Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2021 Jul 26;15(7):e0009604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009604

The burden of skin disease and eye disease due to onchocerciasis in countries formerly under the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control mandate for 1990, 2020, and 2030

Natalie V S Vinkeles Melchers 1,*, Wilma A Stolk 1, Welmoed van Loon 1,2, Belén Pedrique 3, Roel Bakker 1, Michele E Murdoch 4, Sake J de Vlas 1, Luc E Coffeng 1,*
Editor: Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr5
PMCID: PMC8312930  PMID: 34310602

Abstract

Background

Onchocerciasis (“river blindness”) can cause severe morbidity, including vision loss and various skin manifestations, and is targeted for elimination using ivermectin mass drug administration (MDA). We calculated the number of people with Onchocerca volvulus infection and onchocercal skin and eye disease as well as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost from 1990 through to 2030 in areas formerly covered by the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control.

Methods

Per MDA implementation unit, we collated data on the pre-control distribution of microfilariae (mf) prevalence and the history of control. Next, we predicted trends in infection and morbidity over time using the ONCHOSIM simulation model. DALY estimates were calculated using disability weights from the Global Burden of Disease Study.

Results

In 1990, prior to MDA implementation, the total population at risk was 79.8 million with 26.0 million (32.5%) mf-positive individuals, of whom 17.5 million (21.9%) had some form of onchocercal skin or eye disease (2.5 million DALYs lost). By 2030, the total population was predicted to increase to 236.1 million, while the number of mf-positive cases (about 6.8 million, 2.9%), people with skin or eye morbidity (4.2 million, 1.8%), and DALYs lost (0.7 million) were predicted to decline.

Conclusions

MDA has had a remarkable impact on the onchocerciasis burden in countries previously under the APOC mandate. In the few countries where we predict continued transmission between now and 2030, intensified MDA could be combined with local vector control efforts, or the introduction of new drugs for mopping up residual cases of infection and morbidity.

Author summary

Onchocerciasis, also known as river blindness, is a neglected tropical disease caused by a parasitic worm transmitted through the bite of an infected blackfly. Onchocerciasis is, or used to be, endemic in many West, Central, and East African countries. Mass drug administration (MDA) with ivermectin and vector control have been used to prevent the spread of infection and effectively control onchocerciasis as a public health problem. In Central and East Africa, this was done under the mandate of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC). In 2012, the World Health Organization targeted onchocerciasis for control and elimination. Here, we assess the impact of MDA with ivermectin on the prevalence of onchocercal morbidity in 1990 (pre-control), 2020, and 2030, and calculate the associated burden of disease in terms of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), a composite measure of life years lost and years lived with disability. By 2030, we expect that 691 thousand DALYs will be lost in countries formerly covered by APOC. This burden is due to onchocercal skin disease in about 3.8 million people and onchocercal eye disease in about 384 thousand people, with most of this burden being concentrated in only a few countries.

Introduction

Human onchocerciasis, also known as river blindness, is a parasitic disease caused by Onchocerca volvulus that is transmitted through the bite of an infected blackfly (genus Simulium). Onchocerciasis has been associated with a high impact on health and socioeconomic status due to blindness and stigmatising scaly, itchy skin manifestations [1]. Before the initiation of mass drug administration (MDA), about 32 million people were estimated to be infected with O. volvulus in countries under the former mandate of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC), which ran from 1995 till 2015 [2]. Another 7.6 million people were estimated to be infected in areas previously under the mandate of the Onchocerciasis Control Programme (OCP, 1974–2002) in West-Africa, prior to the initiation of interventions [3]. In 2019, an estimated 217.2 million people in 30 countries were in need of preventive therapy for onchocerciasis [4], most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. Thanks to long-term and large-scale onchocerciasis interventions in Africa, 1.2 million people no longer require MDA [4] and several other regions may be close to elimination [5].

Onchocerciasis is now targeted for elimination [6], and great progress has been achieved in reducing O. volvulus infection to low levels with MDA [5]. However, with the current focus being mostly on infection levels and interruption of transmission, relatively little attention has been paid to the expected impact of MDA on the prevalence of clinical manifestations and overall disease burden. This is relevant because there are likely to be residual infections and disease burden even after elimination targets are met or by the time they should be met. In areas where the targets are met in time and MDA is scaled down, some form of clinical treatment may be needed to address residual cases of infection and disease (e.g. macrofilaricidal drugs or drugs inducing permanent sterilisation of adult female worms). For areas where MDA was implemented relatively recently or less successfully, additional interventions may be needed to speed up progress towards elimination, e.g. intensified MDA efforts, use of moxidectin (longer suppression of skin mf), additional vector control, or new macrofilaricidal or worm-sterilising drug treatments. To understand the potential need for treatments with a new drug to address the residual burden of onchocerciasis, it is necessary to quantify to what extent this burden is affected by MDA with ivermectin. It is important to note that onchocercal morbidity includes a wide range of clinical manifestations, some of which will (partially) persist even after clearance of infection (chronic morbidity, e.g. vision loss and skin depigmentation) and are therefore not, or only marginally, amenable to anti-parasitic treatment.

Here, we estimate the number of infections, number of cases with clinical manifestations, and the disease burden of onchocerciasis in terms of case numbers and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost in 1990, 2020, and 2030 for countries formerly under the APOC mandate. We include a wide spectrum of onchocercal skin (OSD) and eye disease (OED): severe itch, reactive skin disease, skin depigmentation (leopard skin), skin atrophy, hanging groin, subcutaneous onchocercal nodules, and vision loss (visual impairment and blindness). We predict trends over time in the prevalence of infection, OSD, and OED based on data on the pre-control distribution of infection and the history of MDA, and a newly developed version of the mathematical model ONCHOSIM that captures the dynamic association between infection, treatment, and morbidity [7]

Methods

General approach

To estimate the burden of onchocerciasis across countries previously under the APOC mandate, we used published pre-control maps of onchocerciasis prevalence covering all APOC countries. We then coupled the pre-control infection prevalence per APOC project (i.e. implementation unit for MDA) with rural population density data at baseline. We used the mathematical model ONCHOSIM [2,810] to predict the prevalence of infection and morbidity over time, taking account of the pre-control distribution of infection levels, bioclimate (forest vs. savanna parasite strain), and history of control (MDA, vector control) of each APOC project. Development of morbidity was modelled using a new version of ONCHOSIM that captures the dynamic association between infection, treatment, and morbidity [7]. DALYs lost due to onchocerciasis were quantified by calculating the number of years lived with disability (YLDs) and years of life lost (YLL) due to blindness-related excess mortality. A detailed description of the methods applied is provided in S1 Text; a high-level overview is provided below.

Pre-control infection level and population size

We used a previously published 1x1 km2 resolution raster map of the pre-control prevalence of onchocercal palpable nodules across 18 former APOC countries (i.e. Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda), based on Rapid Epidemiological Mapping of Onchocerciasis (REMO) [11,12]. APOC covered 20 countries in Africa. In Rwanda and Kenya, the prevalence of palpable nodules was virtually zero during REMO surveys [11,12]. As a result, these countries were considered non-endemic for onchocerciasis and we therefore did not include them in our analysis. We converted the pre-control prevalence of palpable nodules in adult males into pre-control microfilariae (mf) prevalence in the population aged ≥5 years, using a published statistical association [13]. We linked each raster cell to an MDA implementation unit, called a “project” from here on, and categorised pixels into six endemicity categories (see S1 Text, Tables A and B). Further, for each project we collated population size estimates from the APOC census database [14,15] and divided the population over the six endemicity levels based on the pixel distribution over the various endemicity levels. See S1 Text, sections 2.1 and 2.2 for more details.

History of control

For each project, we obtained information on the project-specific history of control and expected future treatment scenarios (i.e. MDA start year, achieved coverage, treatment frequency, as well as vector control). S1 Text, section 2.3 provides the relevant details of the data on the history of control per project and assumptions on future MDA scenarios. Briefly, nearly all onchocerciasis hyperendemic and mesoendemic areas had started annual or sometimes bi-annual MDA by 2013 (up to which date we were able to collate information on the history of control [15]). For the few projects that had not yet started MDA by 2013, we consulted the ESPEN Portal [16] to verify the (expected) MDA start year, and adjusted the APOC treatment database where necessary (up to 2017). Hypoendemic areas that are potentially co-endemic for loiasis were assumed not to start MDA before 2025 due to the high risk of serious adverse events related to ivermectin-intake in Loa loa-infected individuals, in line with previous work [14]. We accounted for MDA disruptions due to security issues in countries in civil war (CAR, Liberia, South Sudan) and due to the COVID-19 pandemic. An overview of the history of control used in our analysis can be found in S2 Text.

Mathematical modelling

We predict the prevalence of O. volvulus infection and clinical manifestations per APOC project from 1990 through to 2030, using a newly developed version of the mathematical model ONCHOSIM that captures the dynamic association between infection, treatment, and morbidity [7]. A brief description of ONCHOSIM and its generic morbidity module is provided in S1 Text, sections 3.1 and 3.2. The model was used to predict the mf prevalence in the total population and in individuals aged five years and older, as well as the prevalence of infection with at least one female adult worm in the total population. The model further predicts the prevalence of the following clinical manifestations: severe itch (defined as troublesome itch with insomnia), reactive skin disease (RSD), palpable nodules (which may lead to stigmatisation and shame [17,18]), hanging groin, skin atrophy, depigmentation (two levels of severity: mild and severe), and vision loss (visual impairment and blindness).

Per APOC project (N = 158), we calibrated transmission parameters to reproduce the pre-control mean mf prevalence for each of the six endemicity categories. Next, for each endemicity category in each project, we ran 500 repeated stochastic simulations, accounting for the project-specific MDA history and vector control (S2 Text), assuming that endemicity categories within a project experienced the same history of control. Model predictions were saved by age (0-<2, ≥2-<5, ≥5-<10, ≥10-<20, ≥20-<30, ≥30-<50, ≥50), sex, project, and endemicity category, and were averaged over repeated simulations.

Because ONCHOSIM simulates a single closed community of humans and does not consider mobility of infected humans and flies between multiple communities, it cannot simulate stable hypoendemic infection levels. It is yet unclear which mechanisms contribute the stabilisation of infection across hypoendemic areas, but several hypotheses have been raised, which may not be mutually exclusive: spill-over from adjacent more highly endemic areas, more efficient transmission at low levels through additional density-dependent processes in the blackfly [19], high levels of local individual variation in exposure to blackflies, and/or assortative mixing of small high-risk sub-populations [20]. Rather than explicitly modelling hypoendemic areas making assumptions, we calculated the prevalence of infection and morbidity in hypoendemic areas as a ratio of the model-predicted disease prevalence in mesoendemic areas. We used different ratios for calculating the prevalence of palpable nodules, reversible clinical manifestations (i.e. severe itch and RSD), and irreversible clinical manifestations (i.e. depigmentation, hanging groin, and atrophy) in hypoendemic areas based on a meta-analysis of published data (Fig B in S1 Text) [21,22]. Further information and details are provided in S1 Text, section 3.3.

Burden calculation

The disease burden of onchocerciasis was quantified in terms of DALYs, which are defined as the sum of Years Lived with Disability (YLDs) and Years of Life Lost (YLLs) [23,24]. YLDs were calculated by multiplying the predicted number of prevalent cases with a weight representing the severity level of the condition (disability weight). Disability weights for various subtypes of OSD were defined based on an earlier scheme of disability weights for onchocercal skin morbidity used in the 2010 edition of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study [25], as presented in Table C in S1 Text. YLD estimates were corrected for concurrence of multiple types of skin manifestations, using a multiplicative approach [2629]. This correction was considered important as the mechanics of how some skin manifestations cause a disease burden are similar (e.g. disfigurement) and because, conceptually, the sum of disability weight for concurrent symptoms should not exceed 1.0. A detailed description of how the correction was applied, including a graphical representation, is described in S1 Text, section 4.1. YLLs were calculated for onchocercal blindness only, as blindness is associated with excess mortality [30,31]. S1 Text, section 4.2 provides more details about YLL calculations.

Sensitivity analysis

We assessed the impact of various biological and programmatic assumptions on the estimated number of cases with infection and morbidity by 2030 through univariate sensitivity analyses, including, but not limited to, assumptions about the ratio in morbidity prevalence between hypoendemic and mesoendemic areas, and over-reporting of MDA coverage. Table E in S1 Text provides a full overview of all sensitivity analyses performed.

Results

Number of cases with infection

The total population living in countries previously under the APOC mandate was predicted to increase from 79.8 million in 1990 to 236.1 million people in 2030. Before the initiation of MDA, the prevalence of O. volvulus skin mf-positivity among the population (all ages) was estimated to be 32.5% in 1990 (26.0 million cases), and was predicted to decline to 2.9% by 2030 (6.8 million cases) thanks to MDA, which is a reduction in prevalence of 74%. The prevalence of people infected with at least one adult female worm was predicted to decline from 41.2% in 1990 to 6.6% in 2030, which is a 84% reduction (Table 1). As expected, by 2030, prevalence of mf and worms will be highest in areas that were very hyperendemic before the start of control (Table 2). Further, by 2030 most mf-positive cases will be in the Democratic Republic of Congo (45.4% of all cases), Nigeria (21.6%) and Ethiopia (10.0%). Highest country-level mf prevalence is expected in Gabon (11.9%), where currently no MDA programme is in place due to Loa loa co-endemicity, the Republic of Congo (6.1%), and Mozambique (5.7%) (Table 3). At the project-level, we predict that mf prevalence will be highest in onchocerciasis-hypoendemic areas that are co-endemic for loiasis with an overall mean mf prevalence of 12.7% (4.3 million mf-positive cases among 33.5 million population at risk of infection in P5-projects in 12 (suspected) L. loa-endemic countries) in 2030 (Table W in S3 Text). There are also some hyperendemic foci with high local mf prevalence (>10%) remaining in the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, and South Sudan by 2030. See S3 Text for further detailed estimates by year and project, and S4 Text for detailed estimates by APOC-project and country, which also presents country-specific MDA coverages.

Table 1. Population at risk, total number of cases infected and with clinical manifestations, and DALYs lost due to onchocerciasis for 1990, 2020, and 2030.

Absolute numbers (N and DALYs) are presented in thousands.

1990 2020 2030
N % DALYs N % DALYs N % DALYs
Total population at risk 79,768 100 - 180,004 100 - 236,102 100 -
Mf-positive 25,964 32.5 - 14,092 7.8 - 6,813 2.9 -
Mf-positive (age 5+) 25,922 32.5 - 14,084 7.8 - 6,812 2.9 -
Adult female worm infection 32,825 41.2 - 27,073 15.2 - 15,577 6.6 -
Palpable nodules 7,617 9.5 81 3,810 2.1 40 1,412 0.6 15
Severe itch 4,115 5.2 747 1,663 0.9 302 542 0.2 98
Reactive skin disease 3,089 3.9 143 845 0.5 39 129 0.1 6
Total reversible onchocercal skin disease 7,205 9 890 2,508 1.4 341 670 0.3 104
Mild depigmentation 935 1.2 10 1,117 0.6 12 879 0.4 9
Severe depigmentation 1,057 1.3 68 1,181 0.7 76 863 0.4 56
Atrophy 16 <0.05 <0.5 3 <0.05 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5
Hanging groin 33 <0.05 13 27 <0.05 10 15 <0.05 6
Total irreversible onchocercal skin disease 2,041 2.6 91 2,328 1.3 99 1,756 0.7 71
Total onchocercal skin disease* 16,862 21.1 1,062 8,647 4.8 480 3,839 1.6 190
Visual impairment 421 0.5 13 426 0.2 13 316 0.1 10
Blindness 194 0.2 1,397 126 0.1 903 69 <0.05 491
Total onchocercal eye disease 616 0.8 1,410 552 0.3 916 384 0.2 501
Total all manifestations 17,478 21.9 2,472 9,198 5.1 1,397 4,223 1.8 691

* Note: Total onchocercal skin disease is the sum of palpable nodules, reversible and irreversible skin disease.

Table 2. Population at risk and numbers of cases infected and with clinical manifestations by endemicity level for 2030.

Absolute numbers (N and DALYs) are presented in thousands.

Hypoendemic Mesoendemic Hyperendemic Very hyperendemic
N % DALYs N % DALYs N % DALYs N % DALYs
Total population at risk 145,846 100 - 67,483 100 - 18,053 100 - 4,721 100 -
Mf-positive 4,299 2.9 - 1,237 1.8 - 692 3.8 - 585 12.4 -
Mf-positive (age 5+) 4,299 2.9 - 1,237 1.8 - 691 3.8 - 585 12.4 -
Adult female worm infection 8,735 6.0 - 3,326 4.9 - 2,083 11.5 - 1,432 30.3 -
Palpable nodules 482 0.3 5 419 0.6 4 281 1.6 3 231 4.9 2
Severe itch 353 0.2 64 107 0.2 19 56 0.3 10 26 0.5 5
Reactive skin disease 89 0.1 4 23 <0.05 1 11 0.1 <0.5 6 0.1 <0.5
Total reversible onchocercal skin disease 442 0.3 68 130 0.2 21 67 0.4 11 32 0.7 5
Mild depigmentation 366 0.3 4 274 0.4 3 174 1 2 65 1.4 1
Severe depigmentation 277 0.2 18 233 0.3 15 238 1.3 15 115 2.4 7
Atrophy <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5
Hanging groin <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 1 <0.05 <0.5 6 <0.05 2 8 0.2 3
Total irreversible onchocercal skin disease 643 0.4 22 508 0.8 18 418 2.3 20 188 4 11
Total onchocercal skin disease* 1,566 1.1 95 1,057 1.6 43 765 4.2 33 451 9.5 18
Visual impairment 192 0.1 6 69 0.1 2 38 0.2 1 17 0.3 1
Blindness 34 <0.05 227 10 <0.05 74 14 0.1 102 11 0.2 87
Total onchocercal eye disease 226 0.2 233 80 0.1 77 51 0.3 103 27 0.6 87
Total all manifestations 1,792 1.2 329 1,137 1.7 120 817 4.5 137 478 10.1 106

* Note: Total onchocercal skin disease is the sum of palpable nodules, reversible and irreversible skin disease.

Table 3. Population at risk and numbers of cases infected and with clinical manifestations by country for 2030.

Absolute numbers (N and DALYs) are presented in thousands.

Country Total pop. at risk Mf infected Palpable nodules Reversible skin disease Irreversible skin disease Onchocercal eye disease
N % N % DALYs N % DALYs N % DALYs N % DALYs
Angola 3,925 101 2.6 15 0.4 <0.5 10 0.2 2 25 0.6 1 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5
Burundi 3,944 163 4.1 25 0.6 <0.5 17 0.4 3 24 0.6 1 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5
Cameroon 15,156 426 2.8 76 0.5 1 46 0.3 7 161 1.1 7 21 0.1 28
CAR 3,896 62 1.6 15 0.4 <0.5 7 0.2 1 23 0.6 1 20 0.5 20
Chad 3,780 85 2.3 18 0.5 <0.5 9 0.2 1 15 0.4 <0.5 15 0.4 17
Congo 2,350 144 6.1 29 1.3 <0.5 18 0.8 3 18 0.8 1 <0.5 <0.05 1
Democratic Republic of Congo 68,096 3,094 4.5 795 1.2 8 296 0.4 46 860 1.3 38 35 0.1 94
Equatorial Guinea 588 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 3 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5
Ethiopia 19,911 681 3.4 126 0.6 1 64 0.3 10 163 0.8 6 2 <0.05 4
Gabon 146 17 11.9 2 1.5 <0.5 2 1.2 <0.5 1 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5
Liberia 2,606 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 8 0.3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5
Malawi 3,469 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 8 0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5
Mozambique 107 6 5.7 1 0.6 <0.5 1 0.5 <0.5 1 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5
Nigeria 83,829 1,475 1.8 187 0.2 2 149 0.2 23 298 0.4 10 198 0.2 207
South Sudan 11,393 323 2.8 81 0.7 1 28 0.2 4 74 0.7 3 83 0.7 118
Sudan 1,083 48 4.5 7 0.6 <0.5 5 0.5 1 6 0.5 <0.5 7 0.6 8
Tanzania 5,444 186 3.4 35 0.6 <0.5 19 0.3 3 42 0.8 2 1 <0.05 2
Uganda 6,379 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.5 27 0.4 1 1 <0.05 1
Total 236,102 6,813 2.9 1,412 0.6 15 670 0.3 104 1,756 0.7 71 384 0.2 501

Number of cases with onchocercal morbidity

Prior to MDA implementation (1990), 21.9% of the total population at risk experienced clinical manifestations due to onchocerciasis (17.5 million cases). The most common clinical manifestation was the presence of palpable nodules, followed by acute reversible skin conditions (either severe itch or RSD) (Table 1). The total pre-control prevalence of OED was predicted to be 0.8% (615.5 thousand cases), mostly due to visual impairment in savanna areas (82.3% of all OED cases in 1990; Table G in S3 Text).

By 2030, the total number of cases with onchocercal morbidity was predicted to decline to 4.2 million (1.8% of total population at risk), with palpable nodules and depigmentation contributing most cases (Table 1). Irreversible symptoms of onchocerciasis and, in particular, skin manifestations will be responsible for the majority of the cases: by 2030 there will be 1.8 million cases of irreversible OSD and 384 thousand cases of OED (some cases will have both). In contrast, reversible symptoms only affect 670 thousand people (some of whom will also have irreversible symptoms) by 2030. Cases of OED will be mostly concentrated in savanna areas (87.8% of all OED cases). The highest prevalence of onchocercal morbidity will be in very hyperendemic areas with about 10.1% of the population having clinical manifestations, yet 42.4% of all cases with clinical manifestations due to onchocerciasis were predicted to live in hypoendemic areas where most of the population at risk resides (Table 2). By 2030, the majority of clinical cases will be living in the Democratic Republic of Congo (47.0% of all remaining cases in eastern and central Africa), Nigeria (19.7%), Ethiopia (8.4%), and Cameroon (7.2%) (Table 3). In terms of country-specific morbidity prevalence, Gabon has highest overall morbidity prevalence (3.6%; mainly due to high prevalence of reversible skin disease and assumed absence of MDA), followed by the Democratic Republic of Congo (2.9%), and the Republic of Congo (2.8%), and South Sudan (2.3%). There are also some hyperendemic foci with high overall morbidity prevalence (>7%) remaining in the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan by 2030 (mainly due to palpable nodules). See S3 Text and S4 Text for further detailed estimates by year, project, and country.

DALYs lost due to onchocerciasis

The total number of DALYs lost slightly increased between 1990 and 2000 due to population growth combined with the gradual roll-out of MDA programmes, but from 2000 onwards we predict a steady decline in DALYs lost (Fig 1). We estimate that the total DALYs lost due to onchocerciasis was 2.5 million before MDA started (1990), that this figure declined to 1.4 million in 2020, and will further decline to 691 thousand by 2030. In 1990, most of the onchocercal disease burden was due to blindness (1.4 million DALYs) and severe itch (747 thousand DALYs) (Table 1). By 2030, blindness (491 thousand DALYs) and severe itch (98 thousand DALYs), will account for 71.1% and 14.2% of all DALYs lost, respectively (Table 1). This amounts to a reduction in DALYs lost due to blindness and severe itch of 64.9% and 86.9%, respectively. Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and South Sudan will carry the highest disease burden due to onchocerciasis in 2030 (Table 3 and Fig 2), primarily because of the high number of DALYs lost due to blindness in savanna areas and the high numbers of people living in endemic areas in those countries. Overall, thanks to MDA, the annual number of DALYs averted will rise to 6.6 million by 2030 (Fig 1) and around 96.7 million DALYs will have been cumulatively averted between 1990 and 2030.

Fig 1. Total number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost and averted due to onchocerciasis from 1990 to 2030 in countries formerly covered by the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control.

Fig 1

DALYs are expressed in thousands (x1000). The total height of the blue part of the bars represents the estimated total number of DALYs lost, with different intensities of blue representing four subcategories of onchocercal morbidity (see legend). The total height of the bars (blue plus grey) represents the DALYs lost in a counterfactual scenario without large-scale MDA. The light grey part of each bar therefore represents the annual number of DALYs averted by MDA.

Fig 2. Total number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost due to onchocerciasis by country in 2030.

Fig 2

Sensitivity analysis

Fig 3 shows the impact of alternative assumptions about the estimated number of cases with reversible and irreversible OSD by 2030. For reversible skin manifestations, the assumptions regarding MDA implementation have the highest impact on case estimates, with up to 826.8 thousand more estimated cases when MDA coverage was systematically reported to be higher (20% points) than the actual distribution. As O. volvulus infection is directly related to the presence of acute, reversible skin conditions, earlier initiation of MDA in untreated areas would reduce case estimates by 117.7 thousand cases. For chronic, irreversible skin manifestations, the effect of systematic over-reporting of MDA coverage would be less pronounced on current case estimates (up to 316.5 thousand more cases if MDA coverage is over-reported by 20% points). Halving the factor with which we calculate morbidity prevalence in hypoendemic as a function of prevalence in mesoendemic areas would considerably influence our case estimates with irreversible subtypes of OSD for 2030 (545.4 thousand fewer cases). As for OSD, the predicted prevalence of skin mf and nodules in 2030 was most sensitive to assumptions about MDA coverage. In contrast, OED estimates for 2030 were only marginally sensitive to MDA coverage but were highly sensitive to assumptions about excess mortality due to blindness and potential reversibility of visual impairment, which led to up to an estimated 7.2% and 93.3% fewer cases of OED respectively by 2030 (S1 Text, section 5). Starting MDA in as yet untreated L. Loa-endemic areas in 2024 instead of 2025, and in untreated non-L. loa-endemic areas in 2022 instead of 2023 would considerably reduce the number of cases with reversible skin manifestations by 2030 (-17.6%), but not the number of cases with irreversible skin morbidity (-1.1%).

Fig 3. Univariate sensitivity analysis for the predicted number of cases with reversible and irreversible onchocercal skin disease by 2030.

Fig 3

Coloured bars represent the difference between the sensitivity analysis and the results of the main analysis (vertical black line). * In the sensitivity analysis, the prevalence of infection and clinical manifestations in hypoendemic areas was assumed to be 1/3 of that in mesoendemic areas (as applied in a previous modelling exercise [2]), instead of ratios based on a more detailed meta-analysis performed for the main analysis (see also Table E in S1 Text).

Discussion

We predict major reductions in the burden of onchocerciasis between 1990 and 2030, both in terms of number of cases as well as in DALYs lost, mainly thanks to the massive impact of MDA with ivermectin. We predict that the annual number of DALYs lost due to onchocerciasis will be more than halved over a 40-year time frame, with around 97 million DALYs cumulatively averted by MDA between 1990 and 2030 in countries formerly covered by APOC. Most of the cases remaining by 2030 will be due to palpable nodules and chronic skin manifestations, and most of the remaining burden will be due to severe itch and blindness. By 2030, almost half of all remaining cases will be located in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where many people live in endemic areas and MDA started relatively late.

The GBD study estimated that the number of DALYs lost due to onchocerciasis was 1.4 million in 1990 and 1.3 million in 2015 [32,33]. The difference with our burden estimates for the same years (2.5 million and 1.8 million DALYs lost in 1990 and 2015, respectively) can be largely explained by the fact that excess mortality due to onchocercal blindness was not considered in the GBD study, while we estimated onchocercal blindness to be responsible for 1.4 million and 1.1 million DALYS lost in 1990 and 2015, respectively. The remaining difference may be explained by a methodological difference: the GBD study relies on statistical models while our study uses a mechanistic mathematical model, which we consider more appropriate for producing forecasts.

We identified areas where we predict high remaining onchocerciasis cases (due to loiasis co-endemicity or very hyperendemic baseline infection levels), as well as areas where onchocerciasis transmission may be close to elimination [5]. Our results are in line with a recent analysis on remaining O. volvulus and L. loa cases by 2025 [14], predicting 19.0% O. volvulus and 5.8% L. loa mf prevalence in these areas. This highlights that particularly hypoendemic areas with loiasis transmission, currently excluded from mass treatment, should rapidly be targeted for onchocerciases elimination mapping and implementation of alternative treatment strategies, such as the Test-and-not-Treat strategy, community-directed vector control (e.g. slash and clear vegetation, ground-based larviciding), or possibly a new macrofilaricidal treatment for onchocerciasis, once available. Intensified interventions could also be considered to bring down infection and morbidity in areas with historically high baseline endemicity levels that are currently still hyperendemic, even after long-term control. We predict that by 2030 the highest remaining prevalence of infection and morbidity is likely to be found in endemic areas of Gabon, Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Republic of Congo. However, the highest burden will be found in countries with the highest number of population at risk or those with the blinding savanna type of onchocerciasis (i.e. Nigeria, DRC, South Sudan, Cameroon). In other countries, the long-standing control interventions in Africa will have reduced infection and morbidity to negligible levels, such as across large areas in Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, and Uganda. For Uganda, these predictions are in line with empirical evidence: 15 out of 17 onchocerciasis-endemic foci in Uganda are currently under post-treatment surveillance or have eliminated onchocerciasis [34,35].

The presented number of cases with infection and morbidity should be considered as indicative only, as the estimates depend on uncertain assumptions regarding baseline endemicity levels, local transmission conditions and programmatic factors. Numbers presented for any hypo-endemic areas left untreated by APOC should be considered with particular caution. The P5 areas include all areas with an estimated nodule prevalence between 5% and 20%, based on a geostatistical analysis of REMO survey data [11]. However, in most areas hypo-endemicity remains to be confirmed in the field through onchocerciasis elimination mapping, although the ESPEN website suggest that elimination mapping may not, or no longer be required in seven former APOC-countries (i.e., Burundi, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda). In some of the P5 areas, onchocerciasis infection prevalences may have been reduced thanks to MDA programmes against lymphatic filariasis in loiasis-free areas or the collateral benefits of other drug programmes (e.g., ivermectin against scabies in Ethiopia [36]) may have led to minor overestimations of the aforementioned burden estimates for these areas.

Although we have taken account of most clinical manifestations attributable to O. volvulus infection, there is increasing evidence of an association between high intensity O. volvulus infection and the development of epilepsy during childhood [3740]. A recent study reported 128 thousand YLDs by 2015 due to onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy in 9 of the 17 countries formerly covered by APOC [41]. This would imply an additional 53.8 thousand DALYs lost due to onchocerciasis (128,000 cases x 0.420 disability weight for uncontrolled epilepsy [25]) by 2015, which is a conservative estimate as it does not capture YLLs caused by excess mortality associated with epilepsy in rural Africa [41]. In addition, MDA with ivermectin will also have a modest impact on off-target diseases like soil-transmitted helminths and scabies [42].

The results presented here are estimates based on the most comprehensive available data from countries formerly covered by APOC. The study was motivated by the extreme paucity of large-scale representative data on actual morbidity levels in (formerly) onchocerciasis-endemic areas. Disease manifestations were modelled using a newly developed disease module within ONCHOSIM that, for the first time, could simultaneously simulate reversible and irreversible clinical manifestations, as well as single- and multi-stage disease, taking into account the impact of excess mortality due to blindness on the trends for prevalence of all these conditions. Model outcomes were externally validated against longitudinal trends in morbidity prevalence, community-level patterns in prevalence of infection and disease manifestations, age-stratified pre-control morbidity prevalence data from savanna communities, and data on the concurrence of clinical manifestations, and it was shown that the model could reasonably well reproduce the morbidity patterns in the field [7]. Also, it is important to note that our analysis builds on estimates of the pre-control distribution of infection levels based on REMO (rapid epidemiological mapping of onchocerciasis) data, which are the most comprehensive and accurate data available, and the basis of the current map of onchocerciasis in the 20 APOC countries. The oldest REMO surveys possibly date from 1993, but many were done more recently. These REMO data provide a good indication of pre-control prevalence in treated areas. The extent of hypoendemic areas is more uncertain; unfortunately, data from recent and ongoing mapping efforts in hypoendemic areas with more sensitive diagnostic tools are not yet published. We further note that we did not capture the impact of potential secular developments, such as climate change, deforestation, economic development, demographic transition, and urbanisation, which may lead or may have led to changes in transmission intensity and lower population densities in endemic areas than assumed here. However, we do not expect this to impact our results with regard to where most of the future onchocercal burden will be. Indeed, the geographical distribution of infection may have changed somewhat over time prior to start of MDA. However, as we aggregated results over a larger geographical area, we expect that this uncertainty does not affect, or only marginally affects, our main findings and conclusions.

We used the mathematical model ONCHOSIM to simulate the impact of ivermectin in treated areas on infection and morbidity according to reported treatment history and future MDA scenarios. ONCHOSIM captures community infection dynamics throughout MDA quite well [2,10,43,44], but relies on adequate input about MDA coverage levels, which may be reported imprecisely or incorrectly [45]. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that a 10%- or 20%-point change (everywhere) in coverage of MDA has a considerable impact on case and burden estimates, highlighting the importance of high-quality MDA coverage data. We based the assumptions of control interventions on information from the APOC treatment database [15] and the ESPEN portal. We might be unaware of acceleration strategies that countries may have implemented in specific implementation units, such as changing MDA frequency from annual to bi-annual [35,46]. Also, apart from (community-based) vector control on the island of Bioko [4750] and in Uganda [5153], we did not take account of any other local vector control strategies that may have been implemented in other countries. However, we expect that in general, local interventions other than annual MDA would only have a minimal additional impact on the burden of disease, given the already large effect of annual MDA with ivermectin on prevalence of acute clinical manifestations and incidence of chronic conditions. We have further taken account of major events that may have influenced the continuation of the MDA programme such as civil war in South Sudan, the CAR and Liberia, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. The WHO recommended in 2020 to suspend all epidemiological surveys and MDA activities for Neglected Tropical Diseases tackled by preventive chemotherapy and transmission control due to the COVID-19 pandemic [54]. A recent modelling paper assessed the impact of MDA disruptions and delays in scaling-up of MDA since 2020, and shows that this affects O. volvulus transmission and infection level in both the short and long term [55].

We used the latest GBD disability weights [23], mapping the clinical manifestations of onchocerciasis to the lay descriptions with corresponding disability weights to estimate DALYs lost due to onchocerciasis. The disability weight for blindness was estimated at 0.187 by the GBD study. Several previous estimates of the blindness disability weight were considerably higher [56]. The difference between earlier and current estimates may be primarily due to the dimensions covered by the disability weight: the GBD disability weights focus only on health loss due to blindness, not capturing other socio-economic consequences of blindness that may occur in Africa (e.g., related to livelihood, employment, accessibility of public resources and infrastructure). Such socio-economic consequences are therefore also not captured in our burden estimates. Quantifying this socio-economic burden was beyond the scope of this work, but it is important to acknowledge that this burden will be high, especially for blindness in the African context [5759].

Our analysis only covers countries in Central and East Africa formerly covered by APOC, whereas in West Africa the Onchocerciasis Control Programme (OCP) also has been recognised as one of the most successful programmes in the history of development aid [35]. Therefore, a next step is to perform a similar modelling study for countries previously under the OCP mandate to obtain a comprehensive synopsis of health losses due to onchocerciasis in the whole of Africa. A major challenge here will be to collate data on the history of MDA and vector control, which, unlike the case for APOC countries, was not curated centrally but by the individual countries that were part of OCP.

Conclusions

MDA has had a remarkable impact on the onchocerciasis burden in countries previously under the APOC mandate. Yet, by 2030 we still expect over 10 million mf-positive people and almost 20 million individuals harbouring adult worms, with the majority living in only a few countries. If in the future elimination of onchocerciasis is achieved, acute clinical manifestations of onchocerciasis such as reactive skin disease and severe itch will have largely disappeared, although chronic clinical manifestations will linger and only slowly disappear due to demographic turn-over. In the few countries where we predict continued transmission between now and 2030, intensified MDA could be combined with local vector control efforts, or the introduction of new drugs for mopping up residual cases of infection and morbidity.

Supporting information

S1 Text. A PDF file with a detailed description of the methodology and additional details of sensitivity analyses.

(PDF)

S2 Text. A PDF file with treatment history and assumptions per APOC project used in simulations.

(PDF)

S3 Text. A PDF file with additional tables with estimated case numbers by age, sex, endemicity level, and APOC projects for 1990, 2020, and 2030.

(PDF)

S4 Text. A PDF file with detailed estimates (number of cases, and DALYs) by country and APOC project.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to warmly thank Louise Burrows (DNDi) for editing the final draft of the manuscript. We would like to acknowledge WHO/AFRO for approving the use and publication of the data used in this manuscript. We are grateful to Hans Remme for helping in compiling pixel-level mf prevalence data and stratifying these pixels per APOC project over endemicity levels and coupling to population census data. In addition, we would like to thank Federica Giardina for their statistical advice in the programming of R during the initial modelling and analysis stage.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

NVSVM, WAS, WvL, BP, and LEC received funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID, www.usaid.gov) through the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi, www.dndi.org) (ref no. AID-OAA-G14-00010). The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. For its overall mission, DNDi receives support from UK aid, UK (www.ukaiddirect.org; MOU 2013-2018 and MOU 2017-2021); Médecins sans Frontières (MSF, www.msf.org; MOU 2014-2018 and MOU 2019-2023); and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Switzerland (SDC, www.eda.admin.ch/sdc; contract no. 81017718 and no. 81050394). WAS, SJdV, and LEC gratefully acknowledge funding of the NTD Modelling Consortium by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (www.gatesfoundation.org; grant OPP1184344). LEC further acknowledges funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO, www.nwo.nl; grant 016.Veni.178.023). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Cox FEG. History of Human Parasitology. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2002;15: 595–595. doi: 10.1128/CMR.15.4.595-612.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Coffeng LE, Stolk WA, Zouré HGM, Veerman JL, Agblewonu KB, Murdoch ME, et al. African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control 1995–2015: model-estimated health impact and cost. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7: e2032. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.O’Hanlon SJ, Slater HC, Cheke RA, Boatin BA, Coffeng LE, Pion SDS, et al. Model-based geostatistical mapping of the prevalence of Onchocerca volvulus in West Africa. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0004328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.WHO. Elimination of human onchocerciasis: progress report, 2019–2020. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2020;45: 545–556. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tekle A, Zouré H, Noma M, Boussinesq M, Coffeng LE, Stolk WA. Progress towards onchocerciasis elimination in the participating countries of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control: epidemiological evaluation results. Infect Dis Poverty. 2016;5. doi: 10.1186/s40249-016-0160-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.World Health Organization. Ending the neglect to attain the Sustainable Development Goals: A road map for neglected tropical diseases 2021–2030. Geneva: World Health Organization. Licence: CC BY-NCSA 3.0 IGO. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vinkeles Melchers NVS, Stolk WA, Murdoch ME, Pedrique B, Kloek M, Bakker R, et al. How does onchocerciasis-related skin and eye disease in Africa depend on cumulative exposure to infection and mass treatment? Fairfax KC, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15: e0009489. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009489 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Plaisier AP, van Oortmarssen GJ, Remme J, Alley ES, Habbema JD. The risk and dynamics of onchocerciasis recrudescence after cessation of vector control. Bull World Health Organ. 1991;69: 169–78. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Habbema JD, Plaisier AP, van Oortmarssen GJ, Remme J. Prospective evaluation of onchocerciasis control strategies. Acta Leiden. 1990;59: 387–398. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stolk WA, Walker M, Coffeng LE, Basáñez M-G, de Vlas SJ. Required duration of mass ivermectin treatment for onchocerciasis elimination in Africa: a comparative modelling analysis. Parasite Vector. 2015;8. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-1159-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zouré H, Noma M, Tekle AH, Amazigo UV, Diggle PJ, Giorgi E, et al. The geographic distribution of onchocerciasis in the 20 participating countries of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control: (2) pre-control endemicity levels and estimated number infected. Parasite Vector. 2014;7. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Noma M, Nwoke BEB, Nutall I, Tambala PA, Enyong P, Namsenmo A, et al. Rapid epidemiological mapping of onchocerciasis (REMO): its application by the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC). Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2002;96 Suppl 1: S29–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Coffeng LE, Pion SDS, O’Hanlon S, Cousens S, Abiose AO, Fischer PU, et al. Onchocerciasis: the pre-control association between prevalence of palpable nodules and skin microfilariae. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7: e2168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Vinkeles Melchers NVS, Coffeng LE, Boussinesq M, Pedrique B, Pion SDS, Tekle AH, et al. Projected number of people with onchocerciasis-loiasis co-infection in Africa, 1995 to 2025. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;ciz647: 1–9. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz647 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kim YE, Remme JHF, Steinmann P, Stolk WA, Roungou J-B, Tediosi F. Control, elimination, and eradication of river blindness: scenarios, timelines, and ivermectin treatment needs in Africa. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9: e0003664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.ESPEN Portal. Onchocerciasis maps. Expanded Special Project for Elimination of Neglected Tropical Diseases (ESPEN). World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa. Available at: https://espen.afro.who.int/ (Assessed on: 11 May 2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mbanefo EC, Eneanya CI, Nwaorgu OC, Oguoma VM, Otiji MO, Ogolo BA. Onchocerciasis in Anambra State, Southeast Nigeria: clinical and psychological aspects and sustainability of community directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI). Postgrad Med J. 2010;86: 573–577. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2010.100248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Amuyunzu-Nyamongo M, Tchounkeu YFL, Oyugi RA, Kabali AT, Okeibunor JC, Manianga C, et al. Drawing and interpreting data: Children’s impressions of onchocerciasis and community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) in four onchocerciasis endemic countries in Africa. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2011;6. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v6i2.5918 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Basáñez MG, Remme JHF, Alley ES, Bain O, Shelley AJ, Medley GF, et al. Density-dependent processes in the transmission of human onchocerciasis: Relationship between the numbers of microfilariae ingested and successful larval development in the simuliid vector. Parasitology. 1995;110: 409–427. doi: 10.1017/s0031182000064751 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.de Vos AS, Stolk WA, de Vlas SJ, Coffeng LE. The effect of assortative mixing on stability of low helminth transmission levels and on the impact of mass drug administration: Model explorations for onchocerciasis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12: e0006624. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006624 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Murdoch ME, Murdoch IE, Evans J, Yahaya H, Njepuome N, Cousens S, et al. Pre-control relationship of onchocercal skin disease with onchocercal infection in Guinea Savanna, Northern Nigeria. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0005489. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005489 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Murdoch ME, Asuzu MC, Hagan M, Makunde WH, Ngoumou P, Ogbuagu KF, et al. Onchocerciasis: the clinical and epidemiological burden of skin disease in Africa. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2002;96: 283–96. doi: 10.1179/000349802125000826 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Salomon JA, Haagsma JA, Davis A, Maertens De Noordhout C, Polinder S, Havelaar AH, et al. Disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease 2013 study. Lancet Glob Health. 2015; 3(11): e712–23. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00069-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bank World. World Development Report 1993: Investing in Health. New York: Oxford University Press. ©World Bank. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5976 (Accessed on: 22 Nov 2019). License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Salomon JA, Vos T, Hogan DR, Gagnon M, Naghavi M, Mokdad A, et al. Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380: 2129–43. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61680-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mathers CD, Iburg KM, Begg S. Adjusting for dependent comorbidity in the calculation of healthy life expectancy. Popul Health Metr. 2006;4. doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-4-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.van Baal PH, Hoeymans N, Hoogenveen RT, de Wit GA, Westert GP. Disability weights for comorbidity and their influence on Health-adjusted Life Expectancy. Popul Health Metr. 2006;4. doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-4-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Flanagan W, McIntosh CN, Le Petit C, Berthelot J-M. Deriving utility scores for co-morbid conditions: a test of the multiplicative model for combining individual condition scores. Popul Health Metr. 2006;4: 13. doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-4-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Haagsma JA, van Beeck EF, Polinder S, Toet H, Panneman M, Bonsel GJ. The effect of comorbidity on health-related quality of life for injury patients in the first year following injury: comparison of three comorbidity adjustment approaches. Popul Health Metr. 2011;9. doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-9-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Prost A, Vaugelade J. Excess mortality among blind persons in the West African savannah zone. Bull World Health Organ. 1981;59: 773–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Pion SDS, Kamgno J, Demanga-Ngangue M, Boussinesq M. Excess mortality associated with blindness in the onchocerciasis focus of the Mbam Valley, Cameroon. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2002;96: 181–9. doi: 10.1179/000349802125000718 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hay SI, Abajobir AA, Abate KH, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abd-Allah F, et al. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 333 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet. 2017;390: 1260–1344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.GHDx. Global Health Data Exchange. GBD results tool. Available at: http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool (Accessed on: 12 Dec 2019).
  • 34.Habomugisha P. Uganda treatments and impact. The Carter Center; River blindness elimination program. Powerpoint presentation 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Katabarwa MN, Lakwo T, Habomugisha P, Unnasch TR, Garms R, Hudson-Davis L, et al. After 70 years of fighting an age-old scourge, onchocerciasis in Uganda, the end is in sight. Int Health. Oxford University Press; 2018. pp. i79–i88. doi: 10.1093/inthealth/ihx044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Enbiale W, Baynie TB, Ayalew A, Gebrehiwot T, Getanew T, Ayal A, et al. “Stopping the itch”: Mass drug administration for scabies outbreak control covered for over nine million people in Ethiopia. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2020; 14(6.1): 28S–35S. doi: 10.3855/jidc.11701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kaiser C, Pion SDS, Boussinesq M. Case-control studies on the relationship between onchocerciasis and epilepsy: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7: e2147. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pion SDS, Kaiser C, Boutros-Toni F, Cournil A, Taylor MM, Meredith SEO, et al. Epilepsy in onchocerciasis endemic areas: systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009;3: e461. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mbonye Bo MK, Gumisiriza N, Lawko T, Makumbi I, Idro R, Onen H, et al. Prevalence and annual incidence of nodding syndrome and other forms of epilepsy in onchocerciasis endemic areas in northern Uganda. Abstract 4S64 10th European Conference on Tropical Diseases and International Health 16–20 October 2017, Antwerp, Belgium.
  • 40.Levick B, Laudisoit A, Tepage F, Ensoy-Musoro C, Mandro M, Bonareri Osoro C, et al. High prevalence of epilepsy in onchocerciasis endemic regions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0005732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Vinkeles Melchers NVS, Mollenkopf S, Colebunders R, Edlinger M, Coffeng LE, Irani J, et al. Burden of onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy: first estimates and research priorities. Infect Dis Poverty. 2018;7: 101. doi: 10.1186/s40249-018-0481-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Krotneva SP, Coffeng LE, Noma M, Zouré HGM, Bakoné L, Amazigo U V., et al. African Program for Onchocerciasis Control 1995–2010: Impact of annual ivermectin mass treatment on off-target infectious diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9: e0004051. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Plaisier A, van Oortmarssen G, Habbema J, Remme J, Alley E. ONCHOSIM: a model and computer simulation program for the transmission and control of onchocerciasis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1990;31: 43–56. doi: 10.1016/0169-2607(90)90030-d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Habbema J, van Oortmarssen G, Plaisier A. The ONCHOSIM model and its use in decision support for river blindness control. Cambridge University Press. 1996; 360–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Budge PJ, Sognikin E, Akosa A, Mathieu EM, Deming M. Accuracy of coverage survey recall following an integrated Mass Drug Administration for lymphatic filariasis, schistosomiasis, and soil-transmitted helminthiasis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0004358. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.National Onchocerciasis Control Program. Ministry of Health. Republic of Uganda. Available at: https://www.health.go.ug/programs/national-onchocerciasis-control-program/ (Accessed on: 11 May 2021).
  • 47.Mas J, Ascaso C, Post R, Cheke RA, Meyer R, MacCall P, et al. Oncocercosis and its control in Equatorial Guinea: 1997–2010. Enferm Emerg. 2011;13: S93–S97. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Moya L, Herrador Z, Ta-Tang TH, Rubio JM, Perteguer MJ, Hernandez-González A, et al. Evidence for suppression of onchocerciasis transmission in Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Herrador Z, Garcia B, Ncogo P, Perteguer MJ, Rubio JM, Rivas E, et al. Interruption of onchocerciasis transmission in Bioko Island: Accelerating the movement from control to elimination in Equatorial Guinea. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12: e0006471. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Traoré S, Wilson MD, Sima A, Barro T, Diallo A, Aké A, et al. The elimination of the onchocerciasis vector from the island of Bioko as a result of larviciding by the WHO African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control. Acta Trop. 2009;111: 211–218. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2009.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Katabarwa MN, Walsh F, Habomugisha P, Lakwo TL, Agunyo S, Oguttu DW, et al. Transmission of onchocerciasis in Wadelai focus of northwestern Uganda has been interrupted and the disease eliminated. J. Parasitol. Res. 2012; 1–7. doi: 10.1155/2012/748540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lakwo TL, Garms R, Rubaale T, Katabarwa M, Walsh F, Habomugisha P, et al. The disappearance of onchocerciasis from the Itwara focus, western Uganda after elimination of the vector Simulium neavei and 19 years of annual ivermectin treatments. Acta Trop. 2013;126: 218–21. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2013.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jacob BG, Loum D, Lakwo TL, Katholi CR, Habomugisha P, Byamukama E, et al. Community-directed vector control to supplement mass drug distribution for onchocerciasis elimination in the Madi mid-North focus of Northern Uganda. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12: e0006702. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.World Health Organization. COVID-19: WHO Issues Interim Guidance for Implementation of NTD Programmes. Available from: https://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/news/COVID19-WHO-interim-guidance-implementation-NTD-programmes/en/ (Accessed on: 17 May 2021).
  • 55.Hamley JID, Blok DJ, Walker M, Milton P, Hopkins AD, Hamill LC, et al. What does the COVID-19 pandemic mean for the next decade of onchocerciasis control and elimination? Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2021;115: 269–280. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/traa193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Braithwaite T, Taylor H, Bourne R, Keeffe J, Pesudovs K. Does blindness count? Disability weights for vision loss. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017; 45(3): 217–220. doi: 10.1111/ceo.12874 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wagbatsoma VA, Okojie OH. Psychosocial effects of river blindness in a rural community in Nigeria. R Soc Health J. 2004;124: 134–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Alonso L, Murdoch M, Jofre-Bonet M. Psycho-social and economical evaluation of onchocerciasis: a literature review. Soc Med. 2009;4: 8–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Evans TG. Socioeconomic consequences of blinding onchocerciasis in West Africa. Bull World Health Organ. 1995;73: 495–506. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009604.r001

Decision Letter 0

Sara Lustigman, Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr

26 Dec 2020

Dear Dr. Coffeng,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "The burden of skin disease and eye disease due to onchocerciasis in Africa for 1990, 2015, and 2025" 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

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Sara Lustigman

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

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

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

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? yes

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met No

Reviewer #2: The objectives are clearly elucidated but the process is very theoretical and although well explained it is unrelated to the reality in the field in East and Central Africa.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: This is a robust analysis using a well established method. The objectives of the study are clearly stipulated. The design of the analysis is appropriate to answer the objectives of the study. One thing the authors should clarify is that the countries supported by APOC are less than the currently endemic countries. So this should be clarified so that the figures here not to look like for Africa.

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

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: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? yes

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? Yes

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

Reviewer #2: The analysis presented do match the plan but there are flaws in the data sources and therefore the conclusions. The figures are clear.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The results are clear.

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

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: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? yes

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? yes

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

-Is public health relevance addressed? yes

Reviewer #2: Conclusions are supported by the data presented but these are so general that this study does not really add to what is already known.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (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: see comments below.

Reviewer #2: See comments below.

Reviewer #3: 1. The title of the paper seems to imply that this paper will provide results for the whole of Africa, and should be changed to make it clear that it only covers (some) ex-APOC countries.

2. The authors might like to explain why they did not include all the ex-APOC countries (i.e. Liberia and Kenya), and make it clear that they did not cover all ex-APOC countries in the abstract.

3. The authors seem to put more emphasis on macrofilaricides as a solution to annual MDA effectiveness issues, as opposed to other interventions. They do mention other possibilities, but it seems that the authors are suggesting that macrofilaricides would be the solution of choice, or possibly the only solution in some cases (e.g. lines 293 and 284). Please can the authors explain this, or make some small revisions so that the solutions are less one-sided.

Reviewer #4: None.

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

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: Excellently written paper, very extensive, well documented modelling work.

However as with all modelling work results depend on the available data and these are relatively poor.

First the model relies on REMO data, collected in 1993. Since 1993 a lot of changes other than onchocerciasis elimination efforts may have changed the onchocerciasis prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa.

Second, the model relies on ivermectin coverage as reported by the onchocerciasis control/elimination programs. These coverage rates underestimate in many areas, mainly in those with most onchocerciasis related morbidity the true coverage.

Bi-annual CDTI and vector control was not taking into account because as the authors state “it was considered this would not make a big difference given the already large effect of annual MDA with ivermectin on prevalence of acute clinical manifestations and incidence of chronic conditions.” I can see it is difficult to take this into account. However we have seen that implementing bi-annual CDTI in combination with vector control made a major difference concerning onchocerciasis related morbidity (epilepsy) in northern Uganda (1). We hope that a similar approach would be implemented in other areas of high O volvulus transmission and very high onchocerciasis morbidity for example in South Sudan.

1. N. Gumisiriza et al., Prevalence and incidence of nodding syndrome and other forms of epilepsy in onchocerciasis-endemic areas in northern Uganda after the implementation of onchocerciasis control measures. Infect Dis Poverty 9, 12 (2020).

The authors mention they did not capture “the impact of potential secular developments such as deforestation, economic development, demographic transition, and urbanisation, which may have led to changes in transmission intensity and a lower (future) population at risk living in endemic areas than assumed here.”

They do not mention however security problems, occurring frequently in certain African countries, who may seriously complicate the distribution of ivermectin. The current COVID-19 epidemic is another example that has interrupted onchocerciasis elimination efforts.

It is good the authors mention the association between high intensity O. volvulus infection and the development of epilepsy during childhood [28–31]. However they mention this important public health problem in onchocerciasis endemic regions only in the discussion. I propose to mention this already in the introduction. Indeed epilepsy is an onchocerciasis associated condition with very high disability, much higher than skin lesions and blindness.

The authors predict that the highest country-level mf prevalence in 2025 is expected in Gabon (19.4%), where currently no MDA programme is in place due to Loa loa co-endemicity, Mozambique (11.7%), Republic of Congo (9.5%), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (8.2%) (Table 3). I’m surprised that countries that experience war with complete disruption of CDTI programs such as South Sudan and CAR are not mentioned.

The authors state “Disability weights are based on a previously published multi-country study by Salomon et al.[31]

This study by Soloman analysed data from new web-based surveys of participants aged 18-65 years, completed in four European countries. These data are clearly not relevant for the O. volvulus infected person.

For example a score is given for “Disfigurement: level 2. Person has a visible physical deformity that causes others to stare and comment. As a result, the person is worried and has trouble sleeping and concentrating.”

I have difficulties to believe that chronic irreversible skin problems in O. volvulus infected persons are associated with more disability than O. volvulus related serious vision problems.

Reviewer #2: General Comments to authors

I congratulate the authors on the enormous and detailed work that you have done on this paper, but with all the assumptions (that you have well explained), I wonder if it would not have been better to look at what is happening on the ground and to look at more impact data. There is too much emphasis on coverage data much of which is unrealistic. I feel fo all the work done your conclusions are in fact very weak.

Specific comments to authors

Line 76. Agreed; 217.5 million people needing PC but to be more realistic you should add how many are nearing the end of treatment.

Line 86: You mention people with disease but you need to make clearer the difference between transmission of the disease and manifestations of disease (morbidity) in the text.

Line 173. Some hypoendemic foci may be driven by spill over from hyperendemic foci but by no means all of them. Look at Gabon!

Line 189. You explain the modifications to GBD for the skin manifestations of onchocerciasis. A similar approach must be made to visual impairment and blindness as once again the GBD does not really take into account the impact of blindness in an onchocerciasis environment.

Line 228. OED was hardly measured in the APOC region. Most of the surveys done by APOC in the early days remained unpublished and were not followed up.

Line 246. I think you may need to add South Sudan to your list. Surveys in the APOC era showed the results reported were not realistic, and there has been virtually no treatment for a period of about 10 years until 2017 when treatment has started to scale up again. There are undoubtedly new cases of blindness and there is a lot of epilepsy in the south which you have mentioned but will be a serious problem for morbidity management later.

Line 298. I agree that excess mortality due to OED needs to be taken into account but there is definitely a difference between blindness trends due to vector control and those due to ivermectin. With ivermectin use more early cases are reversible where these are not impacted early enough with vector control.

Line 350. In these days of integration of PC it is unrealistic to not take into account treatment s for LF, particularly in hypoendemic areas.

Line 384. I agree with your conclusion that macrofilaricidal drugs will be needed to mop up hot spots and treating clinical cases and the sequelae of onchocerciasis may well continue after elimination of transmission will have been achieved.

Figure 1 DALYs lost due to skin nodules???

Figure 1 and 3. Clinical signs of irreversible skin disease remain, I agree. I am not sure how much these really impact daily life once under treatment with ivermectin. There are some social consequences but I am not sure how you arrive at these DALYs

Supplementary material.

S2 No mention of Loa loa in DRC. It is the worst affected country and will play a major role in the treatment of hypoendemic areas.

S2 and S4. I know assumtions have to be made but having straight line coverages between 75 and 80% are not at all realistic, especially in unstable countries which as you say is where most of the burden will be in the future.

Just a few specific points on the country profiles.

Malawi is only working on cross border issues with Mozambique

3 States in Nigeria have already stopped treatment yet you graph shows treatment continuing

South Sudan. There was virtually no treatment for up to 10 years and even an APOC survey found the reported coverage to be inadequate. Treatment started again in 207 but is still only just scaling up to 100% coverage. There is a lot of morbidity as already mentioned.

Uganda. Treatment has already stopped in all foci apart from 1 in the North where the LRA was active.

Burundi. Most surveys have been negative. There is only the problem of security before doing impact surveys.

Reviewer #3: This is a good and useful paper which deserves publication. It is well written, easy to read and needs very little revision. However, please note that if the other (accompanying) paper submitted by the authors (which I have not been asked to review) is rejected or requires major revision, that may have consequences for this paper.

Reviewer #4: The analysis by Vinkeles Melchers and colleagues on the burden of skin disease and eye disease due to onchocerciasis in Africa for 1990, 2015, and 2025 is very important. The estimates provide the burden of skin and eye diseases due to onchocerciasis what progress has been achieved and what efforts are required to achieve the 2025 targets and the 2030 NTD Roadmap targets. I have the following comments though.

• The title says Africa in fact the analysis was focusing only in the APOC countries. This should come out in the title as well.

• The authors should clarify on the list of APOC supported countries and what is the difference between the current scope of the onchocerciasis programme compared with the APOC. The authors have the liberty to analyse the data for APOC supported countries, but they should make clear distinction that there are additional countries which were not covered by APOC now in the elimination programme in Africa.

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

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: Robert Colebunders

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Figure Files:

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

Data Requirements:

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

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, 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.0009604.r003

Decision Letter 1

Sara Lustigman, Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr

29 Jun 2021

Dear Dr. Coffeng,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'The burden of skin disease and eye disease due to onchocerciasis in countries formerly under the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control mandate for 1990, 2020, and 2030' 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

Sara Lustigman

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

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

Methods

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

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

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

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

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

Reviewer #1: The authors responded appropriately to the comments of the reviewers and adapted the paper accordingly

Reviewer #2: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? YES

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

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

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? YES

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? NO

**********

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: The authors responded appropriately to the comments of the reviewers and adapted the paper accordingly

Reviewer #2: The results analysis match the analysis plan and are well represented, and are presented clearly

**********

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 responded appropriately to the comments of the reviewers and adapted the paper accordingly

Reviewer #2: The limitations of the data are well described. The conclusions are represented by the data although some of the assumptions are a bit weak. Stigmatisation of people with nodules may occur in some communities but this is rare nothing like the stigmatisation of other skin disease and is overstated. I think this makes the scenario in 2030 appear worse than it probably would be but this has been explained. I think this paper is useful from the public health point of view but it could stress the need for the development alternative strategies to avoid some of the issues in the problem countries.

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have worked hard to answer the questions raised by the reviewers and have brought the projections up to 2030 which fits in much better with the SDGs and the WHO road map.

It would be good to have some definitions in the text and not in the subsidiary information, particularly the P5 and P20 APOC projects which are not commonly used.

**********

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 authors responded appropriately to the comments of the reviewers and adapted the paper accordingly

Reviewer #2: This paper is much improved and although I disagree with some of the assumptions they have been well explained (and justified). I think it could be a useful paper in long term planning and hopefully will push development for new tools and also for support for the "problem countries.

**********

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: Robert Colebunders

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009604.r004

Acceptance letter

Sara Lustigman, Alberto Novaes Ramos Jr

9 Jul 2021

Dear Dr. Coffeng,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "The burden of skin disease and eye disease due to onchocerciasis in countries formerly under the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control mandate for 1990, 2020, and 2030," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Text. A PDF file with a detailed description of the methodology and additional details of sensitivity analyses.

    (PDF)

    S2 Text. A PDF file with treatment history and assumptions per APOC project used in simulations.

    (PDF)

    S3 Text. A PDF file with additional tables with estimated case numbers by age, sex, endemicity level, and APOC projects for 1990, 2020, and 2030.

    (PDF)

    S4 Text. A PDF file with detailed estimates (number of cases, and DALYs) by country and APOC project.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reaction to the reviewers_2021.06.15.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

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


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

    RESOURCES