An open label, randomized clinical trial to compare the tolerability and efficacy of ivermectin plus diethylcarbamazine and albendazole vs. diethylcarbamazine plus albendazole for treatment of brugian filariasis in Indonesia.

Improved treatments for lymphatic filariasis (LF) could accelerate the global elimination program for this disease. A triple drug combination of the anti-filarial drugs ivermectin, diethylcarbamazine (DEC) and albendazole (IDA) has been shown to be safe and effective for achieving sustained clearance of microfilariae (Mf) of the filarial parasite Wuchereria bancrofti from human blood. However, the triple drug combination has not been previously been evaluated for treatment of brugian filariasis, which accounts for about 10% of the global LF burden. This hospital-based clinical trial compared the safety and efficacy of IDA with that of the standard treatment (DEC plus albendazole, DA) in persons with Brugia timori infections on Sumba island, Indonesia. Fifty-five asymptomatic persons with B. timori Mf were treated with either a single oral dose of IDA (28 subjects) or with DEC plus albendazole (DA, 27 subjects). Participants were actively monitored for adverse events (AE) for two days after treatment by nurses and physicians who were masked regarding treatment assignments. Passive monitoring was performed by clinical teams that visited participant's home villages for an additional five days. Microfilaremia was assessed by membrane filtration of 1 ml night blood at baseline, at 24h and one year after treatment. IDA was more effective than DA for completely clearing Mf at 24 hours (25/28, 89% vs. 8/27, 30%, P < 0.001). By 12 months after treatment, only one of 27 IDA recipients had Mf in their blood (4%) vs. 10 of 25 (40%) in persons treated with DA (P = 0.002). Approximately 90% of participants had antibodies to recombinant filarial antigen BmR1 at baseline. Antibody prevalence decreased to approximately 30% in both treatment groups at 12 months. About 45% of persons in both treatment groups experienced AE such as fever, muscle aches, lower back, joint and abdominal pain. These were mostly mild and most common during the first two days after treatment. No participant experienced a severe or serious AE. This study showed that IDA was well-tolerated and significantly more effective for clearing B. timori Mf from the blood than DA. Larger studies should be performed to further assess the safety and efficacy of IDA as a mass drug administration regimen to eliminate brugian filariasis. Trial Registration: NCT02899936.

A multicenter, community-based, mixed methods assessment of the acceptability of a triple drug regimen for elimination of lymphatic filariasis.

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.

Safety and efficacy of co-administered diethylcarbamazine, albendazole and ivermectin during mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis in Haiti: Results from a two-armed, open-label, cluster-randomized, community study.

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 to the standard DA regimen in this study. Effective MDA coverage with IDA could accelerate the elimination of LF as a public health problem in the 22 communes that still require MDA in Haiti.

The safety of double- and triple-drug community mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis: A multicenter, open-label, cluster-randomized study.

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 severity did not differ significantly after IDA or DA treatment. Thus, results of this study suggest that IDA should be as safe as DA for use as a MDA regimen for LF elimination in areas that currently receive DA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT02899936.

Community Attitudes Toward Mass Drug Administration for Control and Elimination of Neglected Tropical Diseases After the 2014 Outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease in Lofa County, Liberia.

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.

Barriers to Accessing Emergency Medical Services in Accra, Ghana: Development of a Survey Instrument and Initial Application in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medical services (EMS) systems provide professional prehospital emergency medical care and transportation to help improve outcomes from emergency conditions. Ghana's national ambulance service has relatively low public utilization in comparison with the large burden of acute disease. METHODS: A survey instrument was developed using Pechansky and Thomas's model of access covering 5 dimensions of availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability, and acceptability. The instrument was used in a cross-sectional survey in 2013 in Accra, Ghana; eligible participants were those 18 years and older who spoke English, French, or Twi. Although the analysis was mainly descriptive, logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with reported intention to call for an ambulance in the case of a medical emergency. RESULTS: 468 participants completed surveys, with a response rate of 78.4%. Few (4.5%) respondents had ever used an ambulance in prior emergency situations. A substantial proportion (43.8%) knew about the public access medical emergency telephone number, but of those only 37.1% knew it was a toll-free call. Most (54.7%) respondents believed EMTs offered high-quality care, but 78.0% believed taxis were faster than ambulances and 69.2% thought the number of ambulances in Accra insufficient. Many (23.4%) thought using ambulances to transport corpses would be appropriate. In two hypothetical emergency scenarios, respondents most commonly reported taxis as the preferred transportation (63.6% if a family member were burned in a house fire, 64.7% if a pedestrian were struck by a vehicle). About 1 in 5 respondents said they would call an ambulance in either scenario (20.7% if a family member were burned in a house fire, 23.3% if a pedestrian were struck by a vehicle) while 15.5% and 10.2%, respectively, would use any available vehicle. Those aged 18-35 years were more likely than older respondents to prefer an ambulance (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; confidence interval [CI], 1.47 to 3.68), as were those with prior ambulance experience (OR, 1.75; CI, 0.98 to 3.09) (compared with those with no prior experience) and those who believed ambulances were safer than taxis (OR, 2.17; CI, 1.1 to 4.2) (compared with those who did not hold such beliefs). CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of public ambulance services in Accra, Ghana, are generally favorable, although use is low. Public health education to improve awareness of the toll-free medical emergency number and about appropriate use of ambulances while simultaneously improving the capacity of ambulance agencies to receive increased caseload could improve use of the EMS system.