Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2021 Jul 1;15(7):e0009567. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009567

Inequalities of visceral leishmaniasis case-fatality in Brazil: A multilevel modeling considering space, time, individual and contextual factors

Gláucia Cota 1,*, Astrid Christine Erber 2, Eva Schernhammer 2, Taynãna Cesar Simões 1
Editor: Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr3
PMCID: PMC8279375  PMID: 34197454

Abstract

Background

In Brazil, case-fatality from visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is high and characterized by wide differences between the various political-economic units, the federated units (FUs). This study was designed to investigate the association between factors at the both FU and individual levels with the risk of dying from VL, after analysing the temporal trend and the spatial dependency for VL case-fatality.

Methodology

The analysis was based on individual and aggregated data of the Reportable Disease Information System-SINAN (Brazilian Ministry of Health). The temporal and spatial distributions of the VL case-fatality between 2007 and 2017 (27 FUs as unit of analysis) were considered together with the individual characteristics and many other variables at the FU level (socioeconomic, demographic, access to health and epidemiological indicators) in a mixed effects models or multilevel modeling, assuming a binomial outcome distribution (death from VL).

Findings

A linear increasing temporal tendency (4%/year) for VL case-fatality was observed between 2007 and 2017. There was no similarity between the case-fatality rates of neighboring FUs (non-significant spatial term), although these rates were heterogeneous in this spatial scale of analysis. In addition to the known individual risk factors age, female gender, disease’s severity, bacterial co-infection and disease duration, low level schooling and unavailability of emergency beds and health professionals (the last two only in univariate analysis) were identified as possibly related to VL death risk. Lower VL incidence was also associated to VL case-fatality, suggesting that unfamiliarity with the disease may delay appropriate medical management: VL patients with fatal outcome were notified and had VL treatment started 6 and 3 days later, respectively, in relation to VL cured patients. Access to garbage collection, marker of social and economic development, seems to be protective against the risk of dying from VL. Part of the observed VL case-fatality variability in Brazil could not be explained by the studied variables, suggesting that factors linked to the intra FU environment may be involved.

Conclusions

This study aimed to identify epidemiological conditions and others related to access to the health system possibly linked to VL case-fatality, pointing out new prognostic determinants subject to intervention.

Author summary

Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a potentially fatal disease if not diagnosed and treated promptly. The VL case-fatality in Brazil is the highest rate in the world, reaching an average of 7% and in some regions, more than 15%. In the last years, some improvements in the VL approach have been reached in Brazil, such as the widespread use of rapid diagnostic tests and liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of selected high risk of death cases. Despite these interventions, increase in case-fatality rates were observed. In this study we explored the factors related to the case-fatality from VL using a mixed modeling that encompasses different intervening factors such as time/spatial trends and factors linked to the individual and socio-economic indicators. For the first time, factors unrelated to the patients’ clinical condition emerge as possibly related to VL case-fatality, such as low educational level, unavailability of emergency beds and health professionals, suggesting the harmful influence of conditions of limited access to health services. In addition to these significant effects observed in the spatial scale of analysis, this study points to the influence of contextual factors linked to each geopolitical unit. The determinants of death among VL cases may differ according to the region, which requires specific actions planned locally, including increased access to health system qualified to recognize and properly treat VL.

Introduction

Visceral leishmaniasis (VL), also known as kala-azar, is a neglected tropical disease endemic in more than 65 countries, caused by Leishmania donovani and L. infantum (synonym L. chagasi) and transmitted by sandflies. Of the 200000 to 400000 new cases annually of VL worldwide, more than 90% occur in six countries: India, Bangladesh, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia and Brazil [1]. Visceral leishmaniasis is a potentially fatal disease if not diagnosed and treated promptly [2]. VL case-fatality is one of the highest among all neglected infectious diseases, reaching 7% in Brazil, the highest rate in the world [3]. From the perspective of global disease burden, also in comparison with other neglected tropical diseases, leishmaniasis is the third infection with the highest number of accumulated deaths [4].

Substantial progress has been made in the elimination of VL in all world, mainly in Southeast Asia—Bangladesh, India, and Nepal [5]. In these three countries, significant progress has been noted in VL incidence due to efforts focused on vector control and improved surveillance to reduce transmission [6], but also in the reduction of mortality, probably due to the expansion of access to diagnosis and treatment [7]. Treatment options for VL have moved from a reliance on antimonial monotherapy to new alternatives, including different lipidic formulations of amphotericin B, the oral drug miltefosine, and injectable paromomycin, besides different combinations of drugs [8].

In the Americas region, the estimated annual incidence of VL is 4500 to 6800 cases; of these, 4200 to 6500 cases (>95%) occurred in Brazil alone [9], where the VL incidence is relatively stable. In contrast, the case-fatality is continuously rising in Brazil, despite the several advances implemented in the VL approach in recent years. In particular, two interventions were instituted with the aim of reducing the VL case-fatality without the expected impact: the incorporation of rapid tests for the diagnosis and the expansion of the criteria for liposomal amphotericin B use, a drug with a more favorable safety profile.

Although several studies have already identified factors associated with the risk of death from VL, the high case-fatality rates in some of the more developed Brazilian urban cities, remains an unresolved issue. Until now, most of the predictors of fatal outcome among VL patients confirmed in the literature are expression of the severity of the disease itself, more than true prognostic markers, including malnutrition, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, renal failure (creatinine >1.5 mg/dl), diarrhea, nasal bleeding, anemia, and oedema [1021]. In turn, intrinsic characteristics of the individual, such as age and HIV co-infection, in addition to other comorbidities, the relapsing course of the disease [22,23] and high parasite load [23,24], although useful in understanding the VL case-fatality phenomenon, are insufficient markers to guide an effective and preventive intervention of the fatal outcome.

In parallel, the current urban pattern of the disease represents a difficult and continuous challenge for VL control in Brazil. Leishmaniasis has strong links with poverty, due to poor housing conditions and deteriorated environmental sanitation, and with low income, gender imbalance, displacements, immunosuppression, and poor nutrition, among other determinants [25]. Traditionally, this link with poverty has been explained by the risk of acquiring the infection provided by the promiscuous proximity between vector reservoir and host, and also by the increased risk of illness development in individuals immunocompromised by malnutrition, comorbidities and co-infections [26]. However, other aspects need to be added to this analysis, such as the association between poverty and lack of access to timely diagnosis and treatment. Thus, the main hypothesis that guides this analysis is the influence of factors related to the socio-economic contextual conditions and access to the health system on the VL case-fatality. To achieve this goal, this study aims to investigate the association between factors at the both FU and individual levels and VL case-fatality, after analysing the temporal trend and the spatial dependency for VL case-fatality. The understanding of this macro determinants can guide public policies directed at decreasing VL case-fatality.

Methods

It is a population-based, ecological study addressing the temporal trend and spatial distribution of case-fatality for VL cases notified in Brazil from 2007 to 2017, followed by a multilevel analysis including individual and contextual factors related to the VL case-fatality.

Ethics statement

The study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of the Instituto René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz—Fiocruz (Approval number 3.331.474, CAAE 12048219.8.0000.5091) with exemption from individual consent as it is a secondary database analyzed after anonymization of personal information.

Source of data

The database sources are the aggregated and individual dataset of VL cases reported to the Brazilian health epidemiological surveillance system (DATASUS) http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?sim/cnv/obt10uf.def), the socioeconomic and demographic indicators provided by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?ibge/cnv/popuf.def) after the last Brazilian population census (2010), besides the basic health data available in two Brazilian health information systems, Indicators and Basic Data http://www2.datasus.gov.br/DATASUS/index.php?area=02 (IDB 2012) and the National Register of Health Establishments—CNES http://www2.datasus.gov.br/DATASUS/index.php?area=0204, accessed in August, 2019.

In Brazil, VL is a disease of compulsory notification, i. e., in the case of clinically suspected VL, health professionals must fill in a specific case notification form in the Reportable Disease Information System (SINAN). Initially, demographic and clinical manifestations (signs and symptoms) are added to the dataset. Later, additional information such as laboratorial exam results, date of beginning of treatment, initial drug used for treatment, drug used following failure of the initial therapy and outcome (cure or death from VL) are provided by epidemiological surveillance professionals in the municipalities. However, details on treatment-related toxicity, early interruption and sequential treatments are not included in the notification form, which prevents a deeper analysis of their influence on the evolution of cases. The individual variables extracted from the VL case notification form make up the variables at the individual level. Additionally, public domain epidemiological, socioeconomic and health system access indicators set for each administrative political unit in Brazil, the Federated Unit (FU), were also considered in the analysis. Individual variables and the demographic, socioeconomic, health access and epidemiological indicators explored in this analysis are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Potential risk factors for case-fatality from VL explored at individual level (variables extracted from the VL case notification form).

Variable Description
Variables generated from database
Age Difference between notification date and date of birth
Time between symptom onset and notification Difference between dates of the symptom onset and notification date. For records where the date of the symptom onset was equal to the date of notification or birth, the field was considered missing
Time between diagnosis and initiation of treatment Difference between dates of diagnosis and start of treatment. For records where the date of diagnosis was equal to the date of birth, the field was considered missing
Time between treatment initiation and death Difference between treatment start date and date of death. For records where the date of treatment initiation was later to the date of death, the field was considered missing
Demographic and clinical information present in the notification form
Gender (Female, male)
Race according to Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) (White, black, yellow, parda, indigenous)
Schooling Education level
Local of residence Rural or urban
VL case classification New VL case (primary), relapsing case, transfer
Diagnostic criterion Laboratory confirmed, clinical-epidemiological criteria
HIV co-infection Yes, no
Clinical manifestations Fever, weakness, splenomegaly, hepatomegaly, weight loss, bleeding, cough, jaundice (the presence or absence and the total sum of symptoms and signals were analyzed)
Parasitological confirmation of VL Leishmania presence in a direct exam or culture obtained from tissue, blood or bone marrow aspirate
Indirect immunofluorescence test (IFAT) Positive, negative

Table 2. Potential contextual risk factors for VL case-fatality explored at FU level (demographic, socioeconomic, health access and epidemiological indicators set for each Brazilian FU).

Variable Description
Socioeconomic and demographic variables
Gender proportion Number of men for each group of 100 women in the total FU population
Race proportion Percentage of self-reported non-white people in total FU population
Proportion of elderly Percentage of persons aged 60 years or over in total FU population
Proportion of children under 5 years Percentage of persons aged 5 years or less, in total FU population
Illiteracy rate Percentage of persons aged 15 or older, who cannot read and write at least one single ticket in the mother language in the total of the resident FU population, in the same age group
Urbanization level Proportion of total FU population living in urban areas
Population growth rate Percentage of annual average increase in population living in a given FU, during the period considered.
Life expectancy at birth Average number of years of life expected for a newborn, maintaining the mortality pattern
Child mortality Number of deaths of children under one year of age per thousand live births in the FU in the year considered
Average household income per capita Average household incomes per capita. Sum of monthly household income, in Real, divided by number of house’s residents in the FU
Water supply network
Percentage of resident FU population served by water supply network, with or without home plumbing

Access to sewage
Percentage of resident FU population with access to household connection to sewage system or septic tank
Garbage collection Proportion of the FU population served with garbage collection
GINI index Concentration index for household income distribution (per capita)
PIB per capita Gross domestic product divided by the FU inhabitants’ number
HDI Human development Index (2010)
Health care access variables
Number of medical doctors Number of active medical doctors, per thousand FU inhabitants
Health units Number of health units in FU
Total number of hospital beds Total number of hospital beds per FU
Number of emergency beds Number of emergency beds per thousand inhabitants in FU
Health expenditure Expenditure on actions and public health services per inhabitant
Family Health Program (FHP) Number of multidisciplinary teams working at the Family Health Program
Epidemiological variable
VL standardized incidence Age-standardized VL incidence rate

VL: visceral leishmaniasis FU: (Brazilian) federated unit

Population eligibility applied to the Brazilian VL dataset

The inclusion criteria in this study were: (i) the VL case notification for SINAN was performed between 2007 and 2017; (ii) the VL case is a person resident in Brazil; (iii) the VL diagnosis was considered confirmed; (vi) the outcome was known (death from VL or not was informed in the SINAN dataset).

Analysis strategy and statistical methods

The classical regression models presuppose independence among observations, which cannot be assumed analyzing information collected over time in individuals within spatial units such as FUs. Thus, the temporal and spatial analyzes were done a priori to verify these dependencies in order to define the best strategy of incorporating these terms in the subsequent analyzes.

Temporal analysis

The VL case-fatality dependence on time was evaluated considering the year of notification the unit of analysis, from 2007 to 2017. A smoothing function was used in the year variable, through a generalized additive model (GAM), to verify the dependence among observations over time, to recognize the functional behavior of the “year” variable and to assist in building the model including both individual and contextual data. In this model, the response variable was the number of deaths in year i with Poisson distribution, offset term the number of confirmed VL cases in year i, and a spline function in the continuous time variable [27,28].

Spatial analysis

To assess dependence on space, the Brazilian FUs were taken as units of analysis. In this analysis, the case-fatality was estimated for each FU as the number of deaths caused by VL in the period, divided by the number of confirmed VL cases, in that FU, multiplied by 100. An ecological regression model or spatial model was used under a Bayesian approach through hierarchical models, using the conditional intrinsic Gaussian autoregressive model (CAR model) [2931]. In this model we evaluate the contribution of two random terms to each FU, a spatially structured–uf.nu term (considering spatial correlation between the FUs) and a non-spatially structured–uf.theta term, which considers the influence of possible factors at the FU level that have not been measured or observed–random intercept [32]. The number of deaths from VL followed a Poisson probability distribution. In order to consider the different number of confirmed VL cases in each FU and its different age distributions, and to estimate the VL case-fatality, the term offset (the number of VL cases which would be observed if age distribution were equal to the standard population) was added to the modeling, after standardization by direct method, based on the Brazilian population in 2010. The calculated number of VL cases that would be observed if age distribution were equal to the standard population, at each FU, were used in the term offset. The inference on the parameters and hyperparameters were approximated by the deterministic procedure Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations (INLA) [33]. In sequence, the appropriateness was verified by analyzing the significance of the hyperparameters, through the posterior probability distribution, besides comparing the number of deaths observed with the number of deaths estimated by the model through the map.

Multilevel analysis

Considering the main hypothesis to be investigated in this study, that variables related to the context of the Brazilian FUs can influence the risk of dying among VL cases, in addition to the individual factors, fixed and random effects of the factors of interest were assessed using mixed or multilevel effects models (GLMM).

Based on both the result of CAR model, where there was a significant unstructured term (random intercept), and on the result of GAM model, where there was a linear effect of time, all adjusted mixed models built, univariate and multiple, considered these two terms. The mixed modeling was built assuming that the distribution of the outcome variable death by VL had the binomial probability distribution and using the logit link function. As an exploratory analysis prior to the modeling process, the variables of interest were described as proportions, median and 25–75% interquartile range (IQR25-75%). The associations between each variable with outcome (death from VL) and among the explanatory variables—as a previous strategy for detecting possible multicollinearity in multiple models, were explored by parametric or non-parametric hypothesis tests (tests for proportions—chi-square test; test of means or medians—t-test or Wilcoxon, analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis, and correlation coefficients—Pearson and Spearman, depending on the data’s distribution pattern). When a high correlation between two explanatory variables (> 85%) was detected, those with the lowest p value in the univariate model were selected for the multiple models [34].

As the first step in the modeling process, a null model was adjusted (only with random intercept). Based on this model, the proportion of variance in VL case-fatality due to intra-FU correlation was estimated. In addition to it, a linear time term was inserted as a fixed effect and it was taken as the basic model. In the next step, the variables measured at the FU’s level and, subsequently, those at the individual level were tested individually, being added to that basic model (random intercept + temporal term + variable).

In the univariate models, the association between each variable and outcome (death from VL) was verified. Simultaneously, for the continuous explanatory variables, the functional form of this relationship was assessed using smoothing functions (thin plate regression spline) through generalized additive mixed modeling–GAMM. Based on GAMM, a graphical (visual) analysis was performed in order to allow the identification of an association between an explanatory and an outcome variable (binomial), in addition to inferring in which ranges of values ​​this association is significant, which can be declared when ranges of values of the curve do not belong to the estimated confidence interval and contain included zero value. If the association is significant, we can also infer whether it is positive or negative. This strategy was used to make categorizations, or to adjust univariate linear models, for intervals in which the functional form was linear, using a subset of the database. In univariate analysis, variables at the individual and at the FU level were considered candidates to the multiple modeling at the 20% significance level. Finally, the inclusion of variables whose effects were linear or categorized was tested, with fixed coefficients. Thus, the significant variables were introduced into the basic model using a manual step-by-step forward selection procedure in decreasing order of significance. The exclusions due collinearity were made pair by pair, in case of two related variables are together in the same model. All excluded variables were retested, one by one, in the final model. The contribution of each added variable was tested by testing the likelihood ratio between nested models (when one model contains all the terms of the other, and at least one additional term). After that, interactions between the significant predictor terms were tested. Finally, in order to explain part of the variability among the FUs, random coefficients terms were tested to assess the FUs impact on the contextual variables that remained in the multiple analysis model, the same way as those that did not enter in the multiple model, as they could become significant in the presence of other variables. The individual significance of each variable in the best fitted model was considered at 5%, and odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were estimated. All the analyses were performed using the statistical software R (packages mgcv, INLA, lme4, ggplot2) [35] and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 24. The maps were built using the free and open source R software (https://www.R-project.org/.) based on shapefiles obtained from Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística-IBGE) (https://portaldemapas.ibge.gov.br/portal.php#homepage).

Results

From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2017, 102220 suspected cases of VL were reported in Brazil in 27 Federated Units. Of this total, 41,204 (40.3%) cases were confirmed. The national average VL incidence in the 11 year-period was 1.9 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, ranging from 1.69 to 2.16/100,000 inhabitants. Of the confirmed cases, 32723 (79%) have a clinical evolution registered in SINAN, either “cure” or “death”, the latter classified as “from VL” or “from other causes”. The annual distribution of confirmed cases, number of deaths, VL incidence and case-fatality is presented in Table 3 and Fig 1a. On average, 2974 cases/year were confirmed, with a standard deviation (SD) of 313 cases. There was the average of 249 ± 39 death/year and the VL case-fatality ranged from 6.7 to 10.0%, with an average of 8.4% (± 1.1). The highest levels of case-fatality were observed in 2015 (10.0%) followed by 2016 (9.9%).

Table 3. Number of visceral leishmaniasis cases, deaths, incidence and case-fatality, Brazil, 2007–2017.

Variables YEAR OF NOTIFICATION Total
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
VL incidence (by 100,000 inhabitants) 1.89 2.11 2.04 1.95 2.14 1.69 1.74 1.86 1.76 1.69 2.16 1.91
VL confirmed cases 3565 3991 3894 3704 4107 3269 3472 3733 3558 3455 4456 41204
Clinical outcome known 2846 3093 3000 3031 3469 2639 2706 2779 2800 2754 3606 32723
Death from VL 192 221 236 233 266 217 232 248 280 272 338 2735
Case-fatality (%) 6.75 7.15 7.87 7.69 7.67 8.22 8.57 8.92 10.00 9.88 9.37 8.36

VL: visceral leishmaniasis

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Observed annual distribution of case-fatality rate (a), and temporal effect estimated by generalized additive model (b).

Temporal analysis

The temporal effect estimated by the generalized additive model is shown in Fig 1. In Brazil between 2007 and 2017, the smoothing function of the GAM model showed a linear and increasing tendency for case-fatality over time. That linear effect was estimated through a Generalized Linear Model, where e0.036059 = 1.04, or an annual average case-fatality increases of 4% (CI95%: 2.5–4.9%). This linear effect of time was added to the mixed model later.

Spatial analysis

Fig 2 (left) shows the distribution of deaths observed among the FUs, while Fig 2 (right) shows the spatial distribution of case-fatality among them. The distribution of case-fatality is heterogeneous in Brazil, with higher rates in the north and south, in FUs with the lowest VL incidence (Fig 2 and S1 and S2 Tables). The spatial effect of VL case-fatality was evaluated based on the spatial model (CAR) analysis, a significant unstructured effect or random intercept—uf.theta (Fig 3B) was observed, because the zero value for variance of this term (hyperparameter) has a low probability of occurrence (small amount of data under the curve) in its a posteriori distribution, differently from the spatially structured term—uf.nu (Fig 3A). This finding reveals that although there is no similarity between neighboring FUs in terms of case-fatality, the presence of contextual variables at the level of each FU influencing VL case-fatality rate but not directly observed (random intercept effect of the FU). The model presented a good data-fit considering the significant variability captured and the similarity of deaths observed and predicted (Fig 3c and 3d). Based on this result, we included FU-level random intercepts in our multi-level models of VL case-fatality described in the following section.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Spatial distribution VL deaths (left) and case-fatality in the FUs (right), Brazil, 2007–2017. The maps were built using the free and open source R software (https://www.R-project.org/.) based on shapefiles obtained from Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística-IBGE) (https://portaldemapas.ibge.gov.br/portal.php#homepage).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Posteriori distributions of the structured spatial term–uf.nu (a) and the unstructured spatial term—uf.theta (b) hyperparameters. Observed deaths (c) and predicted deaths (d) fitted by CAR model, Brazil, 2007–2017. The maps were built using the free and open source R software (https://www.R-project.org/.) based on shapefiles obtained from Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística-IBGE) (https://portaldemapas.ibge.gov.br/portal.php#homepage).

Multilevel analysis

The analysis of the individual notification dataset consisting of the total of 32723 VL cases reveals a predominance of men (63.8%) and a median age of 16 years (IQR25-75% 2–39 years). The HIV co-infection rate was 7.7%, an information available in 75% of the notified cases (25% of missing data). After the exclusion of cases reported as death from other causes, VL cases with outcome defined as cure or death from VL totaled 31856 cases. In the 11-year study period, 2735 patients died from VL (case-fatality of 8.4%).

From a clinical perspective, several differences were observed between fatal and non-fatal VL cases, significance defined by a p value of 0.05. The medians of age and the interval from the onset of symptoms to VL treatment among patients with fatal evolution were 39 (IQR25-75% 7–58) years and 33 (IQR25-75% 16–76) days, significantly different from those observed for VL cured group: 13 (IQR25-75% 2–36) years and 30 (IQR25-75% 15–59) days, respectively. Concerning to the diagnostic approach, fatal VL cases had a higher percentage of diagnostic confirmation by parasitological test (36% versus 31%, p<0.001). It was also observed a trend in favor of a lower rate of IFAT serological testing (49% versus 51%, p = 0.07) among fatal VL cases and no difference for other serological tests use between the two groups (43% for both fatal and cured VL cases).

Multicollinearity analysis were performed a priori to find associations between explanatory variables. Among the variables at the individual level, time between the first symptom and the VL notification and time from VL notification to treatment were highly correlated (r = 0.985). In the same way, there was high correlation among several contextual variables (Fig 4), such as water access and garbage collection, correlated to many other variables. Variables with Spearman correlation coefficients above 85% were not included together in the multiple models, only those with greater associations with the outcome VL case-fatality.

Fig 4. Correlation matrix for contextual variables.

Fig 4

The standard error estimation in the null model (random intercept) was 0.31 for the random effect at the level of FUs and 1.00 for the residuals (result not shown), resulting in an intra-FU VL case-fatality correlation of 23.7% (0.31 / (1.00 + 0.31)). The presence of this correlation confirms the need to include FU conglomeration in the multilevel model. This intra-FU correlation estimates the proportion of variance of the outcome that occurs within the FU’s compared to the total dataset variability.

The mixed univariate models were used to assess the significance of each variable independently, in the presence of the temporal term and the random intercept at the FU level.

We simultaneously evaluated the functional form of continuous variables, using smoothing functions in univariate GAMM models. In Fig 5, red lines represent a null effect, meaning that if the line crosses the confidence interval, the effect is null in that region. Green lines represent the setpoints defined for the original variable. Fig 5a shows that the variable time from the first VL symptom to notification had a positive and approximately linear association with VL case-fatality up to 200 days, thus, the variable was categorized at this point and the effect on the VL outcome estimated in Table 4. Assuming the estimated effect as the effect of one variable in addition to the spatial random intercept and temporal term, VL cases notified after 200 days of the onset of symptoms have a chance of death 1,63 times the chance of those VL cases notified before 200 days of symptoms. The GAMM model indicated a risk related to age over 20 years and this variable was dichotomized (<20 years; > = 20 years) (Fig 5b). The estimated crude effect shows a risk of patients over 20 years three times the risk of death of patients under 20 years (Table 4). Race, local of residence (rural or urban) and VL case classification (primary or relapse) were not associated with outcome. The time between VL symptoms onset and treatment was significantly related to case-fatality up to 500 days (Fig 5c), above this value, the confidence interval was very wide, leading to inaccuracy in the estimates, thus, the effect was estimated up to this setpoint (Table 4) and values above this point were discarded. Considering a non-linear association between standardized VL incidence and VL case-fatality (Fig 5d), this variable was categorized as following: up to 60, 60 to 160, and above 160 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. Concerning to VL incidence, VL cases from FU with less than 60 VL cases/100,000 inhabitants had more risk of fatal outcome compared to VL cases from FU with more than 160 cases/100,000 inhabitants.

Fig 5. Effect of continuous variables on VL case-fatality (GAMM models).

Fig 5

Table 4. Association between contextual/individual factors and VL case-fatality in univariate analysis (Generalized linear mixed models).

Cure (%) Death (%) Univariate analysis
n = 29221 n = 2735 OR (95% CI)
Number of VL cases/year, mean (SD) 3140 (271) 249 (37.5) 1.038 1.025–1.051)
Age
    < 20 years (base) 16506 (51.8) 820 (2.6) -
    > = 20 years 12600 (39.6) 1911 (6.0) 3.01 (2.76–3.28)
Gender
    Female (base) 10656 (33.5) 926 (2.9) -
    Male 18450 (58.0) 1805 (5.7) 1.10 (1.01–1.20)
Race
    White (base) 4632 (15.8) 430 (1.5) 0.98 (0.87–1.10)
    Non-white 22171 (75.7) 2032 (6.9)
Local of residence
    Urban/peri-urban (base) 22092 (71.3) 2063 (6.7) 0.98 (0.89–1.09)
    Rural 6244 (20.1) 569 (1.8)
VL case classification
    Primary (base) 26744 (86.3) 2481 (8.0) 0.94 (0.79–1.12)
    Relapsing/transfer 1599 (5.2) 150 (0.5)
Bacterial co-infection
    No (base) 20545 (70.7) 1398 (4.8) -
    Yes 6050 (20.8) 1078 (3.7) 2.51 (2.31–2.73)
HIV co-infection
    No (base) 19971 (83.3) 1719 (7.2) -
    Yes 1999 (8.3) 279 (1.2) 1.52 (1.33–1.74)
Schooling
    Up to elementary school (base) 668 (7.0) 164 (1.7) -
    Above elementary level 7868 (82.7) 812 (8.5) 0.44 (0.36–0.53)
Number of VL symptoms (%)
Up to 3 symptoms (base) 6986 (21.9) 402 (1.2) -
    4–6 symptoms 18015 (56.5) 1440 (4.5) 1.41 (1.25–1.58)
     = /> 7 symptoms 4105 (12.8) 889 (2.7) 3.89 (3.43–4.41)
Interval between symptoms onset and VL reporting
     = /> 200 days (base) 816 (2.7) 123 (0.4) -
    < 200 days 26460 (88.7) 2423 (8.1) 0.64 (052–0,77)
Interval between symptoms onset and VL treatment (limited to 500 days), median days (IQR 25–75%) #1 30 (15–58) 33 (16–73.3) 1.003 (1.001–1.004)
Parasitological confirmation (%)
    Negative (base) 2606 (8.3) 203 (0.64) -
    Positive 9343 (29.7) 982 (3.1) 1.37 (1.17–1.61)
    Not performed 16819 (53.5) 1490 (4.7) 1,19 (1.02–1.39)
Proportion of children under 5 years, % (IQR 25–75%)* 7.6 (7.5–8.9) 7.6 (6.5–8.2) 0.73 (0.66–0.81)
Proportion of elderly, % (IQR 25–75%)* 10.4 (8.6–10.8) 10.6 (8.6–11.6) 1.16 (1.09–1.24)
Gender proportion (IQR 25–75%)* § 96.9 (95.1–99.3) 96.9 (95.1–98.4) 0.95 (0.92–0.98)
Standardized VL incidence (VL cases/100,000 inhabitants)*
    <60 (base) 14990 (47.1) 1502 (4.7) -
    60–160 10788 (33.9) 1043 (3.3) 0.89 (0.68–1.18)
    >160 3328 (10.4) 186 (0.6) 0.61 (0.39–0.94)
Access to garbage collection (limited to access above 93%) (IQR 25–75%) #2 98.2 (98.2–98.2) 98.2 (98.2–98.2) 0.54 (0.36–0.81)
Water supply access* % (IQR 25–75%) 78.4 (74.2–85.7) 78.3 (74.2–86.7) 1.02 (1.01–1.03)
Access to sewage (limited to 29%) (IQR 25–75%) #3 28.2 (25.1–28.2) 28.2 (25.1–28.7) 1.23 (1.14–1.33)
Health expenditure (reais per capita)*
    <550 (base) 14289 (44.9) 1315 (4.1) -
    550–700 7547 (23.7) 874 (2.7) 1.14 (0.89–1.47)
    > 700 7270 (22.8) 542 (1.7) 0.95 (0.71–1.28)
Number of medical doctors/1000 inhabitants*
     = < 1.5 (base) 6950 (21.8) 792 (2.5) -
    >1.5 22156 (69.6) 1939 (6.1) 0.74 (0.56–0.97)
Hospital beds/FU*, median (IQR 25–75%) 2.2 (2.1–2.3) 2.2 (2.1–2.3) 2.68 (1.93–3.71)
Number of FHP teams/FU* #4
    < = 200 (base) 9481 (43.2) 871 (3.9) -
    200–600 10663 (48.6) 917 (4.2) 0.67 (0.54–0.82)
Health units/FU*, median (IQR 25–75%) 5988 (3243–12802) 6516 (3243–28244) 1.00 (0.09–1.00)
Urbanization level*, % (IQR 25–75%) 75.4 (72.1–85.3) 76.6 (72.1–85.3) 1.02 (1.01–1.03)
Child mortality over 21%* (IQR 25–75%) 17.2 (16.2–21.0) 17.0 (16.2–20.7) 0.41 (0.08–2.22)
Life expectance at birth*, years (IQR 25–75%) 71.9 (69.9–74.1) 72.4 (69.9–75.5) 1.06 (1.01–1.12)
GINI∞ index* (IQR 25–75%) 0.62 (0.58–0.63) 0.61 (0.56–0.63) 0.01 (0.00–0.21)

VL: visceral leishmaniasis FU: (Brazilian) federated unit OR: odds ratio CI95% 95% confidence interval IQR25-75%: 25–75% interquartile range SD: stand deviation § number of men for 100 women in the total FU population ∞ concentration index for household income distribution per capita * Indicator refers to the FU where VL cases were reported FHP: Family Health Program #1 included VL cases with time between symptoms onset and VL treatment lower than 500 days, above this value, the confidence interval was very wide, leading to inaccuracy in the estimates #2 included VL cases reported by FU with garbage collection rate higher 86% #3 included VL cases reported by FU with access to sewage up to 29% #4 included VL cases reported by FU with FHP teams up to 600.

On the other hand, the number of emergency beds/100,000 inhabitants was significantly associated to VL case-fatality up to 1,000 beds/100,000 inhabitants (Fig 5e). The effect was estimated up to this setpoint (Table 4) and an inverse association was confirmed: the greater the number of emergency beds, the lower the VL case-fatality (Fig 5e). Inversely, the absolute number of hospital beds exhibited a linear and positive association with VL case-fatality (not shown). The number of multi-professional teams working at Family Health Program (FHP) was inversely related to the risk of dying from VL, for the interval of 200 to 600 FHP teams/FU. Thus, this variable was evaluated up to the limit of 600 FHP teams/FU, dichotomized at < = 200 and> 200 FHP teams/FU (Fig 5f). Access to sewage, a variable that was truncated to 29%, exhibited a positive effect of 1.23 (1.14–1.33) on VL case-fatality. In Fig 5h, which represents the variable garbage collection, the analysis was made for values greater than 93% and the effect was protective on VL case-fatality was 0.54 (0.36–0.81). For the number of medical doctors, a progressive effect up to 1.5 per 1,000 inhabitants could be observed, stabilized afterwards (Fig 5i). This variable has been dichotomized and a protective effect against VL case-fatality was confirmed for more than 1.5 medical doctors/1,000 inhabitants. Concerning to the health expenditure, the GAMM models revealed three ranges of values with different associations with the outcome, which guided discretization (Fig 5j). However, no significant association could be confirmed in univariate analysis (Table 4). Variables of the epidemiological context were also explored. Child mortality, analyzed for mortality rates higher 21%, had an apparent inverse effect on VL case-fatality (Fig 5k), but it was no demonstrated in the simple mixed model (Table 4). The proportion of elderly people, life expectancy and degree of urbanization were linear and directly associated to VL case-fatality. In turn, sex ratio, the proportion of children under 5 years and GINI index had an inverse linear effect on VL case-fatality. Despite a linear association with VL case-fatality (Fig 5l), no association could be confirmed between the total number of heath care units and VL outcome. The average household income and the gross domestic product, both per capita, in addition to HDI, sewage and water access, illiteracy and race proportions, population grow rate were not associated with VL case-fatality. Variables highly related to others of the same group (demographic or health care access) and not associated to outcome were not shown in the Table 4.

Considering the variation of the effect of variables at the individual level on VL case-fatality among FUs, the significance of random slopes for these variables was tested but no association was identified. The variables that remained significant simultaneously at the 5% level, resulting in the best fitted model, are presented in Table 5, where the adjusted OR and 95% confidence intervals are shown. Significant interaction between sex and age variables have confirmed a high risk of the stratum men over 20 years, in which the risk of death increases 1.744 times.

Table 5. Final multiple modeling for factors related to VL case-fatality.

Variable OR (CI 95%)
Year of VL reporting 1.034 (1.010–1.059)
Interval between symptoms onset and VL reporting < 200 days 0.745 (0.554–1.059)
Age = /> 20 years 3.471 (2.403–5.014)
Number of VL symptoms 4–6 1.764 (1.343 2.316)
Number of VL symptoms = />7 4.199 (3.135–5.623)
Schooling above elementary level 0.561 (0.455–0.692)
Male gender 0.425 (0.257–0.702)
Bacterial co-infection 1.870 (1.595–2.193)
Age above 20 years and male gender 1.744 (1.025–2.970)

Fig 6A shows the estimated error for the random effect of the intercept in the basic model (without covariables). FUs with above-expected case-fatality (Piaui/PI and Minas Gerais/MG) and FUs with below-expected case-fatality (Tocantins/TO, Pará/PA, Rio Grande do Norte/RN, Bahia/BA, Ceará/CE) were identified. For all FU’s excepted RN, the difference in case-fatality is explained by the variables that remained in the final multiple model. For RN, even after the model adjustment by covariates, the VL case-fatality remained lower than expected (Fig 6B), which may be related to local conditions on a spatial scale lower than that used in this analysis, therefore not measured.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Residual effect of VL case-fatality for each Brazilian FU, according to the basic model (left) and model adjusted by covariates (right).

Discussion

The main observation of this study was the confirmation of a linear increase in the VL case-fatality in Brazil despite several attempts to improve the VL diagnostic and therapeutic approach in recent years. The lack of the expected impact after incorporating of rapid tests and liposomal amphotericin B, requires two reflections: the first, on the real spreading of these interventions in a country of continental extension and, the second, on the role of delay in diagnosis and the toxicity caused by antimony derivatives in the VL case-fatality in Brazil. In addition to these two points, a third factor must be considered to understand the Brazilian context, the change in VL transmission pattern [36], observed since 1980’s. The geographical distribution of VL has expanded with increasing urbanization. Originally an endemic disease of rural areas and focal occurrence, mainly in the Northeast region of Brazil, VL is continuously expanding to non-endemic areas, towards the urban centers mainly in the southeast region of the country [37].

Immunochromatographic tests based on K39 antigen (rK39-ICT) represented major progress in VL worldwide in the last years. Endowed with good performance and ease of execution, in theory, rK39-ICT should guarantee the desired speed for VL diagnosis. The ease of execution without sophisticated laboratory resources combined with high performance should bring access to diagnosis to the most remote areas, allowing the immediate initiation of specific therapy. Late diagnosis has been identified in the literature as a factor directly related to death from VL [3840]. Since VL is a fatal disease if left untreated, the progressive worsening of the clinical condition towards death seems to be an undeniable paradigm. The question that remains unresolved, however, is which, and to what extent, an intervention on a factor associated with the risk of dying has impact on the outcome of a multifactorial disease such as VL. Several factors are related to the delay in diagnosis, but essentially involve the ability of the health care system to recognize the disease and the availability of diagnostic resources. In this sense, both, trained health professionals and the availability of accurate tests are essential conditions for a timely diagnosis. After diagnosis, the stratification of clinical severity and both, specific and supportive treatment, are essential steps. The decentralized diagnosis strategy could, paradoxically, bring VL into the context of low complexity health unit, which may be insufficient for the VL approach except if an efficient flow of referral cases according to severity exists.

In 2009, the first rK39-ICT was incorporated into the Brazilian Leishmaniasis Control Program as an alternative to immunofluorescence antibody test (IFAT) for the diagnosis of VL. However, the IFAT, even with its performance and operational limitations, was still the most widely used serological diagnostic test in Brazil until 2013, when 46% (1586/3470) of VL cases were confirmed using this test. In the same year, 1881 (54%) patients did not undergo any serological examination, and 1509 (43%) VL patients underwent bone marrow parasitological examination during investigation. After 2014, although IFAT was used in the same 46% of confirmed VL cases, according to the Brazilian diseases reporting system (SINAN), another serological test, assumed as a rapid test, started to be performed in more than 50% of VL cases. No change in the proportion of cases with VL laboratory confirmation, around 87%, stable between 2007 and 2017. However, a progressive reduction in the use of parasitological examination was observed in the period, starting from 51% in 2007 to 34% of VL cases in 2017. These data confirm a progressive incorporation of rapid tests for VL in Brazil, apparently replacing the parasitological exam. However, around 50% of confirmed VL cases tested still represents an indicator of underutilization of this tool, designed as the initial screening for every suspected VL case. It is important to note the association between death and VL diagnosis confirmed by parasitological test. Although it may indicate a subgroup of more severe patients, with other alternative diagnoses requiring invasive investigation, this observation may also indicate the use of a time-consuming diagnostic approach, in comparison to serological tests, which may have reflected in the delay in confirming the VL diagnosis and beginning of treatment. This finding reinforces the failure of the VL rapid tests distribution strategy in Brazil, probably due to implementation planning problems and not to the ineffectiveness of the intervention. Several factors could explain this observation, such as the long periods of unavailability of tests, purchase of commercial tests requiring serum and non-digital capillary blood for some periods and finally, a centralized tests distribution strategy, based in the reference laboratories in the FU, and not in primary health care units.

Another disappointing finding is the lack of impact on VL case-fatality of the progressive availability of liposomal amphotericin B in Brazil. Treatment toxicity is classically hypothesized as one of the causes of death in VL. Although all drugs available for leishmaniasis treatment imply some kind of toxicity, antimony derivatives are considered the drug with the greatest potential to cause serious adverse events, including a fatal one, related to pancreatitis and occasionally severe cardiotoxicity, manifested by prolongation of QTc interval, ventricular tachycardia, Torsade’s Pointes, ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest. In India, antimony induced cardiotoxicities have been reported in about 10% patients, and mortality attributed to drug related cardiotoxicity is estimated in 5.9% [41,42]. An important historical landmark in relation to changes in the recommendations for the treatment of VL in Brazil was 2010, when the World Health Organization (WHO) established an agreement with the manufacturer Gilead Sciences to ensure a significant reduction in the price of liposomal amphotericin B in countries where VL is endemic. After this agreement, liposomal amphotericin B was incorporated into the Public Health System in Brazil. From 2007 to 2010, less than 10% of the VL cases were treated with liposomal amphotericin B, a percentage that reached 12% in 2011, with a progressive increase until the end of the period, reaching 30% in 2017. In parallel, the percentage of cases treated with meglumine antimoniate was from 74.5% in 2007 to 47% in 2017.

Despite a significant increase from 10 to 30%, it is a percentage that demonstrates a still sub-optimal use of liposomal amphoteric B in Brazil, since solely the VL cases among individuals over 50 years old would represent 30% of treatments. The explanation for this use in a small proportion of the cases is found in the drug distribution strategy adopted by the Ministry of Health, based on a strict clinical criterion slowly expanded. According to the 2006 guide [43], access to liposomal amphotericin B was guaranteed only for patients who have experienced therapeutic failure or toxicity to amphotericin B deoxycholate, kidney transplant recipients or patients with heart or renal failure. From 2011 [44], patients over 50 years, kidney, pregnant women; heart and liver transplant recipients were included in the amphotericin B use criteria. And finally, from September 2013, the criteria were expanded including children up to 1 year and adults over 50 years; patients with higher clinical-laboratorial severity scores; renal, liver or cardiac failure or transplant patients or those presenting prolonged QTc interval or users of drugs that alter the QT interval; presence of hypersensitivity to antimonial derivatives; HIV infection; comorbidities that compromise immunity and previous therapeutic failure. Finally, in addition to the limited amphotericin B use criteria, these numbers also suggest a lack of adherence of prescribers to the Brazilian Minister of Health recommendations.

Regarding the contextual factors, the FU of origin of VL cases with fatal outcome exhibited lower VL incidence and spends more time until the VL notification. One possible explanation for this delay could be the inability of the health system in recognizing a local unusual disease, which seems especially harmful for HIV co-infected patients and for those with low education level, groups more vulnerable to progressive VL complications, either due to issues related to the immune response or the lack of access to health services. The link between access to diagnosis and health facilities and VL case-fatality is also suggested by the inverse association found in univariate analysis between availability of emergency beds, FHP teams and medical doctors and death from VL, which suggests that the robustness of the health system is directly related to the VL clinical outcome.

The higher case-fatality among HIV co-infected VL patients is in turn well demonstrated in Brazil and in other countries where the two infections are endemic. Recently, Elkhoury and colleagues [45] have demonstrated that time of symptoms up to VL reporting for HIV infected individuals was longer than for non-HIV infected patients, which could be explained by the existence of numerous opportunistic conditions with clinical manifestations similar to VL, and HIV itself. The other case-fatality marker found was low schooling, a condition previously linked to VL mortality. There are several explanations for these findings: low schooling as a marker of low socioeconomic status and therefore limiting access to the health system, possibly greater risk of other comorbidities and malnutrition or even the association with HIV infection. The relationship between educational level and HIV is an interpretation challenge, as long as there are very different realities across countries, and it is changing over time [46]. Recently, schooling is more likely to be associated with a lower risk of HIV infection than earlier in the epidemic. In contrast, in Northeastern Brazil [47], the incidence of VL decreased, while VL-AIDS increased. In addition, HIV infection was confirmed as associated with higher levels of schooling and evidence of higher socioeconomic status.

In the perspective of this nationwide and long-time study, HIV-coinfection and low schooling were related to death, suggesting that the two trends have not canceled each other, on the contrary, they may have been synergistic.

In the present study, interaction between sex and age variables was confirmed. Apparently, the risk of death is higher among young females and among adult men, an observation previously described [14]. At this point, no known explanation for these differential higher risks according to gender is available, which could be related to genetic or social underlying factors.

As an indicator of social and economic development, access to garbage collection, raised as a possible protective factor against the risk of dying from VL. In contrast, no association could be confirmed with other basic infrastructure services, such as access to sewage and water supply. This difference may be related to the possibility of clandestine access to these services, common in irregular occupations in the periphery of large urban centers, or may represent a true positive relationship, as suggested by the urbanization rate association with VL case-fatality, given that water supply and sanitation are services available in urban centers, which are the current VL focus on Brazil. In turn, higher rates of elderly people and life expectancy, both related to a greater number of elderly people in population, were directly related to the risk of dying from VL.

It should be noted that this analysis was not based on a primary clinical database but using the national reporting system based on the transcription of clinical information, often carried out by administrative professionals without health training, with missing and inaccurate information, especially those referring to clinical manifestations and treatment.

For many contextual variables, the analysis was carried out for values ranges with linear relationship with outcome, which does not rule out the influence of these same factors, acting similarly or differently, in contexts not represented by the selected ranges. It is especially relevant for variables that have suffered truncation, such as number of hospital beds, time from symptoms to notification and number of FHP teams. Despite the loss of 21% of the confirmed VL cases in Brazil, in the period, due to lack of available information on the clinical outcome, considering that the presence of VL diagnosis registered in the death declaration triggers mandatory investigation by the epidemiological surveillance system in Brazil, we believe that the number of fatal VL cases losses was negligible and that these results are not likely to be subject to selection bias. In addition, 32% of the cases with unknown clinical outcome were cases transferred to another municipality, which must be reported in duplicate, that is, they are included in the database. Even that, these observations are relevant because they represent a large set of VL data over more than a decade of surveillance by a comprehensive public disease control program. In summary, the results confirm that despite the efforts made in VL approach in Brazil over recent years, the main goal of reducing VL case-fatality has not yet been achieved. Possibly problems in the implementation strategies of two acquisitions of the Brazilian Leishmaniasis Control Program, the rapid tests and liposomal amphotericin B, justify the lack of impact on the VL case-fatality, an experience different from other countries. The variability in the installed structure of the public health system, expressed by the number of emergency beds, medical doctors and health multi-professional teams, all adjusted by population, in addition to the ability of the health system to recognize the disease, which is directly related to the regional incidence of VL, appear as additional markers of lower risk of death. On the other hand, the number of health units and hospital beds, both absolute indicators, were not related to reduction of the VL death risk, a disagreement possibly due to the fact of they are not related to the quality of the health system, but rather to the absolute size of the population covered.

Despite of none of the contextual factors (FU-level variables) were confirmed as major determinants of the variation in VL case-fatality in Brazil, some of them seems be at least indirectly involved to the fatal outcome, in addition to other still not recognised, acting on the VL risk of death within the spatial unit FU. The non-confirmation of a spatial structure based on the Brazilian FU organization, more than that, the presence of an unstructured spatial influence, show that not only the VL case-fatality rates are not organized in FU conglomerates with similar rates, but there is significant variability dependent mainly on intra-FU factors. These results suggest that the geopolitical structure represented by the FU are insufficient to reflect the differences within the unit, since the magnitude of the effects of contextual variables were generally weak, losing their importance in multiple models. Influence of contextual factors should be explored, in future studies, using smaller spatial scales of analysis, possibly so, differences within socio-economically developed regions, but permeated by pockets of poverty and lack of assistance, can be captured by the model, and the influence of differences in access to health, professional training, as well as the influence of socio-sanitary and epidemiological aspects could emerge.

For now, these observations point out new windows of opportunities in terms of public policies to be implemented to achieve reduction in VL case-fatality. In particular, they suggest that improvement in VL indicators depends on the strengthening of the Brazilian Unique Health System as a whole and part of the resources need to be directed towards capacity building, including services and professionals.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Confirmed visceral leishmaniasis cases according to FU, Brazil, 2007 and 2017.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. VL incidence by FU, between 2007 and 2017.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

GC is grateful for Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), for the training license, and for Department of Epidemiology, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria for the invitation as visiting researcher fellow, between December 2019 to January 2020, when part of this study was developed.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because there are individual information about VL cases reported in Brazil. Data were provided by the Brazilian Minister of Health after Ethics Committee approval and the establishing a commitment to maintaining the confidentiality of personal information. Access to data of the Brazilian health surveillance system can be request through the Integrated Access to Information Platform (https://esic.cgu.gov.br/sistema/site/index.aspx) upon presentation of a research project and the ethic commitee approval.

Funding Statement

GC is currently receiving a grant [301384/2019] from National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization (WHO). Epidemiology of Leishmaniasis. Available from: http://www.who.int/leishmaniasis/burden/en/. Accessed on October 1, 2020.
  • 2.Madalosso G FC, Ribeiro AF, Cruz LL, Nogueira PA, Lindoso JAL. American visceral leishmaniasis: factors associated with lethality in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. J Trop Med. 2012;2012:281572. doi: 10.1155/2012/281572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Health Organization (WHO). Weekly epidemiological record. No 22, 91, 285–296. Available at https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/254451. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mitra AK, Mawson AR. Neglected Tropical Diseases: Epidemiology and Global Burden. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2017;2:36. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed2030036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.World Health Organization (WHO). Kala-Azar elimination programme: report of a WHO consultation of partners, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. Feb 10–11. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/185042.
  • 6.Rijal S, Sundar S, Mondal D, Das P, Alvar J, Boelaert M. Eliminating visceral leishmaniasis in South Asia: the road ahead. BMJ. 2019;364:k5224. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sundar S, Singh OP, Chakravarty J. Visceral leishmaniasis elimination targets in India, strategies for preventing resurgence. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 2018;16:11, 805–812. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2018.1532790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Alves F BG, Blesson S, Goyal V, Monnerat S, Mowbray C, Muthoni Ouattara G, et al. Recent development of visceral leishmaniasis treatments: successes, pitfalls, and perspectives. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018;31:e00048–18. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00048-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Leishmanioses. Informe Epidemiológico das Américas, 2019. Available at https://irispahoorg/handle/106652/51738. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Okwor I, Uzonna J. Social and Economic Burden of Human Leishmaniasis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;94(3):489–493. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Collin S, Davidson R, Ritmeijer K, Keus K, Melaku Y, Kipngetich S, Davies C. Conflict and kala-azar: determinants of adverse outcomes of kala-azar among patients in southern Sudan. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;Mar 1;38(5):612–9. doi: 10.1086/381203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Welay GM, Alene KA, Dachew BA. Visceral leishmaniasis treatment outcome and its determinants in northwest Ethiopia. Epidemiol Health. 2016;39:1–6. doi: 10.4178/epih.e2017001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Alemayehu TM, Wubshet M, Mesfin N. Magnitude of visceral leishmaniasis and poor treatment outcome among HIV patients: meta-analysis and systematic review. HIV AIDS. 2016;8:75–81. doi: 10.2147/HIV.S96883 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Belo VS, Struchiner CJ, Barbosa DS, Nascimento BWL, Horta MAP, da Silva ES, et al. Risk Factors for Adverse Prognosis and Death in American Visceral Leishmaniasis: A Meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(7):e2982. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mourão MVA, Toledo JA, Gomes LI, Freire VV, Rabello A. Parasite load and risk factors for poor outcome among children with visceral leishmaniasis. A cohort study in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2010–2011. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz [online]. 2014;109(2):147–53. doi: 10.1590/0074-0276140257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mueller YK, Nackers F, Ahmed KA, Boelaert M, Djoumessi J-C, Eltigani R, et al. Burden of Visceral Leishmaniasis in Villages of Eastern Gedaref State, Sudan: An Exhaustive Cross-Sectional Survey. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(11):e1872. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001872 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.de Araújo VEM, Morais MHF, Reis IA, Rabello A, Carneiro M. Early Clinical Manifestations Associated with Death from Visceral Leishmaniasis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(2):e1511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001511 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Costa DL, Rocha RL, Chaves EBF, Batista VGV, Costa HL & Costa CH. Predicting death from kala-azar: construction, development, and validation of a score set and accompanying software. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 2016;49(6), 728–740. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0258-2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lyons S VH, Long J. Visceral leishmaniasis and HIV in Tigray, Ethiopia. Trop Med Int Heal. 2003, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3156.2003.01088.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yeshaw Y, Tsegaye AT, Nigatu SG. Incidence of mortality and its predictors among adult Visceral Leishmaniasis patients at University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia. bioRxiv 723379;doi: org/10.1101/723379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gerais MSA, De AC, Juniorii CT, Rabello A. Factors of poor prognosis of visceral leishmaniasis among children under 12 years of age. A Retrospective Monocentric Study in Belo. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2013;46 (1): 55–59. doi: 10.1590/0037-868216432013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sampaio MJAdQ, Cavalcanti NV, Alves JGB, Fernandes Filho MJC, Correia JB. Risk Factors for Death in Children with Visceral Leishmaniasis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(11):e877. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Druzian AF, Souza ASd, Campos DNd, Croda J, Higa MG Jr, Dorval MEC, et al. Risk Factors for Death from Visceral Leishmaniasis in an Urban Area of Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(8):e0003982. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Diro E, Lynen L, Mohammed R, Boelaert M, Hailu A, van Griensven J. High Parasitological Failure Rate of Visceral Leishmaniasis to Sodium Stibogluconate among HIV Co-infected Adults in Ethiopia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(5):e2875. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Verma S, Kumar R, Katara GK, Singh LC, Negi NS, Ramesh V, et al. Quantification of Parasite Load in Clinical Samples of Leishmaniasis Patients: IL-10 Level Correlates with Parasite Load in Visceral Leishmaniasis. PLoS One. 2010;5(4):e10107. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Alvar J, Yactayo S, Bern C. Leishmaniasis and poverty. Trends Parasitol. 2006;22:552–7. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2006.09.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hastie TJand Tibshirani JT. Generalized Additive Models. Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. 1990. 1st Edition. ISBN-10: 0412343908 [Google Scholar]
  • 28.WOOD S.N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, Second Edition. Editora: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2ª Edição. 2017. CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Anselin L. Local Indicators of Spatial Association–LISA. Geographical Analysis, 1995. vol. 27(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Marshall R M. Mapping disease and mortality rates using Empirical Bayes Estimators AS 1991, 40, 283–294. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Martuzzi M, Elliott P. Empirical Bayes estimation of small area prevalence of non-rare conditions, Statistics in Medicine 1996,15, 1867–1873. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Besag J, Kooperberg C. On conditional and intrinsic autoregressions, Biometrika, 1995, 82:733–746. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bernardinelli l, Clayton D, Montomoli C. Bayesian Estimates of disease maps: How important are prioris? Statistics in Medicine. 1995;14:2411–2431. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780142111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rue H; Martino S, Chopin N. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. Royal Statistical Society. Statistic Methodology. 2009;71:319–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018. Vienna, Austria [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Triola MF. Introdução à Estatística. 2008. 10a Edição. Editora LTC. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Werneck GL. Forum: geographic spread and urbanization of visceral leishmaniasis in Brazil. Introduction. Cad Saude Publica. 2008;2937–2940. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2008001200023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gontijo Célia Maria Ferreira, & Melo Maria Norma. Leishmaniose visceral no Brasil: quadro atual, desafios e perspectivas. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia. 2004;7(3), 338–349. doi: 10.1590/S1415-790X2004000300011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mueller Y MD, Odermatt P, Hoffmann A, Loutan L, Chappuis F. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality of visceral leishmaniasis patients in eastern Uganda. Trop Med Int Heal. 2009;14(8):910–917. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02305.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Welay GM AK, Dachew BA. Visceral leishmaniasis treatment outcome and its determinants in northwest Ethiopia. Epidemiol Health. 2016;39:e2017001. doi: 10.4178/epih.e2017001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Das A, Karthick M, Dwivedi S, Banerjee I, Mahapatra T, Srikantiah S & Chaudhuri I. Epidemiologic Correlates of Mortality among Symptomatic Visceral Leishmaniasis Cases: Findings from Situation Assessment in High Endemic Foci in India. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2016;10(11), e0005150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.World Health Organization, WHO. The leishmaniasis: Report of a WHO Expert Committee. WHO Tech Rep Ser 1984 701:1–140. [PubMed]
  • 43.Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Leishmaniose visceral grave: normas e condutas / Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde, Departamento de Vigilância Epidemiológica.–Brasília: Editora do Ministério da Saúde, 2006.60p. Série A. Normas e Manuais Técnicos.
  • 44.Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Vigilância Epidemiológica. Leishmaniose visceral: recomendações clínicas para redução da letalidade / Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Vigilância Epidemiológica.–Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2011.78 p.: il.–Série A. Normas e Manuais Técnicos.
  • 45.Maia-Elkhoury ANS, Romero GAS, Valadas SY, Sousa-Gomes ML, Lauletta Lindoso JA, Cupolillo E, et al. Premature deaths by visceral leishmaniasis in Brazil investigated through a cohort study: A challenging opportunity? PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2019. 13(12):e0007841. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Jukes M, Simmons S, Bundy D. Education and vulnerability: the role of schools in protecting young women and girls from HIV in southern Africa. AIDS. 2008; Dec doi: 10.1097/01.aids.0000341776.71253.04, 22 Suppl 4:S41–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lima ID, Lima ALM, Mendes-Aguiar CdO, Coutinho JFV, Wilson ME, Pearson RD, et al. Changing demographics of visceral leishmaniasis in northeast Brazil: Lessons for the future. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(3):e0006164. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009567.r001

Decision Letter 0

Nadira D Karunaweera, Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr

27 Nov 2020

Dear Dr Cota,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Inequalities of visceral leishmaniasis case-fatality in Brazil: a multilevel modeling considering space, time, individual and contextual factors" 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., M.P.H., Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Nadira Karunaweera

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: Adequate methods have been used in the analyses.

However, the original data (national) seems to be of low quality, particularly those regarding the clinical data. Often, non-qualified personnel extracts the data from the clinical files in health units. It is noteworthy the lousy quality of the clinical descriptions by physicians in the country. The original data's low quality may have hampered the data analyses and reduced the conclusions' credibility. The authors should address this point in the discussion.

It might also be better to standardize the proportion of deaths among the patients with the disease since the authors used both case-fatality (more appropriate) and lethality.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I found the objectives to be clearly stated in the Abstract (lines 29-31), but suggest minor revision to more clearly restate/elaborate at the end of the Intro (127-131).

The study design with respect to the temporal trend and spatial dependency in case fatality is generally strong, and I have only minor methodological suggestions. But with respect to assessing determinants of lethality at the individual and regional level, I found the methodology (and results) to be incompletely described or ambiguous in quite a few places. When I read the Methods section on its own I had only small suggestions/questions. But when I read the Results I had substantial difficulty mapping stated results back to described Methods. I'll describe most of these issues later in the Results section.

** Major suggestions relating to Methodology: **

(1). The distinction between "federated unit (FU)" and "FU-by-year" groupings should be clarified. Throughout the text there are references to two categories: FU with below-median case fatality and FU with above-median case fatality. But at a few points in the text it seems like the actual split for analysis purposes was 'FU-by-year combinations below the national median' vs. 'FU-by-year combinations above the national median'.

E.g. Line 360: "Some FUs can appear in both groups in Fig 3 since the FU's position in relation to national lethality, in some cases, was not stable over the period 2007-2017." (In fact I count 18/26 FU in Fig. 3 that appear in both the above-median and below-median groups).

I don't think it's necessary to split FU into groups at all (see #2), but if the split is retained I think it would be preferable to actually split by FU (based on FU-specific fatality across all study years) rather than FU-by-year. The latter (i.e. current) approach might be prone to statistical artifacts due to varying year coverage for different FU within each model.

(2). I don't see any reason to analyze the below-median FU and above-median FU using separate models (or perhaps below-median and above-median *FU-years*, see above) (e.g. lines 218-225). It's of course possible that some factors have non-linear effects on case fatality, but I can't think of a priori reasons for such effects in most of the variables analyzed here, and there's little relevant discussion in the manuscript. Indeed the reported odds ratios are almost always similar between the above-median and below-median groups (Table 3).

Splitting on the median seems arbitrary and could have undesirable side effects:

- Halving the sample size in each model reduces the statistical power to detect 'real effects'

- Using two models instead of one increases the likelihood of false-positives, particularly given the 'forward selection on many variables' approach used here

Perhaps the biggest challenge is that it's not clear what to make of results that apparently differ between the two categories (e.g. HIV-coinfection, education, and hospital beds/capita are suggested to only affect cases fatality in above-median FU). Is the lack of a significant result in the below-median group a false negative due to lack of statistical power? Or the above-median result a false positive? Or does the effect of these variables on fatality really change as a function of FU-specific fatality levels?

I think a single-model approach would be preferable here, and much simpler to present and interpret. If the effect of any given variable on case fatality appears non-linear, it could be modelled using e.g. a polynomial term, a GAM smoother, or investigated using supplementary analysis on FU subsets.

** Minor suggestions relating to Methodology: **

188: "adjusted" is not quite right here. Suggest using something like "generalized additive models (GAMs) were fit..." instead.

188: Is it necessary to use a GAM rather than the simpler GLM here? The time-series in Fig 1 looks reasonably linear to me, and the straight GAM fit line (Fig 1 right) seems to indicate zero smoothing. Also the single temporal coefficient presented in the results (4% per year, line 277) seems to represent a GLM coefficient rather than a GAM coefficient, no? If sticking with GAM, clarify the smoother type (thin plate, penalized cubic, etc.).

196-199: If the ultimate CAR model uses counts of deaths as the response and counts of cases as an offset, the Empirical Bayes smoothing seems unnecessary to me. I.e. The higher uncertainty in FU with low case counts is already explicitly incorporated into the CAR model with the offset term. If retained, the Empirical Bayes methods should be described in more detail (software used, model structure, settings, etc.).

201-204: Suggest clarifying the structure of the non-spatial term. Random intercepts?

205-207: Suggest rephrasing to clarify that the offset is the number of confirmed VL cases. Also, don't need to put "offset" in quotes here as the term has already been used at line 189.

214: Clarify the difference between the "random term at the FU level" and the "random intercept at the FU level" described in the previous sentence. Does the "random term" mean a 'random slope' term for each FU with respect to year or some other variable?

227: Clarify which "parametric or non-parametric hypothesis tests" were used, the software, etc. Also, are these results presented anywhere (perhaps these are the 'Univariate' results in Table 3?). Otherwise it's not clear what the purposes of these tests was.

229: Clarify how multicollinearity was tested for, which variables were affected, and what actions were taken when it was observed.

248: This line indicates that analyses were done in R and SPSS, but apart from the CAR model (Line 209) it's not clear which software/packages were used for which statistical analyses.

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

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: Figures are hard to be read due to the low resolution, and there is no apparent correspondence of the figures with their legend. This fact has hampered the review quality.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: As noted above, particularly with respect to the analyses on determinants of lethality at the individual and regional level, I had substantial difficulty linking the stated results back to the described Methods.

** Suggestions relating to Results: **

1. It's not clear to me what "Univariate analysis" and "Multiple analysis" refer to (e.g. Table 3). Normally I would think "Univariate" refers to independent tests between fatality and each separate variable (whereas "Multiple" refers to the multivariate models obtained through forward variable selection, i.e. 232-248), but I don't see the univariate tests described anywhere in the Methods. Also, lines 244-246 make me think random coefficients are a final step in the forward selection (i.e. "Multiple analysis") process, but then there is a random-coefficient term in the Univariate column of Table 3 (though based on Lines 343-345 perhaps this term was placed in the wrong column?).

There's also not enough description of the apparent difference between Univariate/Multiple results. What does it mean that the best Multiple model for above-average FU contained only a "Report year" term and no other variables? And that the odds ratios for "Report year" are below 1 in the Multiple analysis but above 1 in the Univariate?

2. It's not always clear how the stated results relate to the presented statistics. E.g. Why are HIV-coinfection and education level stated to be linked to case fatality only in above-median FU (337-339; also noted in the Abstract and Discussion)? In Table 3 the relevant odds ratios look similar for both the above-median and below-median groups. Similarly, the Discussion (520-522) notes the absence of an effect of 'hospital-beds/capita' on case fatality, but again it's not clear to me where this result comes from given the similar odds ratios in Table 3.

3. Lines 343-345, 354-356, 356-359: I think the results relating to random coefficient terms are generally misinterpreted (also in the Abstract). The 'hospital beds/capita' term seems to be a 'random coefficient/slope' with respect to FU (i.e. Fig 3 left). In that case, the inclusion of this term through variable selection indicates that the slope of the relationship between 'hospital beds/capita' and case fatality varies by FU. E.g. Based on Fig 3, in federated unit "AL" the slope of the relationship between 'hospital beds/capita' and case fatality is relatively more negative than the average (i.e. the fixed effect) and in "MA" the slope of the relationship between 'hospital beds/capita' and case fatality is relatively more positive than the average.

4. Lines 363-365: Suggest rephrasing. The lack of a significant FU effect in the low-lethality group doesn't necessarily mean "case fatality can be explained by factors at the individual level". Unexplained variation in the model could be occurring at other levels (i.e. any level between individual and national except FU).

5. For each model selection process, suggest clarifying in the Results which variables made it into the final model. Is it all the variables in Table 3 with non-missing odds ratios? Or are the odds ratios given only for variables with p < 0.05? Relatedly, it's not clear to me why there aren't odds ratios given for every variable in the Univariate columns (perhaps related to #1). Also need to better explain the process for dealing with multicolinearity (229-230, 241-243), and which (if any) variables were de-selected as a result. Surely some of the variables in Table 3 are highly correlated, no?

6. Clarify levels/units of each variable (e.g. Table 3). For instance, giving an odds-ratio for "Gender" doesn't indicate which direction the effect is in. And what are the possible values of e.g. "Education level"? The single odds ratio makes it seem like it's a continuous variable here?

7. Make sure to report the complete test results for statistical tests (usually test statistic, degrees of freedom, and p-value). E.g. Table 2 (Results) gives bare p-values and I can't find any details on test type within the text.

8. Lines 339-341, 354-356: Clarify the metric being used to compare the relevant influence of different variables.

9. Make sure figure axes have meaningful labels. E.g.

- Fig. 1 right, y-axis: "Case fatality (logit scale)" (or transform to probability scale)

- Fig. 2 middle, x-axes: "Federated unit (integer index)"

- Fig. 3, x-axes: "Estimated model coefficient (case fatality on logit scale)"

** Other minor points related to Results: **

278: Clarify the time unit. 4% increase per year or over the 11-year period? Would be good to add confidence interval for the trend estimate here too.

286-290, 301-304: The caption and in text-references to the middle panel of Fig 2 are reversed compared to the figure, which shows uf.nu on the left and uf.theta on the right.

292-293: Clarify the evidence for "good fit regarding the estimates of hyperparameter precision".

296: The use of "adjusted" is a bit confusing here. Would be clearer to say something like "Based on this result, we included FU-level random intercepts in our multi-level models of lethality described in the following section".

297-299: This line on temporal effects seems out of place in the spatial section. Suggest moving to temporal section instead.

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

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: The authors should be clear that the policy changes to VL's diagnosis and treatment in Brazil have worsened case-fatality and not use the euphemistic wording that they had not improved it.

Possible explanations are that patients diagnosed by rapid tests are usually at the primary care units. There, the use of antimonials is much more likely due to the national recommendations themselves, and severe cases may not be identified and forwarded to secondary- or tertiary units and not adequately treated.

Another point is that any clinical trials have not evaluated the treatment of severe cases of VL up to date.

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: For the paper quality, improvement in data interpretation and conclusions are necessary.

Reviewer #2: - Abstract: several findings are only mentioned first in the conclusion, would recommend to put these in the “Findings”

- summary: In the abstract hospital beds is mentioned as factor but not in the summary

- line 62: “trends and factors – recommend to add “and”

- line 126: justified: suggest to replace by “explained” – also in the discussion

- line 347: in contrast to another: suggest to replace “another” by “the other”

- line +516: lack of diagnostic confirmation: does it mean not test was done or that the test could be negative but the patient was still diagnosed on clinical grounds?

Reviewer #3: - 79: what's the time period over which the 200k-400k cases were added?

- 97: consider "Americas region" instead for clarity

- 121/126: consider "explained" instead of "justified"

- 149: "accessed" instead of "assessed"

- 162: more common to describe Methods in past tense ("will also be considered" -> "were also considered")

- 340: consider "influential" instead of "influent"

- Table 1 (Methods): consider reference/footnote for race categories (e.g. IBGE), as terminology might vary by country

- Table 2 (Results): "percent" instead of "percentual"

- Table 3 (Results): use "." as decimal separator for consistency with rest of manuscript

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

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: This is a relevant and well-done study that should be published. However, changes in the discussion and conclusions seem to be appropriate.

Reviewer #2: This is a useful paper on an important topic. The data are clearly presented, the analysis was conducted carefully and the findings are nicely discussed.

I only have a few minor points – all discretionary

Reviewer #3: I think the study objectives are important, and the data sources used are well-suited to addressing them. The analyses with respect to temporal trend and spatial dependency in case fatality from visceral leishmaniasis are generally sound and well-presented. However, there are major shortcomings in the description of the methodology and results for the analyses on individual- and regional-level factors impacting case fatality, which make it difficult to assess the quality of those analyses and interpretation of results.

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

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: Yes: Carlos H N Costa

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 https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009567.r003

Decision Letter 1

Nadira D Karunaweera, Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr

13 Feb 2021

Dear Dr Cota,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Inequalities of visceral leishmaniasis case-fatality in Brazil: a multilevel modeling considering space, time, individual and contextual factors" 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

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Nadira Karunaweera

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: Methods are excellent, well designed and well applied.

Reviewer #3: 1. Most of my comments related to methodology from the previous round of revision have been addressed with this revised version. However, I have some new concerns regarding the new analyses.

Much like the approach of splitting FU into below-median and above-median groups in the original analysis, the approach of discretizing the continuous variables in this revised version seems arbitrary and subjective, and the methodology is not defined clearly enough to be reproducible. E.g. For variable 'Age (years)', why is there no split at the change-point around age 10 (Fig. 5b)?

Regardless of how the split-points are chosen, the process of discretizing continuous variables seems unnecessary, and reduces the information available. E.g. The discretized analysis with age only tells us that the >=20 group experiences higher CFR on average than the <20 group, whereas if we retain age as a continuous variable we see that CFR closely mirrors the typical 'bathtub-shape' human mortality curve — decreasing from birth to age ~10, then progressively increasing with age thereafter.

Likewise, the discretized analysis of onset to reporting delay suggests that CFR is ~6x higher in the >=200-day group compared to the <200-day group, but it's not clear how meaningful this is considering that the 200-day split point is extremely high in the distribution of reporting delay (97th percentile based on data in Table 2). It's hard to tell without seeing the raw data, but the spline relationship between CFR and reporting delay looks relatively linear, in which case it would be more meaningful to interpret a linear coefficient (e.g. X% increase in CFR for every additional week of delay).

Instead of the discretized approach, you could simply use linear terms for the continuous variables, perhaps using transformations (log, square-root, etc.) for variables where the linearity assumptions are severely violated.

Alternatively, you could use splines for all analyses. E.g. For the univariate analyses you could compare a spline on the variable of interest (x) to the appropriate null model, using likelihood ratio tests or AIC, e.g.

m1 <- gam(outcome ~ s(x) + year + s(FU, bs = "re"), family = "binomial")

m0 <- gam(outcome ~ year + s(FU, bs = "re"), family = "binomial")

anova(m1, m0, test = "LRT")

Admittedly this approach could be difficult for the multivariate analysis, as complex spline models with many variables might not converge.

Regardless of the approach, I would strongly suggest adding the actual data points to plots of CFR vs explanatory variables (e.g. Fig 5), so that readers can assess the underlying distributions/relationships.

2. There are methodological aspects of the multilevel modelling that are still unclear, and I'm not confident that another author with the same data could reproduce this analysis without further information. E.g.

- 250: The use of "subsequently" is confusing here. Is this describing the multilevel modelling, and suggesting that FU-level variables were tested and added prior to individual-level variables? Presumably this is not the case, given that no FU-level variables made it into the final model (Table 3).

- 259-260: This line indicates an alpha = 20% acceptance threshold for "variables at the individual level", but what about the FU-level variables? Do they have a different threshold?

- 262: I don't understand the meaning of "with fixed coefficients (varying between FUs)" here. I think the FU-level random intercepts and random coefficients are the only parameters that vary between FUs, no?

- 266: What was the acceptance threshold for comparisons based on AIC? Also, based on the described methods, I'm not clear on which comparisons would involve non-nested models. Is this only for the random coefficients?

Other points related to methodology:

119: Isn't the offset the number of confirmed cases *with known clinical outcome*, rather than the total number of confirmed cases per se? On this point, given that only 79% of confirmed cases have known clinical outcome (line 287), I think a very brief discussion of possible biases in missing data would be appropriate (probably in the Discussion section). E.g. Is it possible the ~20% of cases with unknown outcomes are biased toward survivors, or exhibit temporal trends in fatality different from the 79% with known outcomes?

195: It still seems unnecessary to use a GAM here. The temporal-trend results later presented are based on a GLM (Table 2, line 303), and the temporal term in the univariate and multivariate analysis is likewise a linear term. Why not just use the linear term (GLM) for all temporal analyses?

215, 234: I think "expected VL cases" should instead be "observed VL cases"? "Expected" implies a prediction or a model-estimate, but I think the offset is just the observed number of cases per FU.

243: "greatest association" based on what metric?

259: Related to point #1 above, it's not clear to me why the discretization should aim to split a variable into segments where the relationship with the response is linear, per se. Within-factor linearity is not a model assumption. As noted above, I suggest omitting the discretization step, but if retained, this particular approach should be better justified/explained.

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

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: Very relevant results, likely influencing policy making.

Reviewer #3: 285-286: Clarify the level that the average/range are taken across (e.g. years, FU, or both).

304: The 95%CI uses a comma decimal separator whereas the rest of the text primarily uses a period (though there are also comma separators for incidence and case fatality in Table 1).

318: Clarify "has a low probability of occurrence in its a posteriori distribution".

335: The subheading "Individual level analysis" in the Results section corresponds to subheading "Multilevel analysis" in the Methods section. Suggest using a common subheading. "Multilevel analysis" makes more sense.

337: Not clear what the significance of "an age up to 14 years" is here. Could just omit and report only the median/IQR (16 years, IQR 2-39).

338: A 75% IQ is unconventional. Is this instead the 50% inter-quartile range, i.e. 25-75%?

341: Consider changing "totalized" to "totalled"

347: The reported median age of the cured group (13 years) does not match the 95% CI (25-75 years).

345-348: The reported medians and 95% CIs in onset to treatment delay in the cured (33, 16-76 days) and fatal groups (30, 15-59 days) are almost certainly *not* consistent with a significant difference between the groups. Perhaps the 95% CI are actually IQR?

350: Add full test results anytime a p-value or claim of significance is made. Generally this includes test static, degrees of freedom, and p-value. Could also note the test type if it's not clear from the Methods. Also, should use e.g. p < 0.001 rather than p = 0.00.

361: Clarify the correlation metric used here (presumably R^2).

384: This odds ratio (6.4) seems surprising given the data in Table 2 (I calculate a raw odds ratio of 1.13; CFRs: 8% vs. 13%). Of course, the ORs in Table 2 are based on a model with year and FU-intercepts, so could be different. Just worth double checking.

388-390: I'm not clear on why these 3 variables (race, locale, case classification) aren't presented in Table 2. Perhaps because they are statistically non-significant? Would be preferable to present results consistently regardless of significance level.

399: Should say "Fig 5l" instead of "Table 5l"

411-412: The text and Table 2 imply that CFR declines with more medical doctors per capita, but Fig 5i suggests it generally increases.

437: The use of "multiple hierarchical analysis" in the caption for Table 2 is confusing given that the models are described as univariate. Could change to something like "generalized linear mixed models with FU-level random intercepts".

Table 2: I don't understand the meaning of "VL cases (%) according to..." in some of the variable labels. I think can just be omitted?

Fig 1. The use of the two scales (deaths vs. CFR) but single axis in the left panel is awkward. And the right panel should be transformed to the scale of the response (i.e. probability or percentage) and given an informative y-axis label instead of "spline(year)". Also, isn't the right panel showing a temporal effect on VL case-fatality instead of on "VL Deaths" per se (given that the model uses cases as an offset term)? I think it would be preferable to show the death numbers in one panel and the CFR raw data (red line) and model predictions (spline panel but on the response scale) together in a separate panel.

Fig 2. The breaks for the colour scale in the right panel seem to be truncated too low (15%) — only about halfway up the scale.

Fig 3. Add axis scales and labels for panels (a) and (b). Also, just an aesthetic point, try to make panel (d) the same size as (c).

Fig 5. Consider standardizing the range of the y-axis so that it's possible to visually compare the relative magnitude of the effect size across panels/variables. Also, the y-axes should be transformed to a meaningful scale (i.e. CFR, probability or percentage). The current label "spline" is not informative. Also, not clear why the x-axis data is depicted as dashes along the bottom in some panels but not others. Regardless, I'd strongly suggest adding the actual data points (x and y) instead to every panel so readers can access the fit of the splines.

Fig 5c. The panel depicts a split-point at 1400 days (also noted line 391), but Table 2 suggests this variable was treated as a continuous linear predictor.

Fig 6. What is nm_uf? Wasn't this a parameter of the spatial model? Also, suggest consistent use of subheadings — e.g. why use a subheading (Basic Model) for panel (a) but no subheading in (b)? Also, add label (including units) to the x-axis.

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

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: Conclusions are in accordance with the results, albeit debatable.

Reviewer #3: 1. The biggest remaining issue is the presentation/interpretation of results. As far as I can tell, none of the FU-level variables were selected into the final multilevel model. The 7 variables that were selected were all individual-level factors (age, symptoms, gender, etc.) (Table 3).

To me the simplest interpretation of this result is that, after accounting for individual-level factors, *none* of the FU-level variables (# hospital beds, garbage collection, proportion children, etc.) account for a substantial proportion of variation in case fatality.

The authors do note this caveat in the Discussion (633-636)

"These results suggest that the geopolitical structure represented by the FU are insufficient to reflect the differences within the unit, since the magnitude of the effects of contextual variables were generally weak, losing their importance in multiple models."

but nonetheless suggest that some of the FU-level variables are important predictors of case fatality in other parts of the manuscript, e.g.

- "...unavailability of emergency beds and health professionals (the last two only in univariate analysis) were identified as related to VL death risk." (line 43)

- "Lower VL incidence was also associated to VL case-fatality, suggesting that unfamiliarity with the disease may delay appropriate medical management" (line 45)

- "The indicator of social and economic development, access to garbage collection, was confirmed as protective against the risk of dying from VL." (line 603)

- "higher rates of elderly people and life expectancy, both related to a greater number of elderly people in population, were directly related to the risk of dying from VL" (line 610)

I think these conclusions are overstated given the analyses presented. It could of course be the case that some of the FU-level variables affect CFR indirectly through their impact on individual-level factors. E.g. Perhaps some of the health-related FU variables (e.g. doctors per capita) indirectly affect CFR through their effect on onset-to-treatment delays. But this sort of mediating relationship could/should be tested directly.

Along the above lines, particularly with respect to FU-level variables, I think a more focused analysis would be preferable. Potential causal pathways can be identified from the outset, and the relevant FU-level variables chosen in a more targeted fashion. In the current analysis, I think there's not much to be learned from the inclusion of FU-level "Gender proportion" in the same model as individual-level patient gender, or FU-level "Proportion under 5 years" in the same model as individual-level patient age, etc.

2. Related to the methodological concerns about unnecessary discretization, some of the conclusions regarding FU-level variables (also noted in point #1 above) are not evident when looking at the splines in Fig. 5. E.g. The authors conclude "Lower VL incidence was also associated to VL case-fatality, suggesting that unfamiliarity with the disease may delay appropriate medical management" (Abstract, line 45), but the spline relationship in Fig 5d does not suggest a simple unidirectional relationship between incidence and CFR. The spline relationships between CFR and emergency beds, number of family health programs, and garbage collection are similarly complex.

The most important step to clarify these relationship would be to show the underlying data in the spline plots. Assuming the splines are a faithful representation of those data, the conclusions should be revised to add nuance, and focus on describing the actual relationships, even if they are non-linear and complex, and de-emphasizing the discretized results.

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

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: Just change the word case-lethality for case-fatality in line 66. Minor revision.

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: The article is ready to be published after the minor change.

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: Yes: Carlos H N Costa

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 https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009567.r005

Decision Letter 2

Nadira D Karunaweera, Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr

29 Apr 2021

Dear Dr Cota,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Inequalities of visceral leishmaniasis case-fatality in Brazil: a multilevel modeling considering space, time, individual and contextual factors" 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

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Nadira Karunaweera

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Summary and General Comments

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

Reviewer #1: No comments.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

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: Yes: Carlos H N Costa

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

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 #3: In my opinion there remains significant problems with the clarity of the methods, and with the methodological approach of discretizing or truncating explanatory variables based on visual assessment of GAM models.

Discretizing/truncation based on GAM:

The most problematic use of discretization/truncation is for the variable Emergency beds, where, as far as I understand, the authors decide based on the GAM model to exclude data above a setpoint of 1000 emergency beds / 100k inhabitants. The resulting negative relationship between emergency beds and fatality (which is repeatedly referenced, e.g. lines 43, 70, 410, 582, 636), is in my view completely meaningless because the authors have specifically chosen only to analyze a segment of the curve in which the trend is negative, while ignoring the next segment in which fatality generally *increases* with the number of emergency beds. This problem of conclusions influenced by arbitrary truncation also applies to the variable "Number of FHP Teams".

More generally, it's still not sufficiently clear how the authors have chosen the split points, or how they decide between discretization (e.g. Age) and truncation (e.g. Emergency beds).

The assessment seems to somehow depend on whether the GAM confidence interval crosses zero, e.g. "... inferring in which ranges of values this association is significant, which can be declared when ranges of values of the curve do not belong to the estimated confidence interval and contain included zero value." (259-261). But it's not clear to me how to get from this description to the specific split points in Fig 5. E.g. For variable Standardized VL Incidence, there are split points at the 2 inflection points on the curve, which seem unrelated to the CI crossing zero. In contrast, for Age there is a split point where the CI crosses zero and *not* at the clear inflection point around age 10. For Family Health Programs, the first split point is at an inflection point and the second occurs where the CI crosses zero.

In the response to the previous review (point #1) the authors suggest "There are countless ways to apply the GAM models for this purpose", and go on to explain several seemingly different approaches, but this did not help me understand which approach was actually used for which variables, or why.

I also think the interpretation that regions of the GAM confidence interval that cross zero indicate "a null effect in that region" (e.g. 259-261, 386-387) isn't quite correct, nor is it meaningful to visually assess regions of a GAM curve where the relationship is "significant". The GAM fit lines are showing the predicted mean value of y (+/- confidence interval) on the transformed scale (e.g. logit) at a given value of x, relative to the overall mean value of y. They're not showing the *effect* of x on y (i.e. the slope of the relationship) at a given value of x (though this can be interpreted from the slope of the fit line). E.g. for variable Medical doctors (Fig. 5i), the GAM confidence interval overlaps with zero in the region of about 0.95-1.2 doctors per 100k inhabitants, but the slope of the relationship between Medical doctors and fatality is still clearly positive (and relatively linear) in this region, so I don't see why/how we would use the fact of an overlapping CI to inform discretization.

Similarly, as I noted in my previous review, "it's not clear to me why the discretization should aim to split a variable into segments where the relationship with the response is linear, per se." I understand that GLM's have a linearity assumption, but if an explanatory variable is discretized prior to analysis there is not an assumption of linearity *within each discrete category* of that variable per se.

I can see the logic of using GAM models to identify linear segments if the purpose is truncation — to exclude values outside the linear segment (though I think think truncation is a bad approach generally). But I don't see the logic to using GAM to identify linear segments if the purpose is discretization. E.g. the variable "Interval between symptom onset and reporting" was dichotomized using a cutpoint of 200 days, which generates two roughly linear segments based on the spline. But an analysis that uses this dichotomized explanatory variable doesn't require that each segment is linear... the analysis only sees two groups, >=200 or <200, with no relation to the continuous variable "Interval between symptom onset and reporting". So why choose split points specifically based on linearity here?

I'm sympathetic to the authors' previous response (point #1) about using discretization to aid in interpretability, but this still requires more nuance and a clearer explanation of the methods than are presented here. Finally, in response to my previous comment about discretization, the authors respond (#39) "... the approach based on the initial assessment of the presence of linearity by GAM models is well established in the literature...", citing the reference section of a book "Generalized Additive Models" and a paper "Generalized additive models for location, scale and shape". I looked through the book and the paper the authors cite, and see no relation to the particular discretization approach used here. I haven't checked every single reference in the book, but the authors can clarify the relevant references if necessary.

Other things to clarify:

244:

- Clarify which p-value is being referred to in the line "those with the lowest p value were selected for the multiple models". Is this the p-value from the univariate models described below (i.e. also adjusting for time, FU, and age distribution), or the "parametric and non-parametric tests" described immediately above (237-243)? The authors' response letter (#13) indicates it's the univariate models but this is not clear in the text itself.

- Should explicitly state within the manuscript or appendix, probably in a table, which variables were excluded on the basis of multicollinearity. And clarify whether these variables were also excluded from univariate analysis. I'm assuming not, since e.g. child mortality and life expectancy are both included in the univariate results Table 2 (Results) despite looking nearly perfectly correlated (Fig 4).

257:

The GAM(M) models used as part of the multilevel analyses should be more fully described here, e.g.

- Error distribution (presumably binomial)

- What type of spline (e.g. thin plate, cubic, etc.). E.g. The default in the spline function s() in the mgcv package is "thin plate regression spline".

- Is a time term included as in the GLMM models?

- Are there random effects included (e.g. FU)? If so how are these specified, as there are multiple possible approaches with GAMMs. The Results section notes both GAM (385) and GAMM (392), so it's unclear where these are mixed models or not.

268:

There are various approaches to stepwise variable selection. This sounds like "forward variable selection", but should clarify explicitly here. I.e. I'm not positive from the description that it's not a bi-direction selection approach, where variables could be added or removed at each step.

269:

Relating to the point about explicitly stating which variables were omitted on the basis of multicollinearity, the line "variables were introduced one by one into the basic model in decreasing order of significance, **considering the multicollinearity and the particularities detected in the previous analyzes**" is not sufficiently clear to be reproducible. It's difficult to judge the exact correlation values from Figure 4, but for example, MedicalDoctors looks potentially highly correlated (|r| > 0.85) with lots of variables: Sewage, LifeExpectancy, Water, Garbage, Urbanization, ChildMortality, and Children<5. Is the exclusion of correlated variables done at the very beginning, such that 7 of these 8 variables would be immediately excluded from all further analyses (all except the one most strongly related to fatality based on the univariate tests)? Or are the exclusions updated at every step such that, e.g., the 7 variables correlated with MedicalDoctors are only excluded after a step in which MedicalDoctors is retained in the multiple model (if any)?

273:

I'm still not clear which comparisons would involve non-nested models. If a single variable is added at each step, shouldn't the original model always be a subset of the new model (i.e. the new model only has one extra variable)? Consider adding an Appendix to more clearly illustrate the variable selection approach.

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

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 #3: In my opinion there remains significant problems with the presentation of results, and ambiguity as to why results for some variables/analyses are not presented.

Table 2 (Results):

I still don't understand why some variables presented in Tables 1 and 2 (Methods) are missing from Table 2 (Results) (likewise for Fig. 5, for the continuous variables), e.g.:

- interval from treatment to death

- race proportion

- illiteracy

- population growth rate

- average household income

- sewage

- PIB

- HDI

- health units (result described line 407)

- emergency beds (result described line 408)

Table 2 (Results):

- For categorical variables, in the "Univariate analysis" column there should only be odds ratios in cells *other* than the (base) level. This is currently the case for variables with 3 categories (e.g. Number of VL symptoms (%), Standardized VL incidence), where the odds ratio for the base level is replaced with "-". But for all the variables with 2 categories (Age, Gender, etc.) the odds ratio is placed on the line corresponding to the level indicated as "base", which makes interpretation ambiguous. E.g. For "Gender" the odds ratio is placed in the line corresponding to "Female (base)". Does this odds ratio represent the risk for females relative to males (as indicated by the placement of the OR), or males relative to females (as indicated by the designation "Female (base)")? Suggest consistent use of "-" for the base level cells for clarity.

351-360:

- Why present these results from the "initial global analysis" only for these 3 specific variables (age, onset to symptom delay, diagnostic criteria), and not all the other variables? It would be preferable to present all results in the same way. But at a minimum, if you choose to present only certain results for a given type of analysis, it should be clear to the reader how specifically you chose which results to present and which to omit.

- More broadly, I'd suggest omitting these 'global analysis' results altogether, as they're describing analyses that are basically just the inverse of the univariate models (i.e. they use patient outcome as an explanatory variable and the demographic/diagnostic variables as response).

358:

- These categories of diagnostic confirmation (parasitological test, IFAT serological testing, other serological testing) are missing from Table 1 (Methods)

365:

- Clarify the line "high correlation among several contextual variables (Figure 4), such as degree of urbanization and proportion of the population up to 5 years old, correlated to many other variables." Based on Fig 4, the variables Urbanization and Children<5 don't appear to be correlated above 85%.

367:

- Clarify whether this also accounts for negative correlations (e.g exclude |r| > 0.85) ?

385, 387:

Should be referencing Figure 5 instead of 6 here I think

394:

The term "crude effect" is a bit confusing here, because the odds ratios in Table 2 are from univariate models that also include terms for FU and time, and adjust for age structure. They're not really "crude". Though based on the counts in Table 2, the crude effect for age (1911/12600)/(820/16506) = 3.05 is almost the same as the univariate odds ratio (3.01).

399:

change "discharge" to "discarded"

402-404:

Rephrase this result to clarify. If I understand correctly, this result is treating VL incidence as the response variable and patient outcome as the explanatory (like the "initial global analysis" on lines 351-360)? Suggest just presenting the univariate results here for consistency and clarity.

411:

I think this ref should be to Fig 5e (Emergency beds) instead. There are also references to Fig 6 that should be to Fig 5 (e.g. line 418).

Figs. 1b, 5:

I don't think "Effect" is a sufficient y-axis label here. Assuming these plots come from e.g. the plot() function in R used on a MGCV gam model object, the y-axis shows the predicted values of the y variable on the transformed scale (e.g. logit in this case), centered to a mean of zero based on the model intercept. A more accurate label would be something like "logit(Case fatality), centered".

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

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 #3: The latest revisions to add nuance to interpretations of results that differ between univariate and multiple analyses are a step in the right direction, but in my view there remain conclusions that are not justified by the methods/results, and a lot more nuance is needed for certain analyses.

The biggest problem relates to over-interpretation of analyses of variables that were truncated (arbitrarily in my opinion) prior to univariate analysis, particularly "# of Emergency beds" and "# of FHP units" (e.g. 580-584, 635-638).

E.g. The authors conclude...

"The link between access to diagnosis and health facilities and VL case-fatality is also suggested by the inverse association found in univariate analysis between availability of emergency beds, FHP teams and medical doctors and death from VL, which suggests that the robustness of the health system is directly related to the VL clinical outcome." (580-584)

and

"The variability in the installed structure of the public health system, expressed by the number of emergency beds and health multi-professional teams, in addition to the ability of the health system to recognize the disease, which is directly related to the regional incidence of VL, appear as additional markers of the risk of death." (635-638)

For "Emergency beds" and "FHP Units", the splines (Figs 5e, 5f) indicate an inverse relationship only in certain regions of the curve, and the authors have simply excluded later regions where fatality appears to increase with the variable of interest. This is not at all rigorous in my opinion.

The conclusion regarding the relationship between VL Incidence and fatality ("Lower VL incidence was also associated to VL case fatality, suggesting that unfamiliarity with the disease may delay appropriate medical management" (45-47)) should also be more nuanced given the relationship depicted in Fig 5d. E.g. the spline suggests that predicted case fatality is lower at an incidence of 60 (the first split point) compared to an incidence of 160 (the final split point).

With respect to the variable Medical doctors, the raw odds ratio for fatality above 1.5 doctors per capita compared to below is (1939 / 22156) / (792 / 6950) = 0.77 (with the CI entirely below 1), similar to the univariate analysis, which suggests that fatality generally declines with an increasing number of Medical doctors. But the spline relationship is very clearly showing the opposite effect. I understand that these are different modelling approaches, as the authors explained in their previous response, but these results are nonetheless *very* difficult to reconcile. E.g. the spline-predicted fatality above 1.5 doctors is higher at every point along its curve than the predicted fatality below 1.5 doctors.

Given that the authors make conclusions about this relationship (580-584), I would strongly suggest digging a bit further to explain this pattern (possibly in a Supplementary Appendix), and I reiterate that the most important fix would be to add the FU-specific data point to the figures (this applies to all spline figures). I show an example of how to do this with R code attached as a pdf to my review (I hope this is available to the authors).

Relatedly, the univariate analysis suggests higher case fatality for males compared to females (Table 2) whereas the multiple analysis suggests substantially *lower* case fatality for males (Table ). Again I understand that these are different analyses, but this difference warrants further investigation and explanation, rather than just affirming the finding that female gender is "a known risk factor".

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

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 #3: The reference numbering looks to be off again in places. E.g. at line 199, the reference [26,27] should instead of [27,28].

There is a Table 1 and 2 in the Methods, and another Table 1 and 2 in the Results. Normally tables are numbered sequentially through the entire manuscript.

Between submissions #2 and #3, the units in the axis labels for Figs 5a and 5c changed from "days" to "weeks", but the axis values didn't change. Just confirming that this was intentional? Also, Fig. 5h (Garbage collection) changed in a way that I don't understand. The range of the x-values (1.6-2.8) doesn't correspond with the units in Table 2 (Results)

Figure Files:

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

Data Requirements:

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

Reproducibility:

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: gam_plot_example.pdf

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009567.r007

Decision Letter 3

Nadira D Karunaweera, Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr

16 Jun 2021

Dear Dr Cota,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Inequalities of visceral leishmaniasis case-fatality in Brazil: a multilevel modeling considering space, time, individual and contextual factors' 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

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Nadira Karunaweera

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: As stated previously, the methods are OK now.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Objectives are clearly described and statistical methods employed are adequate for achieving the proposed goals. There are no ethical 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: As stated previously, the results are OK now.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Results are clearly presented and figures and tables adequate

**********

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: As stated previously, the conclusions are OK now.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Conclusions are well elaborated and the public health relevance adequately 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: Accept.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: No modifictions are necessary.

**********

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 article is ready to be published.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: This manuscript has gone through three rounds of review, and I am delighted with this final version. Authors should be allowed to exert their latitude of decisions and choices regarding methods and manuscript format, as long as these choices are not inadequate, incorrect, or non-scientifically sound. Here, the authors employed an exciting and well-known approach for assessing the individuals and contextual effects of factors on the case-fatality rates of visceral leishmaniasis. The problem is of great relevance; the approach is somewhat innovative, the methods are adequate for the objectives, results are interesting, conclusions supported by the data and discussion advances on the relevance of the results for informing public health to deal with such a grave problem.

**********

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: Yes: ccc

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Guilherme Loureiro Werneck

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009567.r008

Acceptance letter

Nadira D Karunaweera, Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr

28 Jun 2021

Dear Dr Cota,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Inequalities of visceral leishmaniasis case-fatality in Brazil: a multilevel modeling considering space, time, individual and contextual factors," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Confirmed visceral leishmaniasis cases according to FU, Brazil, 2007 and 2017.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. VL incidence by FU, between 2007 and 2017.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: answer to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: answer to reviewers_secondReview.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: gam_plot_example.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: answer to reviewers_thirdReview.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because there are individual information about VL cases reported in Brazil. Data were provided by the Brazilian Minister of Health after Ethics Committee approval and the establishing a commitment to maintaining the confidentiality of personal information. Access to data of the Brazilian health surveillance system can be request through the Integrated Access to Information Platform (https://esic.cgu.gov.br/sistema/site/index.aspx) upon presentation of a research project and the ethic commitee approval.


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

    RESOURCES