Jorge Cano1, Paula Moraga2, Birgit Nikolay2, Maria P Rebollo3, Patricia N Okorie4, Emmanuel Davies5, Sammy M Njenga6, Moses J Bockarie7, Simon J Brooker2. 1. Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK jcano.ortega@lshtm.ac.uk. 2. Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK. 3. NTD Support Center, Task Force for Global Health, Decatur, Atlanta, USA. 4. Institute for Advanced Medical Research and Training, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. 5. Ministry of Health, Nigeria. 6. Eastern and Southern Africa Centre of International Parasite Control, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Nairobi, Kenya. 7. Centre for Neglected Tropical Diseases, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis (LF) is based typically on either microfilaraemia as assessed by microscopy or filarial antigenaemia using an immuno-chromatographic test. While it is known that estimates of antigenaemia are generally higher than estimates of microfilaraemia, the extent of the difference is not known. METHODS: This paper presents the results of an extensive literature search for surveys that estimated both microfilaraemia and antigenaemia in order to better understand the disparity between the two measures. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In some settings there was a very large disparity, up to 40-70%, between estimates of microfilaraemia and antigenaemia. Regression analysis was unable to identify any predictable relationship between the two measures. The implications of findings for risk mapping and surveillance of LF are discussed.
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis (LF) is based typically on either microfilaraemia as assessed by microscopy or filarial antigenaemia using an immuno-chromatographic test. While it is known that estimates of antigenaemia are generally higher than estimates of microfilaraemia, the extent of the difference is not known. METHODS: This paper presents the results of an extensive literature search for surveys that estimated both microfilaraemia and antigenaemia in order to better understand the disparity between the two measures. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In some settings there was a very large disparity, up to 40-70%, between estimates of microfilaraemia and antigenaemia. Regression analysis was unable to identify any predictable relationship between the two measures. The implications of findings for risk mapping and surveillance of LF are discussed.
Authors: G Dreyer; J Noroes; F Amaral; A Nen; Z Medeiros; A Coutinho; D Addiss Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 1995 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.184
Authors: Jorge Cano; Maria P Rebollo; Nick Golding; Rachel L Pullan; Thomas Crellen; Anna Soler; Louise A Kelly-Hope; Steve W Lindsay; Simon I Hay; Moses J Bockarie; Simon J Brooker Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2014-10-11 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Obiora A Eneanya; Lincoln Gankpala; Charles W Goss; Aaron T Momolu; Enoch S Nyan; Emmanuel B Gray; Kerstin Fischer; Kurt Curtis; Fatorma K Bolay; Gary J Weil; Peter U Fischer Journal: Acta Trop Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: M A Irvine; L J Reimer; S M Njenga; S Gunawardena; L Kelly-Hope; M Bockarie; T D Hollingsworth Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Alvaro Berg Soto; Zhijing Xu; Peter Wood; Nelly Sanuku; Leanne J Robinson; Christopher L King; Daniel Tisch; Melinda Susapu; Patricia M Graves Journal: Trop Med Health Date: 2018-12-04
Authors: Michael A Irvine; Sammy M Njenga; Shamini Gunawardena; Claire Njeri Wamae; Jorge Cano; Simon J Brooker; T Deirdre Hollingsworth Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.184
Authors: Paula Moraga; Jorge Cano; Rebecca F Baggaley; John O Gyapong; Sammy M Njenga; Birgit Nikolay; Emmanuel Davies; Maria P Rebollo; Rachel L Pullan; Moses J Bockarie; T Déirdre Hollingsworth; Manoj Gambhir; Simon J Brooker Journal: Parasit Vectors Date: 2015-10-24 Impact factor: 3.876