BackgroundPodoconiosis is one of the forgotten types of leg swelling (elephantiasis) in the tropics. Unlike the other, better-known types of leg swelling, podoconiosis is not caused by any parasite, virus or bacterium, but by an abnormal reaction to minerals found in the clay soils of some tropical highland areas. Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) have been responsible for the development of simple treatment methods without systematic evaluation of its effectiveness. It is essential that a large scale, fully controlled, pragmatic trial of the intervention is conducted. We aim to test the hypothesis that community-based treatment of podoconiosis lymphoedema reduces the frequency of acute dermatolymphangioadenitis episodes (‘acute attacks’) and improves other clinical, social and economic outcomes.Methods/DesignThis is a pragmatic, individually randomised controlled trial. We plan to randomly allocate 680 podoconiosis patients from the East Gojjam Zone in northern Ethiopia to one of two groups: ‘Standard Treatment’ or ‘Delayed Treatment’. Those randomised to standard treatment will receive the hygiene and foot-care intervention from May 2015 for one year, whereas those in the control arm will be followed through 2015 and be offered the intervention in 2016. The trial will be preceded by an economic context survey and a Rapid Ethical Assessment to identify optimal methods of conveying information about the trial and the approaches to obtaining informed consent preferred by the community. The primary outcome will be measured by recording patient recall and using a simple, patient-held diary that will be developed to record episodes of acute attacks. Adherence to treatment, clinical stage of disease, quality of life, disability and stigma will be considered secondary outcome measures. Other outcomes will include adverse events and economic productivity. Assessments will be made at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months thereafter.DiscussionThe evidence is highly likely to inform implementation of the new master plan for integrated control of Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs), in which podoconiosis is identified as one of eight NTDs prioritised for control. Potentially, an estimated 3 million patients in Ethiopia will therefore benefit from the results of this trial.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number. Registration number: ISRCTN67805210. Date of registration: 24 January 2013.
BackgroundPodoconiosis is a disease of the lymphatic vessels of the lower extremities that is caused by chronic exposure to irritant soils. It results in leg swelling, commonly complicated by acute dermatolymphangioadenitis (ADLA), characterised by severe pain, fever and disability.MethodsWe conducted cost-effectiveness and social outcome analyses of a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of a hygiene and foot-care intervention for people with podoconiosis in the East Gojjam zone of northern Ethiopia. Participants were allocated to the immediate intervention group or the delayed intervention group (control). The 12-month intervention included training in foot hygiene, skin care, bandaging, exercises, and use of socks and shoes, and was supported by lay community assistants. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using the cost of productivity loss due to acute dermatolymphangioadenitis. Household costs were not included. Health outcomes in the cost-effectiveness analysis were: the incidence of ADLA episodes, health-related quality of life captured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and disability scores measured using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0).ResultsThe cost of the foot hygiene and lymphoedema management supplies was 529 ETB (69 I$, international dollars) per person per year. The cost of delivery of the intervention as part of the trial, including transportation, storage, training of lay community assistants and administering the intervention was 1,890 ETB (246 I$) per person. The intervention was effective in reducing the incidence of acute dermatolymphangioadenitis episodes and improving DLQI scores, while there were no significant improvements in the disability scores measured using WHODAS 2.0. In 75% of estimations, the intervention was less costly than the control. This was due to improved work productivity. Subgroup analyses based on income group showed that the intervention was cost-effective (both less costly and more effective) in reducing the number of acute dermatolymphangioadenitis episodes and improving health-related quality of life in families with monthly income <1,000 ETB (130 I$). For the subgroup with family income ≥1,000 ETB, the intervention was more effective but more costly than the control.ConclusionsWhilst there is evident benefit of the intervention for all, the economic impact would be greatest for the poorest.
Chapter 11 in the book Refractions of the National, the Popular and the Global in African Cities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.