Filaria journal最新文献

Background: Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is a mosquito-borne disease caused by mosquito-transmitted filarial nematodes, including Wuchereria bancrofti and Brugia malayi. The Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination Program in Thailand has reduced the prevalence of nocturnally subperiodic W. bancrofti (Thai strain), mainly transmitted by the Ochlerotatus (Aedes) niveus group in Thailand to 0.57/100,000 population. However, it is estimated that more than one million Myanmar migrants with high prevalence of bancroftian filariasis have settled in the large urban cities of Thailand. These infected migrants carry the nocturnally periodic W. bancrofti (Myanmar strain) which has Culex quinquefasciatus as the main mosquito vector. Although transmissions of the Myanmar strain of W. bancrofti by the Thai Cx. quinquefasciatus has never been reported, previous study showed that Cx. quinquefasciatus could nurture the Myanmar strain of W. bancrofti to the infective stage. Thus, the potential now exists for a re-emergence of bancroftian filariasis in Thailand. The present study was undertaken in an attempt to differentiate between the Thai and Myanmar strains of W. bancrofti.

Methods: The microfilarial periodicity of Thai and the Myanmar strains of W. bancrofti were determined. Comparative morphology and morphometry of microfilariae and a study of random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) was performed. The Nei's genetic distance was calculated, and a phylogenetic tree was constructed using the Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic mean (UPGMA).

Results: The Thai strain of W. bancrofti was nocturnally subperiodic, and the Myanmar strain of W. bancrofti was nocturnally periodic. The body length, cephalic space length, and cephalic space width of the Thai strain of W. bancrofti were significantly larger than those of the Myanmar strain of W. bancrofti (p < 0.05). However, an overlapping mean of these parameters made it impractical for field application. RAPD-PCR profiles showed specific bands characteristic for the Myanmar strain of W. bancrofti. The phylogenetic tree indicated two genetically distinct clusters of the Thai and Myanmar strains of W. bancrofti.

Discussion: This study was the first report on the genetic polymorphism of the Thai and Myanmar strains of W. bancrofti. Differentiation between the Thai and Myanmar strains of W. bancrofti could not rely on morphological criteria alone. However, RAPD profiles revealed a significant diversity between the two strains. The RAPD-PCR technique was suitable for differentiating Thai and Myanmar strains of W. bancrofti. The RAPD marker could be used for epidemiological assessment of the Myanmar strains of W. bancrofti in Thailand.

Background: Information on the physical and psychosocial disability of lymphatic filariasis in Sri Lanka is scarce. Therefore this study was carried out to describe the physical disability and psychosocial impact associated with chronic lymphoedema in patients attending filariasis clinics in the Colombo district, Sri Lanka.

Methods: Four hundred and thirteen patients with lymphoedema of limbs attending filariasis clinics in Werahera and Dehiwala in the Colombo district were enrolled in the study after obtaining informed written consent. Data were collected using a pre-tested, interviewer-administered questionnaire and analyzed using SPSS.

Results: Majority (95%) of patients had lower limbs affected and there was a significant association with difficulty in walking (p = 0.023). The swollen limb affected the work of 87 (52%) of employed patients and 26 persons reported loss of job. Approximately 25% and 6% reported having problems interacting with the community and family, respectively and 8.7% felt that they were rejected by society. The swollen limb was perceived as a major problem by 36.8% of patients. Of the married persons, 5.7% and 6.2% reported sexual and marital problems respectively, due to their swollen limb/s. Of those who had marital problems, 77.3% reported sexual problems as well (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Lymphoedema significantly affects physical, psychological and social functioning in affected individuals. Morbidity control, in addition to control of physical disability, should target the psychosocial consequences.

Background: Sustainable and equitable health programmes require a grounded understanding of the context in which they are being implemented. This socio-cultural understanding is pivotal for effective delivery of elimination programmes. Standardised valid methods are needed for gathering authentic socio-cultural insights. The currently recommended protocol for collecting Lymphatic Filariasis (LF) related socio-cultural data, while moving in the right direction, is inadequate. To collect data which provides an understanding of local health beliefs and practices, and communities' understanding of LF, techniques must be developed that are both valid and time efficient. An approach developed in the Pacific provides a basic snapshot of socio-cultural insights which are crucial to the development of relevant and sustainable health education and elimination programmes.

Summary: The increasing interest in socio-cultural LF research presents a unique opportunity for coupling socio-cultural and bio-medical understandings of LF. To address the backlog in the socio-cultural sphere will require investment of time and effort to integrate valid qualitative approaches into current data collection methodologies.

The Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) has two major goals: to interrupt transmission of the parasite and to provide care for those who suffer the devastating clinical manifestations of the disease (morbidity control). This latter goal addresses three filariasis-related conditions: acute inflammatory episodes; lymphoedema; and hydrocele. Research during the last decade has confirmed the importance of bacteria as a cause of acute inflammatory episodes in filariasis-endemic areas, known as acute dermatolymphangioadenitis (ADLA). Current lymphoedema management strategies are based on the central role of ADLA as a trigger for lymphoedema progression. Simple intervention packages are in use that have resulted in dramatic reductions in ADLA rates, a lower prevalence of chronic inflammatory cells in the dermis and subdermis, and improvement in quality of life. During the past decade, the socioeconomic impact of ADLA and lymphoedema in filariasis-endemic areas has received increasing attention. Numerous operational research questions remain to be answered regarding how best to optimize, scale up, monitor, and evaluate lymphoedema management programmes. Of the clinical manifestations targeted by the GPELF, hydrocele has been the focus of the least attention. Basic information is lacking on the effectiveness and complications of hydrocele surgery and risk of post-operative hydrocele recurrence in filariasis-endemic areas. Data on the impact of mass administration of antifilarial drugs on filarial morbidity are inconsistent. Several studies report reductions in acute inflammatory episodes, lymphoedema, and/or hydrocele following mass drug administration, but other studies report no such association. Assessing the public health impact of mass treatment with antifilarial drugs is important for programme advocacy and morbidity control strategies. Thus, although our knowledge of filariasis-related morbidity and its treatment has expanded in recent years, much work remains to be done to address the needs of more than 40 million persons who suffer worldwide from these conditions.

Background: Papua New Guinea is the only endemic country in the Western Pacific Region that has not yet introduced a countrywide programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis. However, on Misima Island in Milne Bay Province, government and private sectors have collaborated to implement a pilot elimination programme. Although interim evaluation indicated that the programme has been parasitologically successful, an appreciation that sustainable health gains depend on understanding and accommodating local beliefs prompted this qualitative study.

Methods: We investigated Misima community members knowledge and attitudes about lymphatic filariasis and the elimination programme. A combination of focus groups and key informant interviews were used to explore participants perceptions of health; knowledge of the aetiology and symptoms of filariasis, elephantiasis and hydrocele; attitudes towards the disease and mass drug distribution; and the social structure and decision-making protocols within the villages.

Results: Focus group discussions proved inferior to key informant interviews for gathering rich data. Study participants did not consider lymphatic filariasis ("pom") a major health problem but were generally positive about mass drug administration campaigns. A variety of conditions were frequently and incorrectly attributed to filariasis. Participants expressed the belief that individuals infected with filariasis always had visible manifestations of disease. A common misconception was that taking drugs during campaigns provided long-term immunity against disease. The role of mosquito vectors in transmission was not generally appreciated and certain clinical presentations, particularly hydrocele, were associated with supernatural forces. Multiple adverse events were associated with mass drug administration campaigns and most study participants mentioned community members who did not participate in campaigns.

Conclusion: Important issues requiring educational intervention and elimination activity modification in the Misima region were identified during this study. Research outcomes should assist Papua New Guinea in developing and implementing a national elimination strategy and inform discussions regarding the appropriateness of current elimination strategies.

Background: In the Dominican Republic, a Latin American country with filariasis-endemic areas, more than 63,000 people have lymphatic filariasis and more than 400,000 people are at risk of future infection. In this paper, we explore the health beliefs, health-seeking behaviors and self-care practices of women with lymphoedema in filariasis-endemic areas to better understand the needs of women when developing lymphoedema morbidity control programs.

Methods: Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews of 28 women, 3 focus group discussions with 28 women, field notes and photographs.

Results: Women described exhaustive and expensive attempts at seeking a cure for their lymphoedema. Family members were influential in providing women with initial care seeking referrals to indigenous healers credited with influence over physical, mental, spiritual and supernatural properties of illness. When indigenous treatments proved to be ineffectual, the women sought care from trained healthcare providers. Most healthcare providers incorrectly diagnosed the edema, failed to adequately treat and meet the needs of women and were viewed as expensive. Most women resorted to self-prescribing injectable, oral, or topical antibiotics along with oral analgesics as a standard practice of self-care.

Conclusion: Healthcare providers must understand a woman's cultural perspectives of illness, her natural networks of support and referral, her behavioural practices of care-seeking and self-care and the financial burden of seeking care. In the culture of the Dominican Republic family members and traditional healthcare providers are influential advisors on initial health-seeking behaviors and self-care practices. For this reason family-oriented interventions, support groups for women and their families, community education and training on simple, low cost lymphoedema management techniques for indigenous healers are viable ways to influence the early detection, diagnosis and treatment of women with lymphoedema. The extensive use of injectable, oral and topical antibiotics by indigenous healers and women without medical supervision suggests a need for health education messages related to the risks of such practices.

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.

Through the Mectizan Donation Program, Merck & Co., Inc. has donated Mectizan (ivermectin, MSD) for the treatment of onchocerciasis worldwide since 1987. Mectizan has also been donated for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis (LF) since 1998 in African countries and in Yemen where onchocerciasis and LF are co-endemic; for LF elimination programs, Mectizan is co-administered with albendazole, which is donated by GlaxoSmithKline. The Mectizan Donation Program works in collaboration with the Mectizan Expert Committee/Albendazole Coordination, its scientific advisory committee. In 2005, a total of 62,201,310 treatments of Mectizan for onchocerciasis were approved for delivery via mass treatment programs in Africa, Latin America, and Yemen. Seventy-seven percent and 20% of these treatments for onchocerciasis were for countries included in the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) and the former-Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa (OCP), respectively. The remaining 3% of treatments approved were for the six onchocerciasis endemic countries in Latin America, where mass treatment is carried out twice-yearly with the goal of completely eliminating morbidity and eventually transmission of infection, and for Yemen. All 33 onchocerciasis endemic countries where mass treatment with Mectizan is indicated have ongoing mass treatment programs. In 2005, 42,052,583 treatments of co-administered albendazole and Mectizan were approved for national Programs to Eliminate LF (PELFs) in Africa and Yemen. There are ongoing PELFs using albendazole and Mectizan in nine African countries and Yemen; these represent 35% of the total number of countries expected to require the co-administration of these two chemotherapeutic agents for LF elimination. In Africa, the expansion of existing PELFs and the initiation of new ones have been hampered by lack of resources, technical difficulties with the mapping of LF endemicity, and the co-endemicity of LF and loiasis. Included in this review are recommendations recently put forward for the co-administration of albendazole and Mectizan in areas endemic for LF, loiasis, and onchocerciasis.

Background: There is a danger that mass drug administration campaigns may fail to maintain adequate treatment coverage to achieve lymphatic filariasis elimination. Hence, additional measures to suppress transmission might be needed to ensure the success of the Global Program for the Elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis.

Discussion: Vector control successfully eliminated lymphatic filariasis when implemented alone or with mass drug administration. Challenges to lymphatic filariasis elimination include uncertainty of the exact level and duration of microfilarial suppression required for elimination, the mobility of infected individuals, consistent non-participation of some infected individuals with mass drug administration, the possible development of anti-filarial drug resistance and treatment strategies in areas co-endemic with loasis. Integration of vector control with mass drug administration can address some of these challenges. The potential benefits of vector control would include: (1) the ability to suppress filariasis transmission without the need to identify all individual 'foci of infection'; (2) minimizing the risk of reestablishment of transmission from imported microfilaria positive individuals; and (3) decreasing the risk of dengue or malaria transmission where, respectively, Aedes or Anopheles are lymphatic filariasis vectors.

Summary: With adequate sustained treatment coverage, mass drug administration should meet the criteria for elimination of lymphatic filariasis. However, it may be difficult to sustain sufficiently high mass drug administration coverage to achieve lymphatic filariasis elimination in some areas, particularly, where Aedes species are the vectors. Since vector control was effective in controlling and even eliminating lymphatic filariasis transmission, integration of vector control with mass drug administration will ensure the sustainability of transmission suppression and thereby better ensure the success of national filariasis elimination programs. Although trials of some vector control interventions are needed, proven vector control strategies are ready for immediate integration with mass drug administration for many important vectors. Vector control is the only presently available additional lymphatic filariasis control measure with the potential for immediate implementation.