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 severi...

Most respondents thought the number of ambulances insufficient and said they would rather use a taxi—perceived to be faster—in a medical emergency. Nevertheless, people generally had favorable attitudes of existing public ambulance services, although few knew of the toll-free emergency number and many thought it appropriate to use ambulances to transport corpses. Targeted public education, along with improved capacity of ambulance agencies to handle increased caseload, could improve use.

In Haiti, 22 communes still require mass drug administration (MDA) to eliminate lymphatic filariasis (LF) as a public health problem. Several clinical trials have shown that a single oral dose of ivermectin (IVM), diethylcarbamazine (DEC) and albendazole (ALB) (IDA) is more effective than DEC plus ALB (DA) for clearing Wuchereria bancrofti microfilariae (Mf). We performed a cluster-randomized community study to compare the safety and efficacy of IDA and DA in an LF-endemic area in northern Haiti. Ten localities were randomized to receive either DA or IDA. Participants were monitored for adverse events (AE), parasite antigenemia, and microfilaremia. Antigen-positive participants were retested one year after MDA to assess treatment efficacy. Fewer participants (11.0%, 321/2917) experienced at least one AE after IDA compared to DA (17.3%, 491/2844, P<0.001). Most AEs were mild, and the three most common AEs reported were headaches, dizziness and abdominal pain. Serious AEs developed in three participants who received DA. Baseline prevalence for filarial antigenemia was 8.0% (239/3004) in IDA localities and 11.5% (344/2994) in DA localities (<0.001). Of those with positive antigenemia, 17.6% (42/239) in IDA localities and 20.9% (72/344, P = 0.25) in DA localities were microfilaremic. One year after treatment, 84% percent of persons with positive filarial antigen tests at baseline could be retested. Clearance rates for filarial antigenemia were 20.5% (41/200) after IDA versus 25.4% (74/289) after DA (P = 0.3). However, 94.4% (34/36) of IDA recipients and 75.9% (44/58) of DA recipients with baseline microfilaremia were Mf negative at the time of retest (P = 0.02). Thus, MDA with IDA was at least as well tolerated and significantly more effective for clearing Mf compared

Background Many countries will not reach elimination targets for lymphatic filariasis in 2020 using the two-drug treatment regimen (diethylcarbamazine citrate [DEC] and albendazole [DA]). A cluster-randomized, community-based safety study performed in Fiji, Haiti, India, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea tested the safety and efficacy of a new regimen of ivermectin, DEC and albendazole (IDA). Methodology/Principal findings To assess acceptability of IDA and DA, a mixed methods study was embedded within this community-based safety study. The study objective was to assess the acceptability of IDA versus DA. Community surveys were performed in each country with randomly selected participants (>14 years) from the safety study participant list in both DA and IDA arms. In depth interviews (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGD) assessed acceptability-related themes. In 1919 individuals, distribution of sex, microfilariae (Mf) presence and circulating filarial antigenemia (CFA), adverse events (AE) and age were similar across arms. A composite acceptability score summed the values from nine indicators (range 9–36). The median (22.5) score indicated threshold of acceptability. There was no difference in scores for IDA and DA regimens. Mean acceptability scores across both treatment arms were: Fiji 33.7 (95% CI: 33.1–34.3); Papua New Guinea 32.9 (95% CI: 31.9–33.8); Indonesia 30.6 (95% CI: 29.8–31.3); Haiti 28.6 (95% CI: 27.8–29.4); India 26.8 (95% CI: 25.6–28) (P<0.001). AE, Mf or CFA were not associated with acceptability. Qualitative research (27 FGD; 42 IDI) highlighted professionalism and appreciation for AE support. No major concerns were detected about number of tablets. Increased uptake of LF treatment by individuals who had never complied with MDA was observed. Conclusions/Significance IDA and DA regimens for LF elimination were highly and equally acceptable in individuals participating in the community-based safety study in Fiji, Haiti, India, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea. Country variation in acceptability was significant. Acceptability of the professionalism of the treatment delivery was highlighted.

The recent outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) interrupted mass drug administration (MDA) programs to control and eliminate neglected tropical diseases in Liberia. MDA programs treat entire communities with medication regardless of infection status to interrupt transmission and eliminate lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis. Following reports of hostilities toward health workers and fear that they might be spreading EVD, it was important to determine whether attitudes toward MDA might have changed after the outbreak. We surveyed 140 community leaders from 32 villages in Lofa County, Liberia, that had previously participated in MDA and are located in an area that was an early epicenter of the EVD outbreak. Survey respondents reported a high degree of community trust in the MDA program, and 97% thought their communities were ready to resume MDA. However, respondents predicted that fewer people would comply with MDA after the EVD epidemic than before. The survey also uncovered fears in the community that EVD and MDA might be linked. Respondents suggested that MDA programs emphasize to people that the medications are identical to those previously distributed and that MDA programs have nothing to do with EVD.