The Impact of Mass Drug Administration on Lymphatic Filariasis

Aboagye, Isaac Frimpong; Addison, Yvonne Abena Afadua

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7504871

Journal of Tropical Medicine

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 7504871 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7504871

The Impact of Mass Drug Administration on Lymphatic Filariasis

Isaac Frimpong Aboagye¹and Yvonne Abena Afadua Addison¹

Academic Editor: Pedro P. Chieffi

Received15 Jul 2022

Revised07 Dec 2022

Accepted13 Dec 2022

Published28 Dec 2022

Abstract

Mass drug administration (MDA) has made a significant impact on the control of lymphatic filariasis (LF) since the establishment of the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis. However, its implementation is associated with several challenges, hampering interruption of parasite transmission and LF elimination in endemic areas. This study assessed the impact of MDA by comparing baseline microfilaria and antigen prevalence with those after three years (mid-term) and ≥5 years of MDA implementation and their respective prevalence reductions and identified specific challenges that may hinder its effective implementation. Three years of MDA implementation were observed to have microfilaria prevalence reductions (88.54% to 98.66%) comparable to those of studies that implemented MDA for five to 10 years (≥5 years, 79.23% to 98.26%). Inadequate community understanding of and participation in the LF MDA programme are major drawbacks to its effective implementation. The implementation of MDA that incorporates community participation, incentivisation, education, and training strategies has the potential of increasing MDA coverage and compliance, thereby interrupting parasite transmission and reducing microfilarial prevalence to levels that warrant LF elimination.

1. Introduction

Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is a debilitating, neglected tropical disease caused by three species of parasitic worms: Wuchereria bancrofti, Brugia malayi, and B. timori. These arthropod-borne nematodes are transmitted to humans by the bite of infected mosquitoes in the genera Culex, Anopheles, Mansonia, and Aedes. Globally, 51.4 million people are estimated to be infected with LF [1], and the disease can compromise the health of victims and have an enormous socioeconomic burden [2, 3].

In 1997, following major advances in diagnosing and testing for LF infection and improved understanding of the epidemiology and treatment of chronic LF-related disease, the 50th World Health Assembly resolved to eliminate LF as a public health problem [4]. Subsequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) in the year 2000 established the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) to assist member states in achieving this goal by 2020 through morbidity management and preventive annual mass drug administration (MDA) [5].

Mass drug administration involving the two principal regimens of albendazole plus either ivermectin or diethylcarbamazine [DEC] for 4–6 years [6] or the exclusive use of table salt or cooking salt fortified with DEC for 1-2 years [7] has been implemented in various settings with varying degrees of successes and challenges. This study assessed the impact of MDA implementation on the control of LF in endemic areas and identifies specific challenges that may hinder effective implementation of MDA and reduction in microfilarial prevalence to levels below target thresholds [8] to warrant LF elimination.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

The search for relevant literature published in English language was carried out in the PubMed Central data-base from 19 December 2021 to 4 January 2022 using the search terms: “lymphatic filariasis, mass drug administration, effect, prevalence” with no limit to years. Details of the review protocol (Text S1) are registered with the OSF Registries (Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YQSPT) and can be accessed (osf.io/ct6rb). This review and the selection of relevant literature were undertaken using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines [9].

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The review employed stringent eligibility criteria. Based on the recommendation of WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on the Global Elimination of LF on the assessment of the impact of MDA [10], studies from the baseline that have carried out a series of mass drug administration (MDA) using the two principal regimens [6, 7] but not reported on transmission assessment surveys (TASs) and verification of LF elimination were included in the review. Studies which reported on prevalence of LF, an indicator in the operational definition of LF elimination [11], and the primary outcome of interest in this review were included. Studies which did not meet these criteria, including those reporting on LF prevalence without MDA, missed rounds of MDA, mono- and triple-therapies against LF, control of LF using mosquito nets and MDA, LF mapping, systematic reviews, and coinfections were excluded from the review.

2.3. Method of Study Selection, Data Collection, and Analysis

The studies for the review were selected using a similar relevant article identification approach described previously [12]. The articles were screened independently by reading the titles to exclude nonlymphatic filariasis studies. The abstracts of lymphatic filariasis studies were read to assess their relevance based on the inclusion criteria. Full text articles deemed to be relevant were downloaded and used for the review.

Each relevant full text article was read to document its characteristics: country, setting, population, drugs administered in MDA programme, MDA coverage, and compliance. Data on microfilaria (Mf) and Mf antigenic cases reported at baseline, three years (mid-term), and ≥5 years (pretransmission assessment survey, pre-TAS) of MDA implementation were extracted and used to calculate their respective prevalence using the following equation:where P = prevalence, nc = number of cases, and N = sample size. The percentage reductions for mid-term and pre-TAS microfilaria and Mf antigen prevalence compared to baseline prevalence were calculated using the following equations:where MPR = mid-term prevalence reduction, BP = baseline prevalence, MP = mid-term prevalence, PPR = pre-TAS prevalence reduction, and PP = pre-TAS prevalence.

2.4. Definition of Variables

Prevalence in this review is the proportion of persons diagnosed as having microfilaria (Mf) of any of the LF parasites or Mf antigen in their blood and was calculated before (baseline), three years (mid-term), and ≥5 years (pre-TAS) of MDA implementation. MDA coverage is the percentage of the population at risk of LF covered by MDA, and compliance with MDA is the percentage of persons who ingested the prescribed drugs during MDA implementation in an LF endemic area.

2.5. Risk of Study Bias Assessment

The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the quality assessment tool developed for prevalence studies [13]. It was based on the assignment of numbers to a yes (0, low risk) and no (1, high risk) answers for ten parameters (Supplemental Table S1) on the external and internal validity of the studies. The overall study quality assessment was determined by summing up the assigned numbers based on the levels of risk of bias categorized as low (≤2), moderate (3-4) or high (≥5).

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection and Risk of Bias Assessment

A total of 1,678 results were obtained from the PubMed Central literature search out of which 14 were deemed to be relevant to the research question. Figure 1 shows the study selection process.

Based on the risk of bias assessment of the 14 studies included, 9 (64.3%) and five (35.7%) were observed to have low and moderate risks of publication bias, respectively (Supplemental Table S1).

3.2. Data Extraction

Characteristics of the relevant lymphatic filariasis studies extracted are presented in Table 1. Based on the assessment of the impact of mass drug administration (MDA) on lymphatic filariasis (LF) control, data on microfilaria (Mf) and Mf antigenic cases reported at baseline, three years (mid-term), and ≥5 years (pretransmission assessment survey, pre-TAS) of MDA implementation were extracted and presented in Table 2. Baseline, mid-term and pre-TAS microfilaria (Table 3) and Mf antigen (Table 4) prevalence were calculated. The percentage reductions for mid-term and pre-TAS microfilaria (Table 3) and Mf antigen (Table 4) prevalence compared to baseline prevalence were also calculated.

4. Discussion

4.1. Impact of MDA on Lymphatic Filariasis Control

One of the two strategies to achieve the goal of lymphatic filariasis (LF) elimination is preventive chemotherapy [28] delivered through mass drug administration (MDA), aimed at interrupting LF transmission. MDA involving albendazole plus either ivermectin or diethylcarbamazine [DEC] for 4–6 years [6] or the exclusive use of table salt or cooking salt fortified with DEC for 1-2 years [7] is recommended for effective control of LF [29]. Albendazole and ivermectin are administered in areas where LF is co-endemic with onchocerciasis, as observed in sub-Saharan Africa [30]. However, treatment with DEC is contraindicated in areas where onchocerciasis or loiasis might coexist [29], accounting for its use in onchocerciasis-free regions. This is due to the potential for severe adverse events such as the induction of strong local inflammation in patients with ocular microfilariae attributable to microfilariae death [31]. These regimens, at adequate levels of coverage, safely and effectively reduce the number of microfilariae circulating in the blood and, therefore, the prevalence of infection in the entire LF endemic community [11].

This review assessed the impact of MDA implementation by comparing baseline microfilaria and antigen prevalence with those of three years (mid-term) and ≥5 years (pre-TAS) and their respective percentage reductions. Although the stringent eligibility criteria limited the number of articles, this review provides useful information for stakeholders in the control of LF. In this review, 11 (78.57%) and three (21.43%) studies reported variable MDA coverage (19% to 100%) and compliance (70.10% to 80%), respectively (Table 1), highlighting the challenge of attaining and maintaining high treatment coverage. To achieve interruption of parasite transmission, MDA coverage of at least 80% [32] and compliance exceeding 65–75% [33] are required.

The percentage microfilaria (Mf) prevalence reduction three years after MDA implementation was high, ranging from 88.54% to 98.66% in the majority of the mid-term studies (4 [80%], Table 3), with one reporting a low prevalence reduction of 58.74%. Interestingly, these reductions are comparable to those of studies that implemented MDA for five to 10 years (≥5 years) with a majority of them (5, 83.33%) having prevalence reductions ranging from 79.23% to 98.26% (Table 3) with one unusually increasing in Mf prevalence by 36.15% attributable to very low MDA coverage of 46–56% [25]. The percentage antigen prevalence reductions at three years and five to 10 years of MDA implementation compared to baseline antigen prevalence appeared to be comparable (Table 4). Various studies have reported that two [16, 34] or three [18] years of MDA implementation with high coverage (≥80%) have a similar impact on the reduction of LF prevalence compared with ≥5 years of MDA recommended for interruption of parasite transmission [32]. They suggest that effectively addressing the challenges of MDA implementation has the potential to cause an early interruption of parasite transmission, thereby reducing the years of MDA implementation. These findings highlight the importance of effective implementation of MDA in LF control.

4.2. Challenges of MDA Implementation

The implementation of MDA in LF control is associated with several challenges such as low compliance [35] and the difficulty attaining and maintaining of high treatment coverage [36, 37]. Widespread noncompliance may increase the number of individuals serving as reservoirs of infection in the population, thereby increasing the chance of LF transmission [16, 32]. Inadequate community understanding of and participation in LF MDA programme is, therefore, a major drawback to its effective implementation. Moreover, the difficulty in retaining community health volunteers, involved in training and drug distribution, on account of low financial incentives [38], inaccurate [39, 40], and late data reporting on LF treatment coverage [41] has also been documented. These challenges create the opportunity for LF parasites to remain in circulation in endemic areas, making interruption of their transmission difficult.

4.3. Implications for Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination

Mass drug administration (MDA) for LF control is aimed at reducing the density of parasites circulating in the blood of LF victims and the prevalence of infection in communities to levels where transmission is no longer sustainable by the mosquito vector [6]. In this regard, community participation in MDA programmes is highly recommended. The involvement of opinion, traditional, and religious leaders in MDA implementation campaigns will generate interest in and acceptance of the programme and, thus, enhance cooperation and programme participation.

Educating community members on the importance of the programme, the safety of the drug, and its side effects will allay their fears and should be an integral part of MDA programmes. Provision of incentives in the form of bed nets to community members [42] and adequate allowances to community health volunteers for training and drug distribution [43, 44] has the desired effects of increasing drug uptake and community participation. The use of convenient period for drug distribution may also increase drug uptake, as absence from home during drug distribution is an important reason for not taking the drugs [36]. These strategies are likely to increase compliance with MDA and MDA coverage to the required levels [32, 33] to interrupt parasite transmission and reduce microfilarial prevalence to levels that warrant LF elimination.

5. Conclusion

This study revealed high microfilaria (Mf) prevalence reductions for studies that implemented MDA for LF control for three years, comparable to those of studies that implemented MDA for five to 10 years. However, variable MDA coverage ranging from 19% to 100% was reported, highlighting the challenge of attaining and maintaining the high LF treatment coverage (≥80%) required to achieve interruption of parasite transmission. Mass drug administration (MDA) for LF control should aim at drawing attention to the importance of the programme and improving its understanding as well as community participation. This approach is fundamental to increasing compliance with MDA and MDA coverage, thereby interrupting parasite transmission.

Data Availability

No primary data were used to support this study. Information presented in this review is based on published papers which have been duly cited.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the Department of Animal Biology and Conservation Science (DABCS), University of Ghana (UG), and the UG Hospital to which they are affiliated. This review is not funded by any financially supporting body, but self-funded by the authors.

Supplementary Materials

Details of the review protocol (Text S1) is registered with the OSF Registries (Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YQSPT) and can be accessed (osf.io/ct6rb). The risk of bias assessment of the studies included in this review is reported in Supplemental Table S1. (Supplementary Materials)

References

Local Burden of Disease 2019 Neglected Tropical Diseases Collaborators, C. A. Schmidt, and K. T. Kwong, “The global distribution of lymphatic filariasis, 2000–18: a geospatial analysis,” Lancet Global Health, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. e1186–e1194, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. G. Addiss and M. A. Brady, “Morbidity management in the global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis: a review of the scientific literature,” Filaria Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 2–19, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
World Health Organization, “Lymphatic filariasis: managing morbidity and preventing disability: an aide-mémoire for national programme managers,” 2021, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/339931/9789240017061-eng.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
World Health Assembly, Elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis as a Public Health Problem, World Health Organization, (WHA50.29), Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.
K. M. Simpson, “Measuring culture change as an evaluation indicator: applying cultural consensus analysis to cultural models of lymphatic filariasis in Haiti,” Graduate Theses and Dissertations, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA, 2008, https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/500.
View at: Google Scholar
J. O. Gyapong, V. Kumaraswami, G. Biswas, and E. A. Ottesen, “Treatment strategies underpinning the global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis,” Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 179–200, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Lammie, T. Milner, and R. Houston, “Unfulfilled potential: using diethylcarbamazine-fortified salt to elimate lymphatic filariasis,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 85, no. 7, pp. 545–549, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
World Health Organization, Monitoring And Epidemiological Assessment Of Mass Drug Administration In The Global Programme To Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis: A Manual For National Elimination Programmes, World Health Organization (WHO/HTM/NTD/PCT/2011.4), Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and The PRISMA Group, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 6, no. 7, Article ID e1000097, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Technical Advisory Group on the Global Elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis, “Global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis: conclusions of the meeting of the technical advisory Group on the global elimination of lymphatic filariasis,” Weekly Epidemiological Record, vol. 83, pp. 341–347, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
World Health Organization, “Transmission assessment surveys in the global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis: WHO position statement,” Weekly Epidemiological Record= Relevé épidémiologique hebdomadaire, vol. 87, no. 48, pp. 478–482, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
I. F. Aboagye and Y. A. A. Addison, “Praziquantel efficacy, urinary and intestinal schistosomiasis reinfection – a systematic review,” Pathogens and Global Health, vol. 17, pp. 1–8, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Hoy, P. Brooks, A. Woolf et al., “Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 934–939, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. I. Coulibaly, T. B. Nutman, L. Soumaoro et al., “The impact of six annual rounds of mass drug administration on Wuchereria bancrofti infections in humans and in mosquitoes in Mali,” The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 356–360, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. P. Coutts, J. D. King, M. Pa’au et al., “Prevalence and risk factors associated with lymphatic filariasis in American Samoa after mass drug administration,” Tropical Medicine and Health, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 22–10, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. El-Setouhy, W. D. Shannon, K. M. Abd Elaziz et al., “The effect of compliance on the impact of mass drug administration for elimination of lymphatic filariasis in Egypt,” The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 1069–1073, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. B. Koroma, S. Sesay, M. Sonnie et al., “Impact of three rounds of mass drug administration on lymphatic filariasis in areas previously treated for onchocerciasis in Sierra Leone,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 7, no. 6, p. 2273, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. B. Koroma, S. Sesay, A. Conteh et al., “Progress on elimination of lymphatic filariasis in Sierra Leone,” Parasites & Vectors, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 334–410, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. O. Richards, A. Eigege, E. S. Miri et al., “Epidemiological and entomological evaluations after six years or more of mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis elimination in Nigeria,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 5, no. 10, p. 1346, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. M. Ramzy, M. El Setouhy, H. Helmy et al., “Effect of yearly mass drug administration with diethylcarbamazine and albendazole on bancroftian filariasis in Egypt: a comprehensive assessment,” The Lancet, vol. 367, no. 9515, pp. 992–999, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. S. Reddy and N. Venkateswaralu, “Mass administration of DEC-medicated salt for filariasis control in the endemic population of Karaikal, south India: implementation and impact assessment,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 85–90, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
P. E. Simonsen, E. M. Pedersen, R. T. Rwegoshora, M. N. Malecela, Y. A. Derua, and S. M. Magesa, “Lymphatic filariasis control in Tanzania: effect of repeated mass drug administration with ivermectin and albendazole on infection and transmission,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 4, no. 6, p. 696, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. E. Simonsen, S. M. Magesa, Y. A. Derua, R. T. Rwegoshora, M. N. Malecela, and E. M. Pedersen, “Monitoring lymphatic filariasis control in Tanzania: effect of repeated mass drug administration on circulating filarial antigen prevalence in young schoolchildren,” International Health, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 182–187, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. E. Simonsen, Y. A. Derua, W. N. Kisinza, S. M. Magesa, M. N. Malecela, and E. M. Pedersen, “Lymphatic filariasis control in Tanzania: effect of six rounds of mass drug administration with ivermectin and albendazole on infection and transmission,” BMC Infectious Diseases, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 335–416, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. E. Simonsen, Y. A. Derua, S. M. Magesa et al., “Lymphatic filariasis control in Tanga Region, Tanzania: status after eight rounds of mass drug administration,” Parasites & Vectors, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 507–519, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Supali, Y. Djuardi, A. Lomiga et al., “Comparison of the impact of annual and semiannual Mass Drug Administration on lymphatic filariasis prevalence in Flores Island, Indonesia,” The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 336–343, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. J. Weil, W. Kastens, M. Susapu et al., “The impact of repeated rounds of mass drug administration with diethylcarbamazine plus albendazole on bancroftian filariasis in Papua New Guinea,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 2, no. 12, p. 344, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
World Health Organization, Progress Report 2000-2009 and Strategic Plan 2010-2020 of the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis: halfway towards Eliminating Lymphatic Filariasis, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2010, https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/44473.
World Health Organization, Preparing And Implementing A National Plan To Eliminate Filariasis:(In Countries Where Onchocerciasis Is Not Co-Endemic), WHO/CDS/CPE/CEE/2000.15. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.
World Health Organization, Guidelines For Stopping Mass Drug Administration And Verifying Elimination Of Human Onchocerciasis: Criteria And Procedures, WHO/HTM/NTD/PCT/2016.1. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
M. J. Taylor, A. Hoerauf, and M. Bockarie, “Lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis,” The Lancet, vol. 376, no. 9747, pp. 1175–1185, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Boyd, K. Y. Won, S. K. McClintock et al., “A community-based study of factors associated with continuing transmission of lymphatic filariasis in Leogane, Haiti,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 640, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. A. Stolk, S. Swaminathan, G. J. V. Oortmarssen, P. Das, and J. Habbema, “Prospects for elimination of bancroftian filariasis by mass drug treatment in Pondicherry, India: a simulation study,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 188, no. 9, pp. 1371–1381, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Oqueka, T. Supali, and I. S. Ismid, “Impact of two rounds of mass drug administration using diethylcarbamazine combined with albendazole on the prevalence of Brugia timori and of intestinal helminths on Alor Island, Indonesia,” Filaria Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Esterre, C. Plichart, Y. Sechan, and N. L. Nguyen, “The impact of 34 years of massive DEC chemotherapy on Wuchereria bancrofti infection and transmission: the Maupiti cohort,” Tropical Medicine and International Health, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 190–195, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. J. Kisoka, P. E. Simonsen, M. N. Malecela, B. P. Tersbol, D. L. Mushi, and D. W. Meyrowitsch, “Factors influencing drug uptake during mass drug administration for control of lymphatic filariasis in rural and urban Tanzania,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 10, Article ID 109316, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Krentel, P. U. Fischer, and G. J. Weil, “A review of factors that influence individual compliance with mass drug administration for elimination of lymphatic filariasis,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 7, no. 11, p. 2447, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. C. Emukah, U. Enyinnaya, N. S. Olaniran et al., “Factors affecting the attrition of community-directed distributors of ivermectin, in an onchocerciasis-control programme in the Imo and Abia states of south–eastern Nigeria,” Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 45–51, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. K. de Souza, E. Yirenkyi, J. Otchere et al., “Assessing lymphatic filariasis data quality in endemic communities in Ghana, using the neglected tropical diseases data quality assessment tool for preventive chemotherapy,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 10, no. 3, Article ID 0004590, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Dembélé, S. Bamani, R. Dembélé et al., “Implementing preventive chemotherapy through an integrated national neglected tropical disease control program in Mali,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 1574, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Allen and M. Parker, “Will increased funding for neglected tropical diseases really make poverty history?” The Lancet, vol. 379, no. 9821, pp. 1097-1098, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Bhullar and J. Maikere, “Challenges in mass drug administration for treating lymphatic filariasis in Papua, Indonesia,” Parasites & Vectors, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 70–77, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. W. Njomo, M. Amuyunzu-Nyamongo, J. K. Magambo, P. K. Ngure, and S. M. Njenga, “Factors associated with the motivation of community drug distributors in the Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination Programme in Kenya,” Southern African Journal of Epidemiology and Infection, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 66–70, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. B. da-Costa Vroom, R. Aryeetey, R. Boateng et al., “Data reporting constraints for the lymphatic filariasis mass drug administration activities in two districts in Ghana: a qualitative study,” SAGE Open Medicine, vol. 3, Article ID 205031211559408, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Isaac Frimpong Aboagye and Yvonne Abena Afadua Addison. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1142

Downloads

573

Citations