria to systematically evaluate for scabies in an outbreak setting in a rural area in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Scabies affected predominantly young persons in this study. Most patients with scabies were aged ≤16 years. This is similar to the epidemiology of other NTDs of the skin like Buruli ulcer [28,29] and Yaws [30]. This provides an opportunity for integrating detection and control activities of these skin NTDs using school-based programmes [28,3133].

Treatment options for scabies in Ghana include 5% permethrin and topical benzyl benzoate which is usually available as a 25% formulation. Permethrin is not widely available and is relatively unaffordable to the rural population which are most affected by scabies. Benzyl benzoate is relatively more readily available and cheaper. At the present time, ivermectin is not licensed for scabies treatment in Ghana (an exception may be in crisis situations where the Ghana Health Service may grant an emergency use authorisation).

Benzyl benzoate was used for the treatment of individual cases in keeping with standard practice as recommended by Ghana’s standard treatment guidelines. The treatment with benzyl benzoate of the individual scabies cases in the different communities proved insufficiently effective to control the outbreak. One possible explanation could be that benzyl benzoate is less effective for the treatment of scabies compared to other treatment options like ivermectin or permethrin [6]. Benzyl benzoate administered topically as a 25% solution may cause skin irritation especially in younger children and this may negatively impact compliance with therapy. In Ghana, the standard treatment guidelines requires application of benzyl benzoate over the whole body (except the face) twice and left overnight on two consecutive nights. The first application is done after a warm bath with the application repeated the next day (without a bath) and washed off 24 hours later. It is plausible that persons receiving the treatment did not fully adhere to the instructions on the use of benzyl benzoate. Contacts of cases are usually advised to treat themselves at the same time as the case in order to reduce the risk of re-infection [5,3436]. The lack of treatment of household contacts is potentially a major factor leading to re-infection of cases and ongoing community transmission. This is further supported by the fact that 119 participants who were treated still met the IACS criteria for scabies after treatment. Only 9% of the participants who were previously treated with benzyl benzoate had no scabies at the time of the interviews. The limited access to health care as well as the relatively high number of residents per household in the current outbreak zone presumably drive ongoing spread and/or re-infections.

The interval from scabies treatment to response is variable. The rash and itch may persist for up to 4 weeks after treatment. Patients treated in the preceding 2 weeks might still have symptoms thus making it difficult to distinguish re-infections from primary treatment failure [5,7,35]. It is possible that some previously treated patients with an IACS classification of B3 may have resolving scabies rather than re-infection; the lower prevalence of burrows in the treated group compared with those not treated would support this possibility. However, given the timing of reassessment 3 weeks to 2 months after treatment, resolution of symptoms in the majority of treated patients would be expected [37].

Some participants reported itch and rash but had no scabies as defined by the IACS criteria. This group of participants probably consists of persons with alternate aetiologies of itch and rash such as fungal skin infections. Yet some in this group may be developing scabies considering the percentage who had a positive contact history. Additionally, some may represent persons with post scabies itch.

A control strategy of treating clinical cases and their contacts undoubtedly provides relief for individuals with scabies, but its success in reducing population prevalence in the longer term is limited [34]. MDA using topical permethrin or oral ivermectin offers an alternative approach for population control to substantially reduce the burden of scabies. Among populations of northern Australia [38,39], Egypt [15] and in Panama [40], mass treatment of highly endemic communities with topical 5% permethrin substantially reduced scabies prevalence. In another study with permethrin, although the scabies prevalence remained unchanged, the prevalence of secondary infected scabies decreased from 3.7% to 1.5% representing a relative reduction of 59% [41].

Earlier studies [24,26,42] on MDA with ivermectin were performed in island settings and reduced the prevalence of scabies, even 24 months after the intervention [26]. In a study done in Fiji, ivermectin resulted in a 94% and 89% relative reductions in scabies prevalence at 12 and 24 months respectively; and these reductions in scabies prevalence were greater in the ivermectin group than in persons who received MDA with permethrin [26]. MDA for scabies is indicated if the community prevalence is more than 10% [43]. Subsequently the Neglected Tropical Diseases Programme in Ghana decided to provide MDA with ivermectin for the district described in this report. However, difficulties arise determining the size of the MDA needed to reduce the scabies burden if interactions in a population are not limited based on geography (e.g. islands or rivers) or social factors (e.g. institutions). To control such outbreaks in the future, and to develop a global control programme, studies on optimal implementation of MDA, especially in larger, non-isolated areas are desperately needed [1,26].

Study limitations and strengths

The sample size of this study is relatively small compared to the population of the entire district. Even though there may be differences in scabies prevalence between communities in the district, due to the close person-to-person interactions between communities (resulting from close extended family ties), it is unlikely that such a percentage would be lower than 10% (MDA indicated if higher) considering the high percentage of scabies found in the communities studied. The examined students come from different communities across the district. Furthermore, the district health team ended up providing MDA across the district and did not observe communities without scabies problems.

Conclusion

This study provides data on scabies burden and could form the basis for guiding future research in Ghana and West Africa where there is a dearth of data on scabies prevalence. The IACS criteria for standardisation of scabies diagnosis was easily and practically applied in our field survey in a resource limited setting in rural Ghana.

Supporting information

S1 Text. Scabies outbreak questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the Informatiemanagement Onderzoek at the University Medical Centre Groningen for the greatly appreciated support with REDCap mobile app. We are grateful to staff of the Northern Regional Health Directorate and the East Mamprusi District Health Directorate for their assistance.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

YS received financial support from Stichting Buruli ulcer Foundation (https://buruli1ulcer2groningen3.wordpress.com/) and the Gratama Foundation (grant number 2017-029 https://www.rug.nl/alumni/support-research-and-education/groninger-university-fund/gratama-stichting/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Engelman D, Cantey PT, Marks M, Solomon AW, Chang AY, Chosidow O, et al. The public health control of scabies: priorities for research and action. Lancet (London, England). 2019;394(10192):81–92. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31136-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet (London, England). 2017;390(10100):1211–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jackson A, Heukelbach J, Filho AF, Junior Ede B, Feldmeier H. Clinical features and associated morbidity of scabies in a rural community in Alagoas, Brazil. Tropical medicine & international health: TM & IH. 2007;12(4):493–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Parks T, Smeesters PR, Steer AC. Streptococcal skin infection and rheumatic heart disease. Current opinion in infectious diseases. 2012;25(2):145–53. 10.1097/QCO.0b013e3283511d27 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Salavastru CM, Chosidow O, Boffa MJ, Janier M, Tiplica GS. European guideline for the management of scabies. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology: JEADV. 2017;31(8):1248–53. 10.1111/jdv.14351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Strong M. JP. Cochrane Review: Interventions for treating scabies. Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal. 2011;6(6):1790–862. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chosidow O. Scabies and pediculosis. Lancet (London, England). 2000;355(9206):819–26. 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)09458-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Beeres DT, Ravensbergen SJ, Heidema A, Cornish D, Vonk M, Wijnholds LD, et al. Efficacy of ivermectin mass-drug administration to control scabies in asylum seekers in the Netherlands: A retrospective cohort study between January 2014—March 2016. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2018;12(5):e0006401 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kaburi BB, Ameme DK, Adu-Asumah G, Dadzie D, Tender EK, Addeh SV, et al. Outbreak of scabies among preschool children, Accra, Ghana, 2017. BMC public health. 2019;19(1):746 10.1186/s12889-019-7085-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Osti MH, Sokana O, Phelan S, Marks M, Whitfeld MJ, Gorae C, et al. Prevalence of scabies and impetigo in the Solomon Islands: a school survey. BMC infectious diseases. 2019;19(1):803 10.1186/s12879-019-4382-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ejigu K, Haji Y, Toma A, Tadesse BT. Factors associated with scabies outbreaks in primary schools in Ethiopia: a case-control study. Research and reports in tropical medicine. 2019;10:119–27. 10.2147/RRTM.S214724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kouotou EA, Nansseu JRN, Sangare A, Moguieu Bogne LL, Sieleunou I, Adegbidi H, et al. Burden of human scabies in sub-Saharan African prisons: Evidence from the west region of Cameroon. The Australasian journal of dermatology. 2018;59(1):e6–e10. 10.1111/ajd.12540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Karim SA, Anwar KS, Khan MA, Mollah MA, Nahar N, Rahman HE, et al. Socio-demographic characteristics of children infested with scabies in densely populated communities of residential madrashas (Islamic education institutes) in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Public health. 2007;121(12):923–34. 10.1016/j.puhe.2006.10.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kouotou EA, Nansseu JR, Sieleunou I, Defo D, Bissek AC, Ndam EC. Features of human scabies in resource-limited settings: the Cameroon case. BMC dermatology. 2015;15:12 10.1186/s12895-015-0031-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hegazy AA, Darwish NM, Abdel-Hamid IA, Hammad SM. Epidemiology and control of scabies in an Egyptian village. International journal of dermatology. 1999;38(4):291–5. 10.1046/j.1365-4362.1999.00630.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Romani L, Steer AC, Whitfeld MJ, Kaldor JM. Prevalence of scabies and impetigo worldwide: a systematic review. The Lancet Infectious diseases. 2015;15(8):960–7. 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00132-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rosenbaum BE, Klein R, Hagan PG, Seadey MY, Quarcoo NL, Hoffmann R, et al. Dermatology in Ghana: a retrospective review of skin disease at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital Dermatology Clinic. The Pan African medical journal. 2017;26:125 10.11604/pamj.2017.26.125.10954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Doe PT, Asiedu A, Acheampong JW, Rowland Payne CM. Skin diseases in Ghana and the UK. International journal of dermatology. 2001;40(5):323–6. 10.1046/j.1365-4362.2001.01229.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Engelman D, Fuller LC, Steer AC. Consensus criteria for the diagnosis of scabies: A Delphi study of international experts. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2018;12(5):e0006549 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mason DS, Marks M, Sokana O, Solomon AW, Mabey DC, Romani L, et al. The Prevalence of Scabies and Impetigo in the Solomon Islands: A Population-Based Survey. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2016;10(6):e0004803 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004803 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.2010 MoH-RoGSTG. https://www.moh.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Standard-Treatment-Guideline-2010.pdf. Accessed on 25 August 2020.
  • 22.Bockarie MJ, Alexander ND, Kazura JW, Bockarie F, Griffin L, Alpers MP. Treatment with ivermectin reduces the high prevalence of scabies in a village in Papua New Guinea. Acta tropica. 2000;75(1):127–30. 10.1016/s0001-706x(99)00087-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Romani L, Koroivueta J, Steer AC, Kama M, Kaldor JM, Wand H, et al. Scabies and impetigo prevalence and risk factors in Fiji: a national survey. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2015;9(3):e0003452 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003452 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Haar K, Romani L, Filimone R, Kishore K, Tuicakau M, Koroivueta J, et al. Scabies community prevalence and mass drug administration in two Fijian villages. International journal of dermatology. 2014;53(6):739–45. 10.1111/ijd.12353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Acheampong JW, Whittle HC, Obasi EO, Harman RR, Addy HA, Parry EH, et al. Scabies and streptococcal skin infection in Ghana. Tropical doctor. 1988;18(4):151–2. 10.1177/004947558801800403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Romani L, Whitfeld MJ, Koroivueta J, Kama M, Wand H, Tikoduadua L, et al. Mass Drug Administration for Scabies—2 Years of Follow-up. The New England journal of medicine. 2019;381(2):186–7. 10.1056/NEJMc1808439 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yeoh DK, Anderson A, Cleland G, Bowen AC. Are scabies and impetigo "normalised"? A cross-sectional comparative study of hospitalised children in northern Australia assessing clinical recognition and treatment of skin infections. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2017;11(7):e0005726 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005726 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mitja O, Marks M, Bertran L, Kollie K, Argaw D, Fahal AH, et al. Integrated Control and Management of Neglected Tropical Skin Diseases. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2017;11(1):e0005136 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Phillips RO, Robert J, Abass KM, Thompson W, Sarfo FS, Wilson T, et al. Rifampicin and clarithromycin (extended release) versus rifampicin and streptomycin for limited Buruli ulcer lesions: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet (London, England). 2020;395(10232):1259–67. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30047-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mitja O, Marks M, Konan DJ, Ayelo G, Gonzalez-Beiras C, Boua B, et al. Global epidemiology of yaws: a systematic review. The Lancet Global health. 2015;3(6):e324–31. 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00011-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Engelman D, Fuller LC, Solomon AW, McCarthy JS, Hay RJ, Lammie PJ, et al. Opportunities for Integrated Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases That Affect the Skin. Trends in parasitology. 2016;32(11):843–54. 10.1016/j.pt.2016.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yotsu RR, Kouadio K, Vagamon B, N'Guessan K, Akpa AJ, Yao A, et al. Skin disease prevalence study in schoolchildren in rural Cote d'Ivoire: Implications for integration of neglected skin diseases (skin NTDs). PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2018;12(5):e0006489 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006489 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Barogui YT, Diez G, Anagonou E, Johnson RC, Gomido IC, Amoukpo H, et al. Integrated approach in the control and management of skin neglected tropical diseases in Lalo, Benin. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2018;12(6):e0006584 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hay RJ, Steer AC, Engelman D, Walton S. Scabies in the developing world—its prevalence, complications, and management. Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2012;18(4):313–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Buffet M, Dupin N. Current treatments for scabies. Fundamental & clinical pharmacology. 2003;17(2):217–25. 10.1046/j.1472-8206.2003.00173.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.FitzGerald D, Grainger RJ, Reid A. Interventions for preventing the spread of infestation in close contacts of people with scabies. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2014(2):Cd009943 10.1002/14651858.CD009943.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ly F, Caumes E, Ndaw CA, Ndiaye B, Mahe A. Ivermectin versus benzyl benzoate applied once or twice to treat human scabies in Dakar, Senegal: a randomized controlled trial. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2009;87(6):424–30. 10.2471/blt.08.052308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wong LC, Amega B, Connors C, Barker R, Dulla ME, Ninnal A, et al. Outcome of an interventional program for scabies in an Indigenous community. The Medical journal of Australia. 2001;175(7):367–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Carapetis JR, Connors C, Yarmirr D, Krause V, Currie BJ. Success of a scabies control program in an Australian aboriginal community. The Pediatric infectious disease journal. 1997;16(5):494–9. 10.1097/00006454-199705000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Taplin D, Porcelain SL, Meinking TL, Athey RL, Chen JA, Castillero PM, et al. Community control of scabies: a model based on use of permethrin cream. Lancet (London, England). 1991;337(8748):1016–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Andrews RM, Kearns T, Connors C, Parker C, Carville K, Currie BJ, et al. A regional initiative to reduce skin infections amongst aboriginal children living in remote communities of the Northern Territory, Australia. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2009;3(11):e554 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000554 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Romani L, Marks M, Sokana O, Nasi T, Kamoriki B, Cordell B, et al. Efficacy of mass drug administration with ivermectin for control of scabies and impetigo, with coadministration of azithromycin: a single-arm community intervention trial. The Lancet Infectious diseases. 2019;19(5):510–8. 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30790-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Marks M, McVernon J, Engelman D, Kaldor J, Steer A. Insights from mathematical modelling on the proposed WHO 2030 goals for scabies. Gates open research. 2019;3:1542 10.12688/gatesopenres.13064.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008902.r001

Decision Letter 0

Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr, Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

2 May 2020

Dear Dr Amoako,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A scabies outbreak in the North East Region of Ghana: the necessity for prompt intervention" 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. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

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

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the 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.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. 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,

Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr., M.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

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: Please see Summary and General Comments!

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The population is partially described - if possible the authors should give a estimate of the number of communities and households in the region.

It is unclear as to how representative the sample of 283 patients is of the whole population (This should at least be acknowledged / or discussed in the discussion)

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

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: Please see Summary and General Comments!

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: data analysis mostly matches plan - some comparative statistics provided - no odds ratios provided with p-values, not clear in methods how these comparisons were made

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

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: Please see Summary and General Comments!

The limitations of analysis are not clearly discribed.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The conclusions are not fully supported by the data - particularly regarding the need for MDA (which was not feasible in this case) and the reason for ongoing transmission being related to the lack of treatment of contacts.

Limitations and strengths are not discussed

The implications of the findings are not fully explored.

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

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: Please see Summary and General Comments!

The topic of the article is highly relevant, but the presentation has too many weaknesses and needs to be rewritten.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors summarise the importance of scabies and the data available to date from Ghana. The use of the IACS criteria is relatively novel and demonstrates the utility of this tool in the field setting. The authors demonstrate a high prevalence of scabies in the setting of an regional ourbreak, adding to limited national data on prevalence of scabies. There is discussion the potential role of MDA and limitations of this approach.

The methods and results should provide a clearer picture of how representative the sample of 283 participants is if possible. The discussion should be expanded to discuss the use of IACS criteria in the context of previous studies, the limitations of the IACS criteria, the strengths and limitations of the study and implications for future research. The discussion on MDA is of interest but perhaps a more broad discussion of other available strategies, including limitations (particularly as MDA was not feasible in this instance).

Abstract

- separate methodology and results

- revise statement on mass drug administration - perhaps "maybe an effective strategy in such settings to contain outbreaks"

- line 24 - change "remanifestations" to "recurrence and ongoing community spread"

Author summary

- line 31 - change "huge" to "large"

- line 33 - change "of" to "complicating scabies can lead to significant complicatiosn including..."

- line 38 - change "remanifestations" as above

- line 40 - revise statement on mass drug administration as above

Introduction

- line 69 - reference?

Methods

- what is the estimated population of the area examined? (if available)

- how many communities were examined? what is the estimated size of the school?

- line 101 - dose this mean - all houses in each community were visited and ?all members of the household were invited to participate?

- how was consent obtained for school children?

- how many team members conducted assessments and was any specific training required to perform IACS assessment?

- include in statistics how comparisons were made (between treated and non-treated patients?)

Results

- what proportion of the population does the 283 people represent? (appreciate there may not be readily available census data?)

- line 158 - provide odds ratio + 95% CI with P value 0.063

- line 159 - provide odds ratio + 95% CI with P value 0.115

- data on age stratified prevalence would be interesting if available, also gender differences

Discussion

- line 177 - 87% contradicts earlier statement on line 172 (0.2% to 71.4%)

- line 208 - reference? Cochrane review on treatment comparison https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ebch.861

- may be helpful to give previous figures (percentage response from clinical triasl)

- ?discuss difficulties with compliance

- line 208 - yet "the main reason" should be revised - the data does not completely support this conclusion - something like "the lack of treatment of household contacts is potentially a major factor leading to re-infection of cases and ongoing community transmission."

- line 210 - discuss time to response following treatment - is it possible that some of these patients had 'resolving' scabies (e.g. those treated within 1-2 weeks of assessment)

- discuss rationale for use of IACS criteria - health care worker recognition of scabies may be poor? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28671945 - laboratory diagnosis is impossible in most settings

- discuss previous studies to report on IACS criteria utility - where does this study sit

- discuss rationale for selecting representative population in schools (vs whole school)

- what if any treatment was provided to cases / contacts

- discuss limitations and strengths of the study

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

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: Scabies is one of the world’s commonest afflictions and despite that a neglected disease. As such it warrants public health interventions and a global control programme. There are still, however, several key operational research questions to be addressed, e.g. prevalence data, before mass drug interventions could be outlined. The present article dealing with a local scabies outbreak in Ghana should therefore be of great scientific interest and merit publication in PLOS. Of the 11 authors, seven are from Ghana and three from the Netherlands. The affiliation of Michael Frimpong is lacking.

Unfortunately, I cannot recommend acceptance of the article as it now stands. Generally, it needs more editing, more consideration for details, better structure and focus, less repetitions and better information for the readers to be able judge on the internal and external validity.

The incitement for the data collection and the study was a reported outbreak in northern Ghana communities. Despite individual treatments the transmission of scabies had not been appreciably reduced. It would be interesting to know whether Ghana has standardised instructions for individual case-management of scabies and impetigo.

Some specific comments

The Introduction should give the readers information on scabies generally and then zoom in on the general situation in Ghana. We need to understand a bit about how the health care operates and what is meant with a district, a municipality, a community, a village. A figure could be of help.

The introduction should end with clear stated aims. “In this study we report ............” is all too vague. Using a descriptive epidemiological Methodology the authors report prevalence data and assess the impact of earlier individual treatment on their findings by applying the IACS diagnostic criteriae.

In the Subjects and Methods section we need to know more about the Site: which community/communities are involved and their populations, or if census data are not available, at least an estimate thereof. Number of health clinics? Schools, boarding schools? The sentence beginning on line 90: “The district shares boundaries ..........” should be left out.

Line 94: are “structures” the same as houses?

The data collection team need to be better presented in a paragraph of its own. Criteria for their recruitment? How many were they? Were they especially trained for the task?

Samples from two populations were looked for, community members via house-to-house visits (within which local boundaries?) and school children via a random selection. What is meant with “.. all persons present ..” (line 101)? Present where? Some ideas of what constitutes the numerators are needed.

The REDCap questionnaire needs a better description and at least a reference. The standardised body examination was made as “in a previous study (7)”. The authors could have been a bit more detailed here and for that used as a good example that reference, a recent school study from the Solomon Islands (Osti MH et al. BMC Infect Dis. 2019): “Impetigo was diagnosed on the presence of papules, pustules or ulcerative lesions with associated erythema, crusting or pus. Skin examination consisted of assessment of exposed areas: the feet and legs to the thighs, hands to the upper arms, neck, face and scalp. Students were in school uniform which consisted of above-knee shorts and above-elbow shirts or dresses. Shoes were removed prior to examination.” Did the examination procedure differ between school-children and adults?

The assessment of the severity of scabies and impetigo merits some few comments than just a reference. Earlier treatment, how long ago was that asked for?

Statistical methods should be dealt with under its own heading. You have evidently used descriptive statistics with proportions. How do you deal with the uncertainties? With which methods did you make your analyses (SPSS/IBM does not do your thinking....). In the Results section, line 130, you introduce the acronym IQR without an earlier explanation under the Statistical methods. Your numbers in the different categories are small and the p-values have to be used with caution. Why are confidence intervals not used? Line 156: “The participants ....similar ..... scabies severity compared to the previously untreated participants (p=0.063).” This statement is not correct. You cannot judge similarity out of a p-value.

Line 120: Comparisons are made between proportions in subgroups. By “Linear-by-linear analysis” is probably meant an analysis for linear trend in categorical data.

The Results section is difficult to follow due to the lack of the information I have pointed out above. Does “Missing” in Table 1 mean ‘Missing information’ or ‘dropped out’?

Figure 2. “.... some participants.” = Four individuals, children, adults?

Table 2. The * is missing in the table.

Discussion and conclusion.

Line 170: “Here, we report......”. Already said, could be removed. As well as line 179: “Published data....”.

Line 171 onwards: When comparisons with other studies outside Ghana are made, it is important to comment on how these studies were made and whether comparisons are really valid.

Line 92: Are kidney diseases and rheumatic heart disease strikingly common in Ghana, or in the northern parts of Ghana?

The reference list contains 26 items and is up-to-date and comprehensive.

______________________________________________________________________

Reviewer #2: This is an important study on scabies in Ghana as there is limited data on scabies prevalence in much of West Africa but it requires substantial work to improve the description of the study methodology and the reporting of the results.

1) In the abstract you say that scabies can be associated with RhD/RhF; i think the wording in the introduction where you say 'possibly' is more accurate and the abstract should be amended to be in line with the main text.

2) Line 65 - you say that fomites may play a role; this statment is relatively controversial as many would argue that fomites play a minimal role in transmission especially in LMIC/highly endemic settings. At a minimum this statement will need a reference.

3) Im not sure that line 76 adds anything - scabies is found/endemic everywhere, and having referenced 2 studies confirming scabies in Ghana I am not sure what is added by saying that scabies is endemic in Ghana.

4) Line 79 - please provide more details. Was treatment limited strictly to cases or also their contacts? What treatment was provided by the municipal health authorities.

5) Methods - the sampling frame needs a clearer description. How many communities were visited? What proportion of houses were visited?

6) Line 103/4 I think you mean was recorded in a REDCAP database rather than obtained as presumably information was obtained by history/examination.

7) Critically important is to understand is who conducted the examinations, what training they had received and how you confirmed they could correctly identify lesion morphology and distribution in line with the IACS criteria. This is not currently described and must be added.

8) I presume children did not provide written informed consent but instead this was obtained from a parent/guardian. Please clarify.

9) In the results and in line with the comment about sampling frame it is very unclear what % of individuals in the 4 communities were enrolled. Was it all residents? If not were there any systematic issues in sampling (i note for example that 61.5% of participants were female which suggests systematic bias in to study inclusion).

10) The use of the IACS criteria needs revising. The authors state LINE 137 that a large proportion of patients had burros but then these individuals should be classified as B1 not B3. Please revise the methods and results accordingly.

11) It would be useful to show some association data for scabies and impetigo as there is a lack of clarity on whether the strong relationship shown in the Pacific is seen elsewhere. This could be for example by including an odds ratio for impetigo amongst those with scabies and/or calculating the population attributable fraction of impetigo due to scabies.

12) It would be useful also to show scabies (and impetigo) prevalence stratified by key variables such as age and gender because rates often vary markedly by age group; given the non representative sampling methodology this is important to understand.

13) I would be careful comparing the prevalence found in this study, which deliberately targeted an area where there was high reporting of scabies cases, with representative sampling data. The limitations of these comparisons should be noted.

14) New results are presented in the discussion (see for example line 197-198) - please avoid this by including relevant information in the results section.

15) Line 208 ivermectin doesnt need a capital letter

16) Paragraph beginning line 203; this section should clearly discuss the already existing evidence that treatment of index cases alone is associated with much higher rates of reinfestation; this is why (even outside the context of MDA) almost all guidelines recommend treating the whole house/close contacts.

Reviewer #3: (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: Yes: Daniel K. Yeoh

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, PLOS recommends that you deposit 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. For instructions see https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008902.r003

Decision Letter 1

Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr, Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

20 Jul 2020

Dear Dr Amoako,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A scabies outbreak in the North East Region of Ghana: the necessity for prompt intervention" 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.

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,

Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

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: The paper has been edited and is somewhat easier to follow, but there are still shortcomings of different kinds that need to be taken care of before it is publishable.

Comments and suggestions that may be of help for the revision:

The Title is not covering the contents of the article. Suggested key words for the title are scabies, outbreak, prevalence, mass drug administration.

The Abstract needs to be rewritten. It is not giving a good and easy-to-read overview of the article.

If the Introduction could begin like this “Scabies is an intensely pruritic skin disease caused by the mite....//persons (1).”, you would avoid the value-laden word “immense”.

Line 50: A more correct way of using uppercase letters and the acronym: “making scabies one of the most common neglected tropical diseases (2). Recently, the WHO has classified scabies as a Neglected Tropical Disease (NTD) on the .....”

Line 55: instead of “acute and secondary complications”, “acute symptoms and secondary complications” is more logical.

Line 73: Better “.... estimated scabies worldwide to range from .....”.

Line 84: A clear stated aim/objectives is still missing. Since you conclude things at the end you must have had some intentions with your writing up of the data!

Line 99: The acronym IACS has not been explained before in the bread text and should be made here and not in line 124.

Line 104: The REDcap questionnaire needs a reference!

Line 107: “..... exposed regions of the skin was done in a previous study from Solomon Islands (10). Briefly, the skin examination.......”

Line 115: A table with the IACS criteria would be helpful here. E.g. with the text from lines174-180, given together with the text from the paragraph in line 123-130.

Line 138: The standard protocol in Ghana needs a reference.

Line 144-145: Don’t introduce an acronym for the Mann-Whitney test. It is not needed. The relative risk (RR) of .....//. .... calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI). Level of significance?

Line 152: “...<18 years provided assent for their...”. A bit unclear. Assent from whom?

Line 164: * Other instead of “other”.

Line 190: The statement here is still wrong!! You cannot write “similar scabies severity”! You cannot judge similarity out of a p-value. You do not need MWU here, just the p-value.

Line 193: .... treated for scabies were free...... Remove the comma.

Line 195: remove (44/260). The numbers are in the tables and the percentage will suffice here.

Line 196-197: 119 participants...... The sentence is a bit elliptic. Should also begin with “One-hundred-and-nineteen” to be consequent with what is done in Line 231: Eighty three......

Line 221-222: Scabies predominantly affects ...... Already said, does not need to be repeated.

Line 227-229: Remove sentence since it is already said and you have not studied the occurrence of the medical complications.

Line 252: Better “This is similar to the epidemiology of other NTDs of the skin like Buruli ulcer (27,28) and Yaws (29).”.

Line 257: Better “Treatment options for scabies in Ghana include......”

Line 303: Do you mean the prevalence of secondary infected scabies? Unclear sentence.

Line 325: Better “The examined students come from .......”

Line 328-331: Give these sentences a heading of its own, “Conclusion”

__________________________________________

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

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

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: Please, see comments under Methods!

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

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

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: Please, see comments under Methods!

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

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

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: Please, see comments under Methods!

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (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: Please, see comments under Methods!

Reviewer #2: I am satisified the comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: Well done – a much improved manuscript – minor comments below

Abstract

- Specify study design - cross sectional study to assess prevalence

- tighten paragraph on methods line 11-18 – could be shortened to 1-2 sentences. (important to mention skin assessment and IACS criteria here but less other details required)

- specify timing of treatment (recent treatment for scabies?) / exposure (how many weeks? (or could use “recent”) – may be easier to say “97% of participants reported a recent scabies contact”

- temper the conclusion re MDA – this study doesn’t demonstrate anything about efficacy of MDA – perhaps “Alternative strategies such as MDA may be required to contain outbreaks in such settings” or something regarding measuring efficacy

- revise sentence on MDA in Author’s summary section (as per comment above)

Methods

- as per comment in abstract – specify type of study (?prospective cross-sectional)

Results

- quantivy “much less” line 194 ?comparison done

Discussion

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

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

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, PLOS recommends that you deposit 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. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008902.r005

Decision Letter 2

Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr, Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

17 Aug 2020

Dear Dr Amoako,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A scabies outbreak in the North East Region of Ghana: the necessity for prompt intervention" 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.

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,

Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

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: See below.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: no concerns

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

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: See below.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Results

- would be useful to include comparison of diagnostic classification between treated and non-treated groups - it looks like there is a difference between those with B3 and B1 diagnoses respectively (is this statistically significant?)

- if significant, this raises whether those with B3 diagnoses in the treated group may have resolving scabies (rather than re-infection) - worth including in the discussion as below

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

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: See below.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Discussion

- line 275 - although resolution of symptoms may take up to 4 weeks (https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMcp052784)

- line 280 - revise this statement to consider limitations of timing of review post intervention

- perhaps something along the lines of:

"It is possible that some previously treated patients with an IACS classification of B3 may have resolving scabies rather than re-infection; the lower prevalence of burrows in the treated group compared with those not treated would support this possibility. However, given the timing of reassessment >2-3 weeks after, resolution of symptoms in the majority of treated patients would be expected (reference from benzoate trial by chisodow - https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/6/08-052308/en/)

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

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: See below.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: no concerns - minor revisions

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

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: Unfortunately, there are still a lot to be criticized even after the second revision. My recommendation is that you re-write the paper and then resubmit it. An analysis of the scabies outbreak in Ghana is of public health interest but needs a more stringent presentation.

Some suggestions:

The Abstract needs to be rewritten, preferably after the bread text has been finished.

Lines 7-8: Is “we” = “a medical team” = “an assessment team”.

According to the text in lines 8-11 your methodology seems to be both quantitative (prevalence data and impact of earlier treatment) and qualitative ( ..”assess the practicality of using IACS....”).

Line 13: “...a prospective cross sectional study..”. The designation is not according to correct use of epidemiological concepts.

Line 50-51: “....making scabies one of the most common neglected tropical diseases”. Remove “neglected”.

Line 52: For syntactic reasons remove “on the basis of emerging evidence //... mass drug administration (MDA) and”.

Line 63: S. pyogenes instead of Streptococcus pyogenes, which is already introduced in line 61.

Line 71: remove “described as a disease of poverty and overcrowding and has been”.

Line 74-76. The sentence is too elliptic.

Line 84-89. Be more clear and precise about the aims and objectives. You are presenting prevalence data from a scabies outbreak, essentially a descriptive approach. Then you are comparing groups by age, sex, occupation, earlier treatment and existence of impetigo. This is the quantitative approach. But you are also judging whether IACS was a feasible tool, a qualitative approach.

Line 91: please see comment on line 13.

Line 95: The acronym SHS is not needed.

Line 98. The assessment team needs to be better presented. Is it the same as “we”, “the medical team” etc.?

Line 101. The acronym IACS is already introduced in line 85.

Line 103: What was randomly selected? Schools, classes, students?

Line 104: How many communities should be stated here and not just later in the text.

Line 107: The The REDCap reference leads –undated- to a Dutch website, but not to the questionnaire that has been used. A web-based program, that structures your data, is OK, but it does not tell us about how you constructed your questionnaire. The reader must be able to follow an ‘audit trail’ to make up her/his mind of the trustworthiness of the study.

It is of interest to know how many independent variables were used for the analysis.

Results: Use integers for the percentages, but consequently, throughout the entire bread text. Likewise numbers <10 are usually rendered by letters.

Line 165: “2018 IACS criteria”. Why 2018 here and not in the beginning?

Line 169: “crusted scabies” has not been mentioned before.

Line 183: Better to write ‘There was no statistically significant difference in the severity of scabies between the participants, who were treated by ? in the past months and the untreated participants (p=0.068).

Line 185: Remove “Impetigo seemed less common .....”. According to your testing, it was not less common! Why are you doing the statistical testing?

Discussion: Must be shortened and more focussed. There are too many repeats. The first sentence could be left out.

Discuss your findings and compare them to other prevalence studies, but don’t write too much about other treatments. It goes too far and beyond the scope of your study.

Line 220 -222 could be left out.

Line 223. CI for RR of impetigo...? . “...... implying .//..without scabies” could be left out.

Line 238: ..: “this will be important..... That sentence could be left out.

Line 280-281: The sentence is a bit cryptic.

Line 290. The acronym MDA is already presented in line 53.

Line 298: The word “tremendously” is too emotional to use in a scientific text.

Line 311: This sentence belongs to the Introduction and the Method sections.

Line 322: Remove “useful” and let the reader decide whether they are useful or not. The data could form a basis for future research.

References:

If a website is referred to, date for your reading it is needed. E.g. Ref 22.

Reviewer #2: I am satisfied the authors have made the requested amendments.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the reviewed manuscript - just 2 minor comments regarding assessment in the treated population as outlined above

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

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

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, PLOS recommends that you deposit 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. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008902.r007

Decision Letter 3

Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr, Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

3 Oct 2020

Dear Dr Amoako,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A scabies outbreak in the North East Region of Ghana: the necessity for prompt intervention" 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.

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,

Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: no concerns

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: no concernsv

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: no concerns

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

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 concerns

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

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: The manuscript has benefitted from the revisions, but I still have some comments:

Line 84: “assess the practicality” implies a scientific approach. Your assessment, however, seems to be based on the subjective judgements by the team members.

Line 106: The REDCap mobile app is not wellknown enough to be presented like that. I strongly recommend that the questionnaire is added as a Supplementary file to the manuscript.

Line 226: “MDA” is mentioned for the first time in the bread text and therefore has to be explained, i.e. “ mass drug administration (MDA)”.

Reviewer #2: I believe the authors have responded reasonably to the comments from the peer reviewers

Reviewer #3: I am satisfied with this revised version of the manuscript

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

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

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, PLOS recommends that you deposit 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. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008902.r009

Decision Letter 4

Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr, Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

19 Oct 2020

Dear Dr Amoako,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'A scabies outbreak in the North East Region of Ghana: the necessity for prompt intervention' 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,

Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (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 #2: The authors have responded appropriately

Reviewer #3: (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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Daniel K Yeoh

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008902.r010

Acceptance letter

Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr, Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

9 Dec 2020

Dear Dr Amoako,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "A scabies outbreak in the North East Region of Ghana: the necessity for prompt intervention," 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 Text. Scabies outbreak questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Scabies review comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to review comments R2 31 07 2020.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: reponse to reviewer comments R3.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer R4.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


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

    RESOURCES