Modelling the impact of COVID-19-related programme interruptions on visceral leishmaniasis in India.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, India declared a nationwide lockdown to control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019. As a result, control efforts against visceral leishmaniasis (VL) were interrupted. METHODS: Using an established age-structured deterministic VL transmission model, we predicted the impact of a 6- to 24-month programme interruption on the timeline towards achieving the VL elimination target as well as on the increase of VL cases. We also explored the potential impact of a mitigation strategy after the interruption. RESULTS: Delays towards the elimination target are estimated to range between 0 and 9 y. Highly endemic settings where control efforts have been ongoing for 5-8 y are most affected by an interruption, for which we identified a mitigation strategy to be most relevant. However, more importantly, all settings can expect an increase in the number of VL cases. This increase is substantial even for settings with a limited expected delay in achieving the elimination target. CONCLUSIONS: Besides implementing mitigation strategies, it is of great importance to try and keep the duration of the interruption as short as possible to prevent new individuals from becoming infected with VL and continue the efforts towards VL elimination as a public health problem in India.

Delays in lymphatic filariasis elimination programmes due to COVID-19, and possible mitigation strategies.

BACKGROUND: In view of the current global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, mass drug administration interventions for neglected tropical diseases, including lymphatic filariasis (LF), have been halted. We used mathematical modelling to estimate the impact of delaying or cancelling treatment rounds and explore possible mitigation strategies. METHODS: We used three established LF transmission models to simulate infection trends in settings with annual treatment rounds and programme delays in 2020 of 6, 12, 18 or 24 months. We then evaluated the impact of various mitigation strategies upon resuming activities. RESULTS: The delay in achieving the elimination goals is on average similar to the number of years the treatment rounds are missed. Enhanced interventions implemented for as little as 1 y can allow catch-up on the progress lost and, if maintained throughout the programme, can lead to acceleration of up to 3 y. CONCLUSIONS: In general, a short delay in the programme does not cause a major delay in achieving the goals. Impact is strongest in high-endemicity areas. Mitigation strategies such as biannual treatment or increased coverage are key to minimizing the impact of the disruption once the programme resumes and lead to potential acceleration should these enhanced strategies be maintained.