Screening is a useful method for detecting asymptomatic RHD in regions of high prevalence and we report a high echocardiographically confirmed prevalence. The most appropriate screening strategy remains to be confirmed, however, and implementation will depend on the availability of echocardiography and trained staff.

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...

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.

Lymphatic filariasis has remained endemic in Fiji despite repeated mass drug administration using the well-established and safe combination of diethylcarbamazine and albendazole (DA) since 2002. In certain settings the addition of ivermectin to this combination (IDA) remains a safe strategy and is more efficacious. However, the safety has yet to be described in scabies and soil-transmitted helminth endemic settings like Fiji. Villages of Rotuma and Gau islands were randomised to either DA or IDA. Residents received weight-based treatment unblinded with standard exclusions. Participants were actively found and asked by a nurse about their health daily for the first two days and then asked to seek review for the next five days if unwell. Anyone with severe symptoms were reviewed by a doctor and any serious adverse event was reported to the Medical Monitor and Data Safety Monitoring Board. Of 3612 enrolled and eligible participants, 1216 were randomised to DA and 2396 to IDA. Age and sex in both groups were representative of the population. Over 99% (3598) of participants completed 7 days follow-up. Adverse events were reported by 600 participants (16.7%), distributed equally between treatment groups, with most graded as mild (93.2%). There were three serious adverse events, all judged not attributable to treatment by an independent medical monitor. Fatigue was the most common symptom reported by 8.5%, with headache, dizziness, nausea and arthralgia being the next four most common symptoms. Adverse events were more likely in participants with microfilaremia (43.2% versus 15.7%), but adverse event frequency was not related to the presence of scabies or soil-transmitted helminth infection. IDA has comparable safety to DA with the same frequency of adverse events experienced following community mass drug administration. The presence of co-PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008106 March 16, 2020 1 / 17 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Hardy M, Samuela J, Kama M, Tuicakau M, Romani L, Whitfeld MJ, et al. (2020) The safety of combined triple drug therapy with ivermectin, diethylcarbamazine and albendazole in the neglected tropical diseases co-endemic setting of Fiji: A cluster randomised trial. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 14(3): e0008106. https://doi.org/10.