In 2009, an international ban on the use of lindane in agriculture was implemented under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. A specific exemption allows for it to continue to be used in second-line treatments for the head lice and scabies for five more years. The production of the lindane isomers α- and β-hexachlorocyclohexane was also banned. Although the US has not ratified the Convention, it has similarly banned agricultural uses while still allowing its use as a second-line lice and scabies treatment. United States
In the US, lindane pesticide products were regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while lindane medications are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It was registered as an agricultural insecticide in the 1940s, and as pharmaceutical in 1951. The EPA gradually began restricting its agricultural use in the 1970s due to concerns over its effects on human health and the environment. By 2002, its use was limited to seed treatments for just six crops, and in 2007, these last uses were cancelled. Pharmaceutical uses
Lindane medications continue to be available in the US, though since 1995, they have been designated "second-line" treatments, meaning they should be prescribed when other "first-line" treatments have failed or cannot be used. In December 2007, the FDA sent a Warning Letter to Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, the sole U.S. manufacturer of lindane products, requesting that the company correct misleading information on two of its lindane websites.
A 2014 Cochrane review evaluated different rapid diagnostic tests. One of them (the rK39 immunochromatographic test) gave correct, positive results in 92% of the people with visceral leishmaniasis and it gave correct, negative results in 92% of the people who did not have the disease. A second rapid test (called latex agglutination test) gave correct, positive results in 64% of the people with the disease and it gave correct, negative results in 93% of the people without the disease. Other types of tests have not been studied thoroughly enough to ascertain their efficacy.The K39 dipstick test is easy to perform, and village health workers can be easily trained to use it. The kit may be stored at ambient temperature and no additional equipment needs to be carried to remote areas. The DAT anti-leishmania antigen test, standard within MSF, is much more cumbersome to use and appears not to have any advantages over the K39 test.There are a number of problems with serological testing: in highly endemic areas, not everyone who becomes infected will actually develop clinical disease or require treatment. Indeed, up to 32% of the healthy population may test positive, but not require treatment. Conversely, because serological tests look for an immune response and not for the organism itself, the test does not become negative after the patient is cured, it cannot be used as a check for cure, or to check for re-infection or relapse.