| Literature DB >> 29866207 |
Joseph B Koroma1, Santigie Sesay2, Abdul Conteh2, Jusufu Paye3, Mohamed Bah3, Mustapha Sonnie3, Mary H Hodges3, Yaobi Zhang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A baseline survey in 2007-2008 found lymphatic filariasis (LF) to be endemic in Sierra Leone in all 14 districts and co-endemic with onchocerciasis in 12 districts. Mass drug administration (MDA) with ivermectin started in 2006 for onchocerciasis and was modified to add albendazole in 2008 to include LF treatment. In 2011, after three effective MDAs, a significant reduction in microfilaraemia (mf) prevalence and density was reported at the midterm assessment. After five MDAs, in 2013, mf prevalence and density were again measured as part of a pre-transmission assessment survey (pre-TAS) conducted per WHO guidelines.Entities:
Keywords: Lymphatic filariasis; Mass drug administration; Neglected tropical disease; Pre-transmission assessment survey; Sierra leone; Wuchereria bancrofti
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29866207 PMCID: PMC5987388 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2915-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Lymphatic filariasis MDA results in 12 districts of Sierra Leone in 2011 and 2012. Geographical coverage of villages/urban areas was 100% in all 12 districts in 2011 and 2012
| District | 2011 | 2012 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | MDA Coverage (%) | Population | MDA Coverage (%) | |||||||
| Eligable | Total | Treated | Epidemiological | Programme | Eligable | Total | Treated | Epidemiological | Programme | |
| Bo | 444,317 | 555,397 | 427,682 | 77.0 | 96.3 | 483,417 | 568,727 | 449,508 | 79.0 | 93.0 |
| Bombali | 390,424 | 488,030 | 366,980 | 75.2 | 94.0 | 424,781 | 499,743 | 399,794 | 80.0 | 94.1 |
| Bonthe | 118,597 | 148,246 | 112,424 | 75.8 | 94.8 | 128,703 | 151,416 | 120,640 | 79.7 | 93.7 |
| Kailahun | 343,508 | 429,386 | 335,567 | 78.2 | 97.7 | 373,737 | 439,691 | 349,889 | 79.6 | 93.6 |
| Kambia | 258,571 | 323,214 | 244,376 | 75.6 | 94.5 | 281,326 | 330,972 | 263,822 | 79.7 | 93.8 |
| Kenema | 488,245 | 610,307 | 463,162 | 75.9 | 94.9 | 531,550 | 625,354 | 501,280 | 80.2 | 94.3 |
| Koinadugu | 300,392 | 375,491 | 282,735 | 75.3 | 94.1 | 326,826 | 384,502 | 307,878 | 80.1 | 94.2 |
| Kono | 358,286 | 447,858 | 342,241 | 76.4 | 95.5 | 389,816 | 458,608 | 364,975 | 79.6 | 93.6 |
| Moyamba | 261,017 | 326,272 | 238,818 | 73.2 | 91.5 | 283,987 | 334,103 | 264,863 | 79.3 | 93.3 |
| Port Loko | 399,995 | 499,994 | 378,976 | 75.8 | 94.7 | 434,034 | 510,629 | 403,508 | 79.0 | 93.0 |
| Pujehun | 188,875 | 236,094 | 176,924 | 74.9 | 93.7 | 205,496 | 241,760 | 192,140 | 79.5 | 93.5 |
| Tonkolili | 341,039 | 426,299 | 325,639 | 76.4 | 95.5 | 370,702 | 436,121 | 345,643 | 79.3 | 93.2 |
| Total | 3,893,266 | 4,866,588 | 3,695,524 | 75.9 | 94.9 | 4,234,375 | 4,981,626 | 3,963,940 | 79.6 | 93.6 |
Summary results of LF studies in 12 districts of Sierra Leone at baseline, midterm and pre-TAS
| Districts by Evaluation unit | Baseline survey 2007–2008 (95% CI) | Midterm 2011 (95% CI) | Pre-TAS 2013 (95% CI) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| mf Prev (%) | AMD-all (mf/ml) | AMD-positive (mf/ml) |
| mf Prev (%) | AMD-all (mf/ml) | AMD-positive (mf/ml) |
| mf Prev (%) | AMD-all (mf/ml) | AMD-positive (mf/ml) | ||
| Overall | 8233 | 2.6 (2.3–3.0) | 1.32 (1.00–1.65) | 50.90 (40.25–61.62) | 6023 | 0.30 (0.19–0.47) | 0.05 (0.03–0.08) | 17.59 (15.64–19.55) | 4230 | 0.54 (0.36–0.81) | 1.04 (0.30–1.77) | 137.12 (88.80–185.44) | |
| By Sex | |||||||||||||
| Male | 3863 | 3.3 (2.8–3.9) | 1.83 (1.21–2.44) | 55.08 (39.00–71.15) | 3170 | 0.35 (0.19–0.62) | 0.06 (0.03–0.10) | 18.18 (14.80–21.56) | 2275 | 0.70 (0.43–1.14) | 1.36 (0.08–2.64) | 115.56 (60.68–170.43) | |
| Female | 4370 | 2.0 (1.6–2.4) | 0.88 (0.59–1.18) | 44.76 (32.89–56.64) | 2853 | 0.25 (0.12–0.51) | 0.04 (0.01–0.07) | 16.67 (-) | 1955 | 0.36 (0.17–0.74) | 0.66 (0.08–1.23) | 183.33 (70.06–296.60) | |
| By district and sites | |||||||||||||
| 1 | Bo | 1005 | 2.0 (1.3–3.1) | 1.97 (0.84–3.11) | 99.17 (58.32–140.01) | 500 | 0 (0–0.76) | – | – | 350 | 0.29 (0.05–1.60) | 0.29 (0.00–0.85) | 100 (-) |
| Pujehun | 624 | 0 (0–0.6) | – | – | 500 | 0 (0–0.76) | – | – | 305 | 0.33 (0.06–1.83) | 0.11 (0.00–0.32) | 33.33 (-) | |
| 2 | Bonthe | 504 | 1.2 (0.6–2.6) | 0.83 (0.02–1.63) | 69.44 (13.68–125.21) | 499 | 0.20 (0.04–1.13) | 0.03 (0–0.10) | 16.67 (-) | 309 | 0 (0–1.23) | – | – |
| Moyamba | 500 | 1 (0.4–2.3) | 0.67 (0–1.36) | 66.67 (6.33–127.00) | 500 | 0 (0–0.76) | – | – | 330 | 0 (0.00–1.15) | – | – | |
| 3 | Kambia | 619 | 2.1 (1.2–3.6) | 0.97 (0.23–1.71) | 46.15 (17.04–75.27) | 500 | 0.40 (0.11–1.45) | 0.07 (0–0.16) | 16.67 (-) | 300 | 0 (0–1.26) | – | – |
| Port Loko | 500 | 4.4 (2.9–6.6) | 3.53 (1.48–5.59) | 80.30 (44.49–116.12) | 499 | 0.20 (0.04–1.13) | 0.03 (0–0.10) | 16.67 (-) | 357 | 0.28 (0.05–1.57) | 0.56 (0.00–1.66) | 200 (-) | |
| 4 | Kono | 875 | 2.4 (1.6–3.6) | 1.11 (0.37–1.84) | 46.03 (20.09–71.97) | 499 | 0 (0–0.76) | 0 | 0 | 320 | 0.63 (0.17–2.25) | 0.89 (0.00–2.44) | 141.67 (0.00–1518.17) |
| Tonkolili | 500 | 2.4 (1.4–4.2) | 0.63 (0.24–1.03) | 26.39 (17.99–34.79) | 523 | 0.19 (0.03–1.08) | 0.03 (0–0.10) | 16.67 (-) | 316 | 0 (0–1.20) | – | – | |
| 5 | Bombali 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 303 | 0 (0–1.25) | – | – |
| Bombali 1 | 830 | 6.9 (5.3–8.8) | 1.93 (1.28–2.57) | 28.07 (21.70–34.44) | 506 | 1.58 (0.80–3.09) | 0.26 (0.08–0.45) | 16.67 (-) | 337 | 2.67 (1.41–5.00) | 8.21 (0.00–16.93) | 175.00 (57.95–292.05) | |
| Koinadugu | 636 | 5.7 (4.1–7.7) | 1.99 (0.95–3.04) | 35.19 (19.83–50.54) | 498 | 0.80 (0.31–2.05) | 0.17 (0–0.34) | 20.83 (7.57– 34.09) | 305 | 0.98 (0.34–2.85) | 1.15 (0.00–2.51) | 116.67 (7.13–226.21) | |
| 6 | Kailahun | 624 | 2.6 (1.6–4.1) | 2.08 (0.00–4.89) | 81.25 (0.00–195.58) | 499 | 0.20 (0.04–1.13) | 0.03 (0–0.10) | 16.67 (-) | 385 | 1.56 (0.72–3.36) | 1.69 (0.00–3.46) | 108.33 (2.37–214.29) |
| Kenema | 1016 | 0.6 (0.3–1.3) | 0.34 (0.00–0.70) | 58.33 (4.42–112.24) | 500 | 0 (0–0.76) | – | – | 313 | 0 (0–1.21) | – | – | |
Fig. 1Age mf prevalence curve at baseline, midterm and pre-TAS in each district
Fig. 2Geographical locations and point mf prevalence of each survey site and district categories for TAS qualification. Paired districts sharing sentinel sites and spot check sites are shown in same colours. Numeral figures at survey sites are point percentage MF prevalence for each site