Search

Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is targeted for elimination by the year 2020. The Global Programme for Elimination of LF (GPELF) aims to achieve elimination by interrupting transmission through annual mass drug administration (MDA) of albendazole with ivermectin or diethylcarbamazine. The program has successfully eliminated the disease in 11 of the 72 endemic countries, putting in enormous efforts on systematic planning and implementation of the strategy. Mapping areas endemic for LF is a pre-requisite for implementing MDA, monitoring and evaluation are the components of programme implementation. This review was undertaken to assess how the mapping and impact monitoring activities have evolved to become more robust over the years and steered the LF elimination programme towards its goal. The findings showed that the WHO recommended mapping strategy aided 17 countries to delimit, plan and implement MDA in only those areas endemic for LF thereby saving resources. Availability of serological tools for detecting infection in humans (antigen/antibody assays) and molecular xenomonitoring (MX) in vectors greatly facilitated programme monitoring and evaluation in endemic countries. Results of this review are discussed on how these existing mapping and monitoring procedures can be used for re-mapping of unsurveyed and uncertain areas to ensure there is no resurgence during post-MDA surveillance. Further the appropriateness of the tests (Microfilaria (Mf)/antigenemia (Ag)/antibody(Ab) surveys in humans or MX of vectors for infection) used currently for post-MDA surveillance and their role in the development of a monitoring and evaluation strategy for the recently WHO recommended triple drug regimen in MDA for accelerated LF elimination are discussed.

Background Better drug regimens for mass drug administration (MDA) could accelerate the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (LF). This community study was designed to compare the safety and efficacy of MDA with IDA (ivermectin, diethylcarbamazine and albendazole) or DA (diethylcarbamazine and albendazole) in India. Methodology/Principal findings This two-armed, open-labelled, block randomised, community study was conducted in LF endemic villages in Yadgir district, Karnataka, India. Consenting participants ≥5 years of age were tested for circulating filarial antigenemia (CFA) and microfilaremia (Mf) before treatment with a single oral dose of IDA or DA. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored actively for two days and passively for five more days. Persons with positive CFA or Mf tests at baseline were retested 12-months post-treatment to assess treatment efficacy. Baseline CFA and Mf-rates were 26.4% and 6.9% in IDA and 24.5% and 6.4% in DA villages respectively. 4758 and 4160 participants received IDA and DA. Most AEs were mild after both treatments; fewer than 0.1% of participants experienced AEs with severity > grade 1. No serious AEs were observed. Fever, headache and dizziness were the most common AEs. AE rates were slightly higher after IDA than DA (8.3% vs. 6.4%, P, Author summary Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is a major neglected tropical disease that is caused by filarial nematode worms. The strategies of the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis, launched in 2000, are mass drug administration (MDA) of antifilarial medications to kill the parasites and reduce transmission and morbidity management and disability prevention for those who are already affected by the disease. Recent clinical trials have shown that a single co-administered dose of ivermectin, diethylcarbamazine and albendazole (IDA) is more effective for clearing microfilariae (Mf) from the blood than the traditional two-drug regimen (DA). That is important, because blood Mf are essential for mosquitoes to transmit the parasite. As part of a large multicenter study, we assessed the safety of IDA and compared the efficacy of IDA and DA for clearing parasites from the blood. We treated almost 9,000 people in Wuchereria bancrofti endemic villages with either IDA or DA. Adverse events (AE) were monitored actively for two days and passively for another five days. AE rates were slightly higher after IDA than DA, but AEs were mild and self-limited. Infected persons, adults and females had higher AE rates in both treatment areas. We retested infected persons one year after treatment. IDA was significantly more effective for clearing Mf and reducing blood Mf counts than DA. Neither treatment was effective for clearing circulating filarial antigenemia. Our large study showed that IDA was well tolerated and more effective than DA. This new treatment has the potential to hasten LF elimination in India and many other countries.

Background Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is targeted for elimination by the year 2020. As of 2017, 67 of the 72 endemic countries have implemented annual Mass Drug Administration (MDA) for interrupting LF transmission. Transmission Assessment Survey (TAS) is the recommended protocol to evaluate the impact of MDA and to decide when to stop MDA in an Evaluation Unit (EU, population ≤2 million). As the human infection levels go down with repeated MDA rounds, it becomes a challenge to select the appropriate survey methods to assess transmission interruption. This study validates a standard protocol for molecular xenomonitoring of infection in vectors (MX) at an EU as a complementary tool for TAS to stop MDA and its utility for post-MDA or post-validation surveillance. Methodology The study was conducted in Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu, India, which was found eligible for TAS after 15 annual rounds of MDA (4 with DEC alone and 11 with DEC plus albendazole). The district was divided into two EUs as per the TAS protocol and one EU was randomly selected for the study. A two-stage cluster design vector sampling, developed and validated at a sub-district level, was implemented in 30 randomly selected clusters in the EU. Female Culex quinquefasciatus were collected placing gravid traps overnight (1800–0600 hrs) inside the premises of systematically selected households. Pools of 20–25 blood-fed, semi-gravid and gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus were subjected to real-time quantitative PCR (polymerase chain reaction) assay for detecting Wuchereria bancrofti DNA. Pool infection rate (% of pools positive for W. bancrofti DNA), and the estimated prevalence of W. bancrofti DNA in mosquitoes and its 95% confidence interval were calculated. Additionally, in these 30 clusters, microfilaria (Mf) survey among individuals >5 years old was carried out. School-based TAS was conducted using Immunochromatographic Card Test (ICT) in the EU. Prepared itemized cost-menu for different cost components of MX survey and TAS were estimated and compared. Results MX survey showed that only 11 (3.1%) of the 358 pools (8850 Cx.quinquefasciatus females), collected from 30 clusters, were found positive for W. bancrofti DNA. The estimated vector infection rate was 0.13% (95% CI: 0.07–0.22%), below the provisional threshold (0.25%) for transmission interruption. Of 1578 children tested in the TAS, only four (0.25%) were positive for filarial antigenemia, and it is well below the critical cut-off (18 positives) for stopping MDA. Among 9804 persons tested in the 30 clusters, only four were found positive for Mf (0.04%; 95% CI: 0.01–0.1%). The Mf-prevalence was, Author summary Lymphatic filariasis (LF), commonly known as “elephantiasis” is caused by filarial parasites and transmitted among humans by mosquitoes. This parasitic infection results in chronic diseases such as swelling of limbs and hydrocele. Global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis (GPELF), launched by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 endorsed the mass treatment of all the people above 2 years of age in the endemic areas with a single dose of anti-filarial drugs administered annually for a minimum period of 5 years. WHO also recommended transmission assessment survey (TAS) protocol to assess the impact of mass treatment and to decide on stopping mass treatment. The protocol aims at screening young children who were born after the mass treatment for filarial infection. If the number of infected children is smaller than the pre-defined number, mass treatment can be stopped. The same protocol is followed for periodical assessment to verify whether there are any new infections. Alternatively, vector infection levels by molecular xenomonitoring (MX, detection of parasite DNA in the mosquitoes) can be used to verify whether there are any infected mosquitoes. This tool has been applied in many studies and there is a provisionally established mosquito infection threshold level (0.25%) below which transmission is interrupted. This can be an alternative tool for TAS. We validated this method at district level by collecting filariasis transmitting mosquitoes from 30 villages/wards and compared the results with those of TAS. There was good agreement between the decisions based on TAS and MX in our study. Though in the EU both vector and human infection levels were below their respective threshold levels, the mosquito infection in individual sites was above the threshold, indicating residual hotspots and risk of resurgence. In addition, we estimated the cost of conducting MX and TAS for their economic feasibility and found that the cost of MX is only marginally higher than that of school-based TAS. Thus, our study results provide recommendations to use MX as a tool complementary to TAS (i) for taking a decision on stopping MDA, (ii) for monitoring post-MDA and post-validation surveillance programme, and (iii) for remapping areas to initiate MDA.

Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is targeted for elimination by the year 2020. The Global Programme for Elimination of LF (GPELF) aims to achieve elimination by interrupting transmission through annual mass drug administration (MDA) of albendazole with ivermectin or diethylcarbamazine. The program has successfully eliminated the disease in 11 of the 72 endemic countries, putting in enormous efforts on systematic planning and implementation of the strategy. Mapping areas endemic for LF is a pre-requisite for implementing MDA, monitoring and evaluation are the components of programme implementation. This review was undertaken to assess how the mapping and impact monitoring activities have evolved to become more robust over the years and steered the LF elimination programme towards its goal. The findings showed that the WHO recommended mapping strategy aided 17 countries to delimit, plan and implement MDA in only those areas endemic for LF thereby saving resources. Availability of serological tools for detecting infection in humans (antigen/antibody assays) and molecular xenomonitoring (MX) in vectors greatly facilitated programme monitoring and evaluation in endemic countries. Results of this review are discussed on how these existing mapping and monitoring procedures can be used for re-mapping of unsurveyed and uncertain areas to ensure there is no resurgence during post-MDA surveillance. Further the appropriateness of the tests (Microfilaria (Mf)/antigenemia (Ag)/antibody(Ab) surveys in humans or MX of vectors for infection) used currently for post-MDA surveillance and their role in the development of a monitoring and evaluation strategy for the recently WHO recommended triple drug regimen in MDA for accelerated LF elimination are discussed.

Background The monitoring and evaluation of lymphatic filariasis (LF) has largely relied on the detection of antigenemia and antibodies in human populations. Molecular xenomonitoring (MX), the detection of parasite DNA/RNA in mosquitoes, may be an effective complementary method, particularly for detecting signals in low-level prevalence areas where Culex is the primary mosquito vector. This paper investigated the application of a household-based sampling method for MX in Tamil Nadu, India. Methods MX surveys were conducted in 2010 in two evaluation units (EUs): 1) a hotspot area, defined as sites with community microfilaria prevalence ≥1%, and 2) a larger area that also encompassed the hotspots. Households were systematically selected using a sampling interval proportional to the number of households in the EU. Mosquito pools were collected and analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Two independent samples were taken in each EU to assess reproducibility of results. Follow-up surveys were conducted in 2012. Results In 2010, the proportion of positive pools in the hotspot EU was 49.3% compared to 23.4% in the overall EU. In 2012, pool positivity was significantly reduced to 24.3% and 6.5%, respectively (p, Author summary Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is one of the world’s foremost debilitating infectious diseases with nearly 800 million people at risk of infection. Given that LF is a mosquito-borne disease, the use of molecular xenomonitoring (MX) to detect parasite DNA/RNA in mosquitoes can serve as a valuable tool for LF monitoring and evaluation, particularly in Culex vector areas. We investigated using MX in a low-level prevalence district of Tamil Nadu, India by applying a household-based sampling strategy to determine trap location sites. Two independent mosquito samples were collected in each of a higher human infection hotspot area (sites with community microfilaria prevalence ≥1%) and across a larger evaluation area that also encompassed the hotspots. Pooled results showed mostly reproducible outcomes in both settings and a significant higher pool positivity in the hotspot area. A follow-up survey conducted two years later reconfirmed these findings while also showing a reduction in pool positivity and estimated prevalence of infection in mosquitoes in both settings. The utilization of a household-based sampling strategy for MX proved effective and should be further validated in wider epidemiological settings.

Background The Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) provides antifilarial medications to hundreds of millions of people annually to treat filarial infections and prevent elephantiasis. Recent trials have shown that a single-dose, triple-drug treatment (ivermectin with diethylcarbamazine and albendazole [IDA]) is superior to a two-drug combination (diethylcarbamazine plus albendazole [DA]) that is widely used in LF elimination programs. This study was performed to assess the safety of IDA and DA in a variety of endemic settings. Methods and findings Large community studies were conducted in five countries between October 2016 and November 2017. Two studies were performed in areas with no prior mass drug administration (MDA) for filariasis (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia), and three studies were performed in areas with persistent LF despite extensive prior MDA (India, Haiti, and Fiji). Participants were treated with a single oral dose of IDA (ivermectin, 200 μg/kg; diethylcarbamazine, 6 mg/kg; plus albendazole, a fixed dose of 400 mg) or with DA alone. Treatment assignment in each study site was randomized by locality of residence. Treatment was offered to residents who were ≥5 years of age and not pregnant. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed by medical teams with active follow-up for 2 days and passive follow-up for an additional 5 days. A total of 26,836 persons were enrolled (13,535 females and 13,300 males). A total of 12,280 participants were treated with DA, and 14,556 were treated with IDA. On day 1 or 2 after treatment, 97.4% of participants were assessed for AEs. The frequency of all AEs was similar after IDA and DA treatment (12% versus 12.1%, adjusted odds ratio for IDA versus DA 1.15, 95% CI 0.87–1.52, P = 0.316); 10.9% of participants experienced mild (grade 1) AEs, 1% experienced moderate (grade 2) AEs, and 0.1% experienced severe (grade 3) AEs. Rates of serious AEs after DA and IDA treatment were 0.04% (95% CI 0.01%–0.1%) and 0.01% (95% CI 0.00%–0.04%), respectively. Severity of AEs was not significantly different after IDA or DA. Five of six serious AEs reported occurred after DA treatment. The most common AEs reported were headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, fever, nausea, and fatigue. AE frequencies varied by country and were higher in adults and in females. AEs were more common in study participants with microfilaremia (33.4% versus 11.1%, P < 0.001) and more common in microfilaremic participants after IDA than after DA (39.4% versus 25.6%, P < 0.001). However, there was no excess of severe or serious AEs after IDA in this subgroup. The main limitation of the study was that it was open-label. Also, aggregation of AE data from multiple study sites tends to obscure variability among study sites. Conclusions In this study, we observed that IDA was well tolerated in LF-endemic populations. Posttreatment AE rates and severity did not differ significantly after IDA or DA treatment. Thus, results of this study suggest that IDA should be as safe as DA for use as a MDA regimen for LF elimination in areas that currently receive DA. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT02899936, In an open-label, cluster-randomized study done in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, India, Haiti, and Fiji, Gary J. Weil and team assess the safety of double- and triple-drug community mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis., Author summary Why was this study done? Lymphatic filariasis (LF, also known as “elephantiasis”) is a major global health problem caused by nematode worms that are transmitted by mosquitoes. The World Health Organization’s Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis aims to eliminate LF from all areas with the disease with repeated annual rounds of mass treatment with medicines that kill the parasites and reduce transmission of new infections. Small clinical trials have shown that treatment with a single dose of a new triple-drug combination (“IDA”, comprising ivermectin with diethylcarbamazine and albendazole [IDA]) is superior to treatment with a single dose of the standard two-drug combination (diethylcarbamazine plus albendazole [DA] alone). IDA might accelerate LF elimination in many countries. However, a more effective treatment might be associated with more frequent or severe adverse events (AEs). This study was performed to assess and compare the safety of mass treatment with IDA and DA in a variety of settings. What did the researchers do and find? We performed large community treatment studies to compare the safety of the three-drug and two-drug treatments in five countries (India, Haiti, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Fiji). More than 26,000 people were tested for LF infection, treated, and assessed for AEs after treatment. About 12% of study participants developed AEs, and this rate was the same after treatment with either IDA or DA. AEs were more common in persons who had filarial worms in their blood before treatment and more common after IDA than after DA in this subgroup. However, there was no excess of severe or serious AEs after IDA. What do these findings mean? Results from this study show that the triple-drug combination IDA was well tolerated in a variety of filariasis-endemic settings. IDA should be safe for use as a mass treatment regimen for LF elimination in areas that currently receive the double-drug combination DA. IDA has the potential to accelerate LF elimination in many countries if public health programs can achieve high rates of mass drug administration adherence.

Background The Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) depends upon Mass Drug Administration (MDA) to interrupt transmission. Therefore, delimitation of transmission risk areas is an important step, and hence we attempted to define a geo-environmental risk model (GERM) for determining the areas of potential transmission of lymphatic filariasis. Methods A range of geo-environmental variables has been selected, and customized on GIS platform to develop GERM for identifying the areas of filariasis transmission in terms of "risk" and "non-risk". The model was validated through a 'ground truth study' following standard procedure using GIS tools for sampling and Immuno-chromotographic Test (ICT) for screening the individuals. Results A map for filariasis transmission was created and stratified into different spatial entities, "risk' and "non-risk", depending on Filariasis Transmission Risk Index (FTRI). The model estimation corroborated well with the ground (observed) data. Conclusion The geo-environmental risk model developed on GIS platform is useful for spatial delimitation purpose on a macro scale.