Population Migration: Implications for Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination Programmes

Ramaiah, K. D.

doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0002079

Cited by 43 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…). The relatively mosquito‐free environment and low man‐vector contact rate in many developed countries make the chance of new foci being established negligible (Hayman ; Ramaiah ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐endemic cases of lymphatic filariasis

Jones

2014

Tropical Med Int Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstractobjective Several cases of lymphatic filariasis (LF) have been reported in non-endemic countries due to travellers, military personnel and expatriates spending time in and returning from endemic areas, as well as immigrants coming from these regions. These cases are reviewed to assess the scale and context of non-endemic presentations and to consider the biological factors underlying their relative paucity.methods Cases reported in the English, French, Spanish and Portuguese literature during the last 30 years were examined through a search of the PubMed, ProMED-mail and TropNet resources.results The literature research revealed 11 cases of lymphatic filariasis being reported in nonendemic areas. The extent of further infections in recent migrants to non-endemic countries was also revealed through the published literature.conclusions The life-cycle requirements of Wuchereria and Brugia species limit the extent of transmission of LF outside of tropical regions. However, until elimination, programmes are successful in managing the disease, there remains a possibility of low rates of infection being reported in nonendemic areas, and increased international travel can only contribute to this phenomenon. Physicians need to be aware of the signs and symptoms of lymphatic filariasis, and infection should be considered in the differential diagnosis of people with a relevant travel history.

show abstract

“…). The relatively mosquito‐free environment and low man‐vector contact rate in many developed countries make the chance of new foci being established negligible (Hayman ; Ramaiah ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐endemic cases of lymphatic filariasis

Jones

2014

Tropical Med Int Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though there have been no recorded outbreaks of filovirus infection caused by displacement of people from areas of war and civil strife, there is potential for transmission of diseases to new areas in such situations , as in the case of the increased risk of reemergence of lymphatic filariasis in Thailand from Burmese refugees . There are currently over 2.6 million internally displaced persons in the DRC and over 450,000 refugees in neighboring countries .…”

Section: Possible Anthropogenic Factors Contributing To Frequent Outbmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ebola and Marburg virus diseases in Africa: Increased risk of outbreaks in previously unaffected areas?

Changula

Kajihara

Mweene

et al. 2014

Microbiology and Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Filoviral hemorrhagic fever (FHF) is caused by ebolaviruses and marburgviruses, which both belong to the family Filoviridae. Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) are the most likely natural reservoir for marburgviruses and entry into caves and mines that they stay in has often been associated with outbreaks of MVD. On the other hand, the natural reservoir for ebola viruses remains elusive; however, handling of wild animal carcasses has been associated with some outbreaks of EVD. In the last two decades, there has been an increase in the incidence of FHF outbreaks in Africa, some being caused by a newly found virus and some occurring in previously unaffected areas such as Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, in which the most recent EVD outbreak occurred in 2014. Indeed, the predicted geographic distribution of filoviruses and their potential reservoirs in Africa includes many countries in which FHF has not been reported. To minimize the risk of virus dissemination in previously unaffected areas, there is a need for increased investment in health infrastructure in African countries, policies to facilitate collaboration between health authorities from different countries, implementation of outbreak control measures by relevant multi-disciplinary teams and education of the populations at risk.

show abstract

“…LF cases have only been reported among Thai residents in one southern province, and the country is in the process of verifying the elimination of the disease [1]. However, the high degree of immigrant movement from LF-endemic countries to industrial areas of Thailand, together with an existing potential vector ( Culex quinquefasciatus ) , may result in the emergence of LF in these areas [2–6]. High prevalence of Imported Bancroftian Filariasis (IBF) caused by the nocturnally periodic Wuchereria bancrofti among Myanmar immigrants over recent decades [4, 7] has spurred the Thai Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) to implement a countrywide biannual treatment program using 6 mg/kg of diethylcarbamazine (DEC) for all Myanmar immigrants to prevent IBF transmission [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of mass drug administration in the program to control imported lymphatic filariasis in Thailand

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMigration plays a major role in the emergence and resurgence of lymphatic filariasis (LF) in many countries. Because of the high prevalence of Imported Bancroftian Filariasis (IBF) caused by nocturnally periodic Wuchereria bancrofti and the intensive movement of immigrant workers from endemic areas, Thailand has implemented two doses of 6 mg/kg diethylcarbamazine (DEC) with interval of 6 months to prevent IBF. In areas where immigrants are very mobile, the administration of DEC may be compromised. This study aimed to evaluate DEC administration and its barriers in such areas.MethodsA cross-sectional study with two-stage stratified cluster sampling was conducted. We selected Myanmar immigrants aged >18 years from factory and fishery areas of Samut Sakhon Province for interview with a structured questionnaire. We also interviewed health personnel regarding the functions of the LF program and practice of DEC delivery among immigrants. Associations were measured by multiple logistic regression, at P <0.05.ResultsDEC coverage among the immigrants was 75 %, below the national target. All had received DEC only once during health examinations at general hospitals for work permit renewals. None of the health centers in each community provided DEC. Significant barriers to DEC access included being undocumented (adjusted OR = 74.23; 95 % CI = 26.32–209.34), unemployed (adjusted OR = 5.09; 95 % CI = 3.39–7.64), daily employed (adjusted OR = 4.33; 95 % CI = 2.91–6.46), short-term immigrant (adjusted OR = 1.62; 95 % CI = 1.04–2.52) and living in a fishery area (adjusted OR = 1.57; 95 % CI = 1.04–2.52). Incorrect perceptions about the side-effects of DEC also obstructed DEC access for Myanmar immigrants. All positive LF antigenic immigrants reported visiting and emigrating from LF-endemic areas.ConclusionHospital-based DEC administration was an inappropriate approach to DEC delivery in areas with highly mobile Myanmar immigrants. Incorporating health-center personnel in DEC delivery twice yearly and improving the perceptions of DEC side effects would likely increase DEC coverage among Myanmar immigrants.

show abstract

Population Migration: Implications for Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination Programmes

Cited by 43 publications

References 29 publications

Non‐endemic cases of lymphatic filariasis

Non‐endemic cases of lymphatic filariasis

Ebola and Marburg virus diseases in Africa: Increased risk of outbreaks in previously unaffected areas?

Evaluation of mass drug administration in the program to control imported lymphatic filariasis in Thailand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About