Environmental sanitary interventions for preventing active trachoma.

backgroundTrachoma is the second or third major cause of blindness. It is responsible for about six million blind people worldwide, mostly in the poor communities of developing countries. One of the major strategies advocated for the control of the disease is the application of various environmental sanitary measures to such communities.

objectivesTo assess the evidence for the effectiveness of environmental sanitary measures on the prevalence of active trachoma in endemic areas. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2005), EMBASE (1980 to January 2005), LILACS (April 2004), the reference list of trials and the Science Citation Index. We also contacted agencies, experts and researchers in trachoma control. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any form of environmental hygiene measures with no measure. These hygienic measures included fly control, provision of water and health education. Participants in the trials were people normally resident in the trachoma endemic areas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Three trials met the inclusion criteria but meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity of the studies. MAIN

resultsTwo studies that assessed insecticide spray as a fly control measure found that trachoma is reduced by at least 55% to 61% with this measure compared to no intervention. One study found that another fly control measure, latrine provision, reduced trachoma by 29.5% compared to no intervention; this was, however, not statistically significantly different. Another study revealed that health education on personal and household hygiene reduced the incidence of trachoma such that the odds of reducing trachoma in the health education village was about twice that of the no intervention village. However, all the studies have some methodological concerns relating to concealment of allocation and non-consideration of clustering effect in data analysis. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is evidence that insecticide spray as a fly control measure reduces trachoma significantly. Latrine provision as a fly control measure has not demonstrated significant trachoma reduction. Health education may be effective in reducing trachoma. There is a dearth of data to determine the effectiveness of all aspects of environmental sanitation in the control of trachoma.