SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2971467749> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±117 with 100 items per page.

W2971467749 endingPage "869" @default.
W2971467749 startingPage "860" @default.
W2971467749 abstract "The current target of elimination as a public health problem (EPHP) for lymphatic filariasis was originally devised with the intention of interrupting transmission. However, some countries that have achieved EPHP are still finding new cases.Analysis of the evidence for key biological determinants suggests that a target threshold of <1% microfilaria (mf) prevalence is not likely to be sufficient for transmission interruption in communities with a mid-to-high annual biting rate.The experimental evidence underlying estimates is insufficient or inconsistent, particularly transmission rates from vector to human, leading to high uncertainty in confidence of elimination success.Local biting rate is expected to be highly variable between settings and could have a large impact on elimination feasibility for a given target prevalence.Further experimental studies are needed to refine our understanding of LF elimination thresholds. In the global drive for elimination of lymphatic filariasis (LF), 15 countries have achieved validation of elimination as a public health problem (EPHP). Recent empirical evidence has demonstrated that EPHP does not always lead to elimination of transmission (EOT). Here we show how the probability of elimination explicitly depends on key biological parameters, many of which have been poorly characterized, leading to a poor evidence base for the elimination threshold. As more countries progress towards EPHP it is essential that this process is well-informed, as prematurely halting treatment and surveillance programs could pose a serious threat to global progress. We highlight that refinement of the weak empirical evidence base is vital to understand drivers of elimination and inform long-term policy. In the global drive for elimination of lymphatic filariasis (LF), 15 countries have achieved validation of elimination as a public health problem (EPHP). Recent empirical evidence has demonstrated that EPHP does not always lead to elimination of transmission (EOT). Here we show how the probability of elimination explicitly depends on key biological parameters, many of which have been poorly characterized, leading to a poor evidence base for the elimination threshold. As more countries progress towards EPHP it is essential that this process is well-informed, as prematurely halting treatment and surveillance programs could pose a serious threat to global progress. We highlight that refinement of the weak empirical evidence base is vital to understand drivers of elimination and inform long-term policy. There are currently 886 million people across 52 countries worldwide at risk of LFi. Infection is caused by a mosquito-transmitted filarial worm and, if left untreated, can lead to permanent and debilitating disability. The Global Program to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) set a target of elimination as a public health problem (EPHP) (see Glossary) in 1997, leading to over 7.1 billion treatments delivered as part of mass drug administrations (MDAs) since 2000i. In 2011, the WHO published guidelines for halting treatment and verifying EPHP through the use of transmission assessment surveys (TAS) to measure a target thresholdii,iii. By October 2018, 14 countries had reached this target, and 554 million people worldwide no longer require mass treatmentsiv. As indicated by the name of the TAS, it was hoped that reaching these targets would lead to elimination of transmission (EOT) in most areas. However, in Sri Lanka the TAS has been demonstrated as not sensitive enough to detect low-level persistence [1Rao R.U. et al.A comprehensive assessment of lymphatic filariasis in Sri Lanka six years after cessation of mass drug administration.PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014; 8e3281Google Scholar, 2Rebollo M. et al.Elimination of lymphatic filariasis in The Gambia.PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015; 9e0003642Google Scholar], and pockets of transmission are still being found despite EPHP validation. The community is now revisiting the TAS methods, including the original target of 1% microfilaria (mf) prevalence [3World Health Organization Strengthening the Assessment of Lymphatic Filariasis Transmission and Documenting the Achievement of Elimination. WHO, 2016Google Scholar], particularly in the context of the new triple-drug regimen which is hoped to accelerate progress, but will require different post-treatment surveillance [4Irvine M.A. et al.Effectiveness of a triple-drug regimen for global elimination of lymphatic filariasis: a modelling study.Lancet Infect. Dis. 2017; 17: 451-458Google Scholar]. It is possible that achieving EPHP, according to the current definition, will lead to EOT in some settings [5De-jian S. et al.The history of the elimination of lymphatic filariasis in China.Infect. Dis. Poverty. 2013; 2: 30Google Scholar, 6Won K.Y. et al.Use of antibody tools to provide serologic evidence of elimination of lymphatic filariasis in the gambia.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2018; 98: 15-20Google Scholar], but the high levels of variability between localities, and uncertainty in our knowledge of transmission, make it hard to predict where this will occur. This is exacerbated further by seasonal variation in environmental conditions, which has been shown to impact a number of helminth infections [7Davis E.L. et al.Seasonally timed treatment programs for Ascaris lumbricoides to increase impact – an investigation using mathematical models.PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018; 12e0006195Google Scholar, 8White M. et al.Modelling the impact of vector control interventions on Anopheles gambiae population dynamics.Parasit. Vectors. 2011; 4: 153Google Scholar]. Residual infection remaining after MDA cessation can lead to resurgence and reintroduction [9Xu Z. et al.GEOFIL: A spatially-explicit agent-based modelling framework for predicting the long-term transmission dynamics of lymphatic filariasis in American Samoa.Epidemics. 2019; 27: 19-27Google Scholar, 10Singh B.K. Michael E. Bayesian calibration of simulation models for supporting management of the elimination of the macroparasitic disease, lymphatic filariasis.Parasit. Vectors. 2015; 8: 522Google Scholar], with long-term persistence dependent on a range of factors [11Minetti C. et al.Elimination within reach: A cross-sectional study highlighting the factors that contribute to persistent lymphatic filariasis in eight communities in rural Ghana.PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2019; 13e0006994Google Scholar]. The sexual reproduction of filarial worms requires both male and female parasites to be present in an individual host for microfilariae production, so at a sufficiently low prevalence we would expect most infections to be nontransmissible due to low parasite load (i.e., a low probability of male and female adults in the same host). This is expected to result in fewer onward infections, and hence increasingly lower prevalence and intensity, until infection dies out. The threshold below which we expect this phenomenon to occur is called the breakpoint [12Anderson R.M. May R.M. Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control. Oxford University Press, 1992Google Scholar, 13Anderson R. et al.Assessing the interruption of the transmission of human helminths with mass drug administration alone: optimizing the design of cluster randomized trials.Parasit. Vectors. 2017; 10: 93Google Scholar]. As the focus of some neglected tropical disease (NTD) programs has shifted from control towards elimination, there have been a number of studies aiming to quantify these thresholds for a variety of helminth infections within the NTD umbrella [14Truscott J. et al.Identifying optimal threshold statistics for elimination of hookworm using a stochastic simulation model.Parasit. Vectors. 2017; 10321Google Scholar, 15Irvine M. et al.Understanding heterogeneities in mosquito-bite exposure and infection distributions for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018; (Published online January 31, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2253)Google Scholar, 16Klepac P. et al.Six challenges in the eradication of infectious diseases.Epidemics. 2015; 10: 97-101Google Scholar, 17Hollingsworth T.D. et al.Quantitative analyses and modelling to support achievement of the 2020 goals for nine neglected tropical diseases.Parasit. Vectors. 2015; 8: 630Google Scholar]. This theory has certain consequences for control (Figure 1A ). If transmission is sufficiently low, then the infection is expected to die out. If there is a higher transmission rate, outcomes depend on the mean worm load in the population; if, usually through control strategies, the worm load is below the green broken line (the breakpoint) then elimination is assured. Previous modelling studies that have assessed breakpoint thresholds have found values of much less than 1% mf prevalence [10Singh B.K. Michael E. Bayesian calibration of simulation models for supporting management of the elimination of the macroparasitic disease, lymphatic filariasis.Parasit. Vectors. 2015; 8: 522Google Scholar, 18Michael E. et al.Continental-scale, data-driven predictive assessment of eliminating the vector-borne disease, lymphatic filariasis, in sub-Saharan Africa by 2020.BMC Med. 2017; 15: 176Google Scholar, 19Michael E. et al.Substantiating freedom from parasitic infection by combining transmission model predictions with disease surveys.Nat. Commun. 2018; 9: 4324Google Scholar, 20Gambhir M. et al.Geographic and ecologic heterogeneity in elimination thresholds for the major vector-borne helminthic disease, lymphatic filariasis.BMC Biol. 2010; 8: 22Google Scholar]. It has been previously demonstrated that factors such as parasite aggregation and vector competence will further affect these thresholds [21Irvine M.A. et al.Modelling strategies to break transmission of lymphatic filariasis – aggregation, adherence and vector competence greatly alter elimination.Parasit. Vectors. 2015; 8: 547Google Scholar], and the majority of studies have focused on specific geographical areas, resulting in a wide range of suggested breakpoints across the literature. Measuring breakpoints that are substantially lower than 1% mf prevalence would require infeasible sample sizes and survey costs. In this review we do not argue for a specific breakpoint, instead focusing on asserting that the experimental evidence is too uncertain to conclusively support a 1% threshold and emphasizing the importance of spatial heterogeneity. Whilst breakpoint theory is extremely useful, it is also possible for stochastic, or chance, extinction to occur before this breakpoint is reached, particularly when infection levels are low (Figure 1B). The probability of elimination, given a particular prevalence (e.g., 1%), can be calculated by considering the probability that a chain of transmission will die out (in mathematics we call this chain a branching process [22Watson H.W. Galton F. On the probability of the extinction of families. J. Anthropol. Instit.Great Britain and Ireland. 1875; 4: 138-144Google Scholar]). These types of branching process methods have been used for soil-transmitted helminths [23Cornell S. et al.Stochastic and spatial dynamics of nematode parasites in farmed ruminants.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2004; 271: 1243-1250Google Scholar, 24Cornell S. Isham V. Ultimate extinction of the promiscuous bisexual Galton-Watson.Aust. NZ J. Statist. 2004; 46: 87-98Google Scholar], but have been adapted here to account for vector-borne transmission with an aggregated bite risk [25Fowler A. Hollingsworth T. The dynamics of Ascaris lumbricoides infections.Bull. Mathem. Biol. 2016; 78: 815-833Google Scholar, 26Irvine M. et al.Mosquito bite heterogeneity influences lymphatic filariasis prevalence, intensity and opportunities for control.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017; 95: 346Google Scholar]. Current guidelines mean that EPHP is validated after passing TAS, but we have little experience in what this means for long-term transmission. Assuming for simplicity that TAS is able to measure a true mf prevalence of less than 1%, this theory of stochastic extinction can be used to estimate how the future probability of EOT (zero cases) depends on a range of setting- and disease-specific variables. This process uses the distribution of the number of infectious secondary cases caused by one infectious individual, the mean of which is the effective reproductive number (Re). As a toy example, for a population of 1000 and 1% mf prevalence, we consider a distribution of individual worm burdens (Figure 2A ). Infections with only one worm are nontransmissible. From one infectious person you then get the number of new cases, Z, caused during their infectious period (Figure 2B). Since transmission represents a chance event, Z is best represented by a distribution, and acts as a proxy for Re. This distribution determines the probability of the transmission chain dying out, that is, no further cases, at some point in the future; for more detail see Box S1 in the supplemental information online. We use this to give a univariate demonstration of the present parameter uncertainty and how this might impact two epidemiological measures: the probability of elimination and the effective reproductive number. We now review evidence for key parameters in the life cycle which drive transmission (Figure 3). As previously mentioned, a number of these variables, such as the annual biting rate (ABR), are likely to introduce large differences due to the high spatial variability. Others, such as the probability an infectious mosquito bite results in a viable human infection, have the potential to be more consistent across settings, but currently lack in experimental evidence. A detailed literature review turns up widely varying estimates of ABR, partially due to geographical variation. These values, from countries with a history of LF endemicity, range from three [27Killeen G. et al.A simplified model for predicting malaria entomologic inoculation rates based on entomologic and parasitologic parameters relevant to control.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2000; 62: 535-544Google Scholar] to 611 [28Michael E. Singh B. Heterogeneous dynamics, robustness/fragility trade-offs, and the eradication of the macroparasitic disease, lymphatic filariasis.BMC Med. 2016; 14: 14Google Scholar] bites per person per day. A number of these are based on human landing catches [27Killeen G. et al.A simplified model for predicting malaria entomologic inoculation rates based on entomologic and parasitologic parameters relevant to control.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2000; 62: 535-544Google Scholar, 28Michael E. Singh B. Heterogeneous dynamics, robustness/fragility trade-offs, and the eradication of the macroparasitic disease, lymphatic filariasis.BMC Med. 2016; 14: 14Google Scholar, 29Braack L. et al.Biting behaviour of African malaria vectors: 1. where do the main vector species bite on the human body?.Parasit. Vectors. 2015; 8: 76Google Scholar], with the majority relying on studies from the 1960s and 1970s [28Michael E. Singh B. Heterogeneous dynamics, robustness/fragility trade-offs, and the eradication of the macroparasitic disease, lymphatic filariasis.BMC Med. 2016; 14: 14Google Scholar], whilst some are derived from models [30Stolk W. Lymphatic Filariasis: Transmission, Treatment and Elimination. Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2005Google Scholar]. Despite a wealth of historic studies, supported by the malaria literature, human landing catches are often considered unethical and give highly variable results. Relying on historic estimates can also disregard changes in socioeconomic conditions resulting in decreased vector–human contact. Current estimates in the literature of the basic reproductive number, R0, range from zero to 2.5 [31Stone C. et al.How effective is integrated vector management against malaria and lymphatic filariasis where the diseases are transmitted by the same vector?.PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014; 8e3393Google Scholar], depending on the vector–host ratio (an alternative metric to ABR). Although setting-specific values of R0 for other diseases can often be calculated from infection data, the global landscape of public health history for LF means that we have very little contemporary baseline (precontrol) data with which to do this. As an alternative, we can consider the previously mentioned estimation of Re. Another important, but largely uncertain, factor is the degree of parasite aggregation, measured inversely by the negative binomial k. For LF, adult worm aggregation is considered to be driven by heterogeneous transmission, caused by host variation in bite risk [15Irvine M. et al.Understanding heterogeneities in mosquito-bite exposure and infection distributions for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018; (Published online January 31, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2253)Google Scholar]. Initial estimates for k were based on mf data (k = 0.08, 0.3 [21Irvine M.A. et al.Modelling strategies to break transmission of lymphatic filariasis – aggregation, adherence and vector competence greatly alter elimination.Parasit. Vectors. 2015; 8: 547Google Scholar, 26Irvine M. et al.Mosquito bite heterogeneity influences lymphatic filariasis prevalence, intensity and opportunities for control.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017; 95: 346Google Scholar]). However, a recent study in Papua New Guinea used bite and mf data to demonstrate that the k for bite risk is an order of magnitude larger than that for mf aggregation, giving a refined estimate of 0.73 (standard deviation 0.035), with site-specific estimates ranging from 0.3 to 1.3 [15Irvine M. et al.Understanding heterogeneities in mosquito-bite exposure and infection distributions for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018; (Published online January 31, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2253)Google Scholar, 26Irvine M. et al.Mosquito bite heterogeneity influences lymphatic filariasis prevalence, intensity and opportunities for control.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017; 95: 346Google Scholar]. We will now separate transmission into two parts: humans to mosquitoes, and mosquitoes to humans. When considering the former, the key variables are duration of infection, which depends on fecund worm lifespan, and the probability that a vector biting an infected host will become infectious. Often worm lifespan is stated as being 6–8i or 5–10 years [32Norman R. et al.EPIFIL: The development of an age-structured model for describing the transmission dynamics and control of lymphatic filariasis.Epidemiol. Infect. 2000; 124: 529-541Google Scholar, 33Stolk W. et al.Diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis infection: How many people have adult worms?.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2006; 75: 102Google Scholar], but reference trails rarely reveal empirical evidence. There are studies that corroborate similar ranges, such as 2.1–5.4 [34Vanamail P. et al.Estimation of the fecund life span of Wuchereria bancrofti in an endemic area.Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1996; 90: 119-121Google Scholar] or 9.1–11.8 [35Subramanian S. et al.The dynamics of Wuchereria bancrofti infection: a model-based analysis of longitudinal data from Pondicherry, India.Parasitology. 2004; 128: 467-482Google Scholar] years, but there are also estimates in the literature of up to 40 years [36Carme B. Laigret J. Longevity of Wuchereria bancrofti var Pacifica and mosquito infection acquired from a patient with low-level parasitemia.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1979; 28: 53-55Google Scholar]. Infectivity to mosquitoes depends on mf intensity, leading to wide ranges of 15–60% of vectors becoming infected from a single mf-positive bite [37Subramanian S. et al.The relationship between microfilarial load in the human host and uptake and development of Wuchereria bancrofti microfilariae by Culex quinquefasciatus: a study under natural conditions.Parasitology. 1998; 116: 243-255Google Scholar, 38Gambhir M. Michael E. Complex ecological dynamics and eradicability of the vector borne macroparasitic disease, lymphatic filariasis.PLoS One. 2008; 3e2874Google Scholar]. Infection from vector to human is governed by the number of infectious bloodmeals one mosquito will take – calculated from vector survival and competence, extrinsic incubation period (EIP) and blood feeding rate (BFR) – and the probability one infectious bite will result in a viable infection. There are reasonable estimates for vector survival and BFR from the malaria literature [27Killeen G. et al.A simplified model for predicting malaria entomologic inoculation rates based on entomologic and parasitologic parameters relevant to control.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2000; 62: 535-544Google Scholar, 39Gary R. Foster W. Effects of available sugar on the reproductive fitness and vectorial capacity of the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae).J. Med. Entomol. 2001; 38: 22-28Google Scholar] and for LF incubation [40Erickson S. et al.Mosquito infection responses to developing filarial worms.PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2009; 3e529Google Scholar], although these do not typically account for the impact of infection on survival [37Subramanian S. et al.The relationship between microfilarial load in the human host and uptake and development of Wuchereria bancrofti microfilariae by Culex quinquefasciatus: a study under natural conditions.Parasitology. 1998; 116: 243-255Google Scholar]. One key parameter of infection, the probability an infectious bite results in a mature human infection, is largely unknown. Estimates range from 10–5 to 10–3 [41Hairston N.G. de Meillon B. On the inefficiency of transmission of Wuchereria bancrofti from mosquito to human host.Bull. WHO. 1968; 38: 935Google Scholar, 42Jones R. Non-endemic cases of lymphatic filariasis.Tropical Med. Int. Health. 2014; 19: 1377-1383Google Scholar] and are usually broken down into three steps: the L3 leaving the vector, entering the host, and developing to fecundity. The first step is relatively straightforward to measure [43de Meillon B. et al.Infection and reinfection of Culex pipiens fatigans with Wuchereria bancrofti and the loss of mature larvae in blood-feeding.Bull. WHO. 1997; 36: 81Google Scholar], although it poses ethical issues, and the second can be estimated using mouse models [44Ho B.C. Ewert A. Experimental transmission of filarial larvae in relation to feeding behaviour of the mosquito vectors.Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1967; 61: 663-666Google Scholar, 45Ewert A. Beng C. The fate of Brugia pahangi larvae immediately after feeding by infective vector mosquitoes.Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1967; 61: 659-662Google Scholar]. The third is harder; best estimates are calculated by using Brugia malayi studies to derive a daily death rate and then applying this across the longer Wucheria bancrofti developmental period [32Norman R. et al.EPIFIL: The development of an age-structured model for describing the transmission dynamics and control of lymphatic filariasis.Epidemiol. Infect. 2000; 124: 529-541Google Scholar, 46Addiss D.G. et al.Lymphatic Filariasis. World Scientific, 2000Google Scholar]. If we include these parameters in the simple framework described above, we can see how the uncertainty affects our estimates of key epidemiological measures (Figure 4). The mid-points of elimination probability (0.73) and Re (1.1) are not intended to be true estimates, rather they represent a mid-ground of the parameter ranges found in the literature and a basis for comparison. The variable which generates the most univariate uncertainty is the probability that an infectious mosquito bite will infect a human, b, due to the wide range of possible values. Variation in elimination probability due to ABR, which is correlated with the basic reproductive number (R0), is also very high. This is due to both measurement inaccuracy and spatiotemporal variability. Parameters that are known to be key drivers in the probability of elimination, worm fecund lifespan and the degree of adult worm aggregation [21Irvine M.A. et al.Modelling strategies to break transmission of lymphatic filariasis – aggregation, adherence and vector competence greatly alter elimination.Parasit. Vectors. 2015; 8: 547Google Scholar, 47Truscott J. et al.Soil-transmitted helminths: mathematical models of transmission, the impact of mass drug administration and transmission elimination criteria.Adv. Parasitol. 2016; 94: 133-198Google Scholar, 48Anderson R. et al.The coverage and frequency of mass drug administration required to eliminate persistent transmission of soil-transmitted helminths.Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2014; 36920130435Google Scholar], potentially induce lower uncertainty here due to considering narrower plausible intervals. In addition to the probability of elimination, we also consider the effective reproductive number, Re. It is important to note that, for helminth infections, metrics often refer to the number of adult filarial worms arising from one adult filarial worm, rather than considering human cases. However, the theory is similar enough to allow heuristic comparison. Our mid-estimate for Re is chosen to be close to 1, representative of the low-level transmission observed in some post-MDA settings, but varying the probability that an infectious mosquito bite will lead to a patent infection (b) can lead to an order of magnitude difference. In fact, it is possible to push the estimate of Re across the critical threshold (Re = 1) between extinction and endemicity by adjusting any variable within the ranges found in the literature. This reinforces the importance of using reliable variable estimates when making predictions, particularly in elimination settings where infection data are sparse. Due to the demonstrated uncertainty that knowledge gaps, particularly in the establishment of a patent infection, can cause in estimating elimination thresholds it would be prudent to refine the evidence for these variables. Here we discuss a few options for future studies and analyses that we believe could strengthen the knowledge base. The probability that an infectious bite leads to an infectious host cannot be measured experimentally in humans; however, we can improve current estimates with anecdotal and observational studies. Longitudinal studies can provide evidence of the time to antigen positivity and the time to microfilaria positivity in children, or in adults that have moved from nonendemic to endemic regions. One existing study, looking at acquisition in travelers, surmises that the majority of cases are in individuals who spent in excess of 6 months in an endemic region [49Lipner E. et al.Filariasis in travelers presenting to the GeoSentinel Surveillance Network.PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2007; 1e88Google Scholar], whereas another cites a number of travelers contracting infection with only 1 month of exposure [42Jones R. Non-endemic cases of lymphatic filariasis.Tropical Med. Int. Health. 2014; 19: 1377-1383Google Scholar]. Entomological studies routinely estimate ABR through human landing catch data, and individual exposure can be quantified based on net usage and vector biting habits [50Reimer L. et al.Insecticidal bed nets and filariasis transmission in Papua New Guinea.N. Engl. J. Med. 2013; 369: 745-753Google Scholar, 51Thomsen E. et al.Mosquito behavior change after distribution of bednets results in decreased protection against malaria exposure.J. Infect. Dis. 2017; 215: 790-797Google Scholar]. The range of ABRs discussed are very broad estimates, covering a wide range of settings, but this can be a difficult variable to measure consistently. It may be possible to obtain greater certainty in Re without accurate ABR measures for each location. For example, estimates of low, medium, or high vector densities would still improve our predictions, and these categories of exposure, which act as a proxy for R0 classification, could be informed by a combination of trap densities and vector-control coverage. Spatial heterogeneity can also occur within implementation units, posing problems for any categorization process, so it is important that treatment targets are determined by the maximum transmission measure for a region. We have used basic analyses to highlight that the existing experimental evidence does not afford a high degree of certainty at the current 1% mf prevalence elimination threshold. This is mainly because of uncertainties in variables which could be either experimentally or analytically refined, but also due to spatiotemporal variation in vector densities and biting rates [28Michael E. Singh B. Heterogeneous dynamics, robustness/fragility trade-offs, and the eradication of the macroparasitic disease, lymphatic filariasis.BMC Med. 2016; 14: 14Google Scholar]. That varying the value of one input variable within sensible ranges found in the literature can make such an impact on predictions, demonstrates the difficulties posed by targeting EOT when we know that local heterogeneities and variability are difficult to measure. Observations of ongoing transmission in parts of validated countries offer empirical support to our concerns with the EPHP target, prompting some important outstanding policy questions (see Outstanding Questions). In order to support efforts to eliminate LF we would recommend a multipronged approach: improving the experimental evidence base of measurable quantities; detailed analysis of existing infection data to improve our understanding of the infection risk associated with an infectious bite; and development of a discrete system to classify vector density, as a proxy for transmission intensity, to allow comparison of different regions. The optimization of elimination programme strategies and surveillance will require continual revisiting of predictions as we gather more epidemiological data through existing surveys and monitoring infrastructures, as well as expanded epidemiological and surveillance studies at low prevalence. As more countries cease interventions and move to postvalidation surveillance it is increasingly obvious that transmission breakpoints are unlikely to be one-size-fits-all, hence more flexible thresholds are necessary. It is vital that we ensure that this process is well-informed, as prematurely halting control or surveillance programs could pose a serious threat to global targets, but also because we believe that it may be possible to exploit this geographical variation to maximize the probability of elimination.Outstanding QuestionsHow can we translate our understanding of elimination dynamics to clear and feasible guidelines for public health programs?Is there a universal threshold, or do we need to tailor predictions for different communities and settings?What are the key determinants that vary between settings, and how can we measure them?How can we reliably measure annual biting rate for different settings?How can we refine our estimates of transmission probability from vectors to humans?How can we determine where 1% mf prevalence is a threshold below which elimination is likely?If lower target thresholds are required for elimination of transmission, then are we realistically able to measure these using current tools?Whilst we can measure that prevalence is below certain thresholds, is this sufficient evidence of elimination of transmission?In settings where we are still seeing new cases after EPHP verification, what is the probability of large-scale resurgence?What is a suitable survey design in a context of limited resources?How will the new diagnostic affect elimination measurement?How can we harness xeno-monitoring techniques to improve post-EPHP surveillance? How can we translate our understanding of elimination dynamics to clear and feasible guidelines for public health programs? Is there a universal threshold, or do we need to tailor predictions for different communities and settings? What are the key determinants that vary between settings, and how can we measure them? How can we reliably measure annual biting rate for different settings? How can we refine our estimates of transmission probability from vectors to humans? How can we determine where 1% mf prevalence is a threshold below which elimination is likely? If lower target thresholds are required for elimination of transmission, then are we realistically able to measure these using current tools? Whilst we can measure that prevalence is below certain thresholds, is this sufficient evidence of elimination of transmission? In settings where we are still seeing new cases after EPHP verification, what is the probability of large-scale resurgence? What is a suitable survey design in a context of limited resources? How will the new diagnostic affect elimination measurement? How can we harness xeno-monitoring techniques to improve post-EPHP surveillance? Hollingsworth, Davis, and Reimer gratefully acknowledge funding of the NTD Modelling Consortium by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1184344). iwww.who.int/lymphatic_filariasis/resources/who_wer9344/en/ iiwww.who.int/lymphatic_filariasis/resources/9789241511957/en/ iiiwww.who.int/lymphatic_filariasis/resources/9789241550161/en/ ivwww.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lymphatic-filariasis Download .docx (.05 MB) Help with docx files Supplemental Material the average number of mosquito bites per person per year. the average number of new infectious cases generated by one infectious case in an entirely susceptible population. the rate at which mosquitoes take a blood meal. a stochastic process which consists of collections of random variables, which are indexed by the natural numbers (1,2,3,…). a prevalence level below which sustained transmission is not viable and elimination (zero cases) becomes an absorbing state. the average number of new infectious cases generated by one infectious case in a population made up of both susceptible and infectious hosts. as measured by TAS, a metric used by the WHO to validate programme success. Intended to naturally lead to EOT. the time it takes for ingested mf to develop to infectious L3 larvae in the mosquito. the designated level of the administrative unit in a country, for which the decision to administer antifilarial drugs to the entire population is taken if it is identified as having indigenous transmission or endemicity. the third larval stage of the parasite; at this point it is infectious to humans. the administration of drugs to a whole population, irrespective of disease status. developmental stages in the bloodstream, produced by fertilized female worms, that can be picked up by mosquitoes. a series of surveys designed by the WHO to measure post-MDA infection levels and verify EPHP. ivermectin and diethylcarbamazine and albendazole (IDA): a drug combination that has recently become the gold standard for treatment of LF. literally 'of one variable'. Univariate analysis explores variables one-by-one, keeping all others fixed. the number of vectors per human in a geographical region." @default.
W2971467749 created "2019-09-12" @default.
W2971467749 creator A5005689730 @default.
W2971467749 creator A5006090253 @default.
W2971467749 creator A5019216326 @default.
W2971467749 creator A5025339098 @default.
W2971467749 date "2019-11-01" @default.
W2971467749 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
W2971467749 title "Evaluating the Evidence for Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination" @default.
W2971467749 cites W17727968 @default.
W2971467749 cites W1975712731 @default.
W2971467749 cites W1976121597 @default.
W2971467749 cites W1981215404 @default.
W2971467749 cites W1983147193 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2001300354 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2015697599 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2040916526 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2045989452 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2046711579 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2053589941 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2061148382 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2078107971 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2096112139 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2109616016 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2116721397 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2117579063 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2131962601 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2149591764 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2154665202 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2154986266 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2159552741 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2162999590 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2165731443 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2170196498 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2171456638 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2180840528 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2190276977 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2283051927 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2337933447 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2563939709 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2567306083 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2588313664 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2589096383 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2734076361 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2758830280 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2770689550 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2782865666 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2786277935 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2897274497 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2906791087 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2907072791 @default.
W2971467749 cites W4254826564 @default.
W2971467749 cites W4371571805 @default.
W2971467749 cites W60622046 @default.
W2971467749 cites W2192630093 @default.
W2971467749 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2019.08.003" @default.
W2971467749 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7413036" @default.
W2971467749 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31506245" @default.
W2971467749 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
W2971467749 type Work @default.
W2971467749 sameAs 2971467749 @default.
W2971467749 citedByCount "14" @default.
W2971467749 countsByYear W29714677492019 @default.
W2971467749 countsByYear W29714677492020 @default.
W2971467749 countsByYear W29714677492021 @default.
W2971467749 countsByYear W29714677492022 @default.
W2971467749 countsByYear W29714677492023 @default.
W2971467749 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W2971467749 hasAuthorship W2971467749A5005689730 @default.
W2971467749 hasAuthorship W2971467749A5006090253 @default.
W2971467749 hasAuthorship W2971467749A5019216326 @default.
W2971467749 hasAuthorship W2971467749A5025339098 @default.
W2971467749 hasBestOaLocation W29714677491 @default.
W2971467749 hasConcept C165901193 @default.
W2971467749 hasConcept C181152851 @default.
W2971467749 hasConcept C203014093 @default.
W2971467749 hasConcept C2776158911 @default.
W2971467749 hasConcept C2777629521 @default.
W2971467749 hasConcept C2778672586 @default.
W2971467749 hasConcept C2911164937 @default.
W2971467749 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
W2971467749 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
W2971467749 hasConceptScore W2971467749C165901193 @default.
W2971467749 hasConceptScore W2971467749C181152851 @default.
W2971467749 hasConceptScore W2971467749C203014093 @default.
W2971467749 hasConceptScore W2971467749C2776158911 @default.
W2971467749 hasConceptScore W2971467749C2777629521 @default.
W2971467749 hasConceptScore W2971467749C2778672586 @default.
W2971467749 hasConceptScore W2971467749C2911164937 @default.
W2971467749 hasConceptScore W2971467749C71924100 @default.
W2971467749 hasConceptScore W2971467749C86803240 @default.
W2971467749 hasIssue "11" @default.
W2971467749 hasLocation W29714677491 @default.
W2971467749 hasLocation W29714677492 @default.
W2971467749 hasLocation W29714677493 @default.
W2971467749 hasLocation W29714677494 @default.
W2971467749 hasLocation W29714677495 @default.
W2971467749 hasLocation W29714677496 @default.