Dosing pole recommendations for lymphatic filariasis elimination: A height-weight quantile regression modeling approach

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends height or age-based dosing as alternatives to weight-based dosing for mass drug administration lymphatic filariasis (LF) elimination programs. The goals of our study were to compare these alternative dosing strategies to weight-based dosing and to develop and evaluate new height-based dosing pole scenarios. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Age, height and weight data were collected from \u3e26,000 individuals in five countries during a cluster randomized LF clinical trial. Weight-based dosing for diethylcarbamazine (DEC; 6 mg/kg) and ivermectin (IVM; 200 ug/kg) with tablet numbers derived from a table of weight intervals was treated as the gold standard for this study. Following WHO recommended age-based dosing of DEC and height-based dosing of IVM would have resulted in 32% and 27% of individuals receiving treatment doses below those recommended by weight-based dosing for DEC and IVM, respectively. Underdosing would have been especially common in adult males, who tend to have the highest LF prevalence in many endemic areas. We used a 3-step modeling approach to develop and evaluate new dosing pole cutoffs. First, we analyzed the clinical trial data using quantile regression to predict weight from height. We then used weight predictions to develop new dosing pole cutoff values. Finally, we compared different dosing pole cutoffs and age and height-based WHO dosing recommendations to weight-based dosing. We considered hundreds of scenarios including country- and sex-specific dosing poles. A simple dosing pole with a 6-tablet maximum for both DEC and IVM reduced the underdosing rate by 30% and 21%, respectively, and was nearly as effective as more complex pole combinations for reducing underdosing. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Using a novel modeling approach, we developed a simple dosing pole that would markedly reduce underdosing for DEC and IVM in MDA programs compared to current WHO recommended height or age-based dosing

A multi-center, open-labeled, cluster-randomized study of the safety of double and triple drug community mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis

BackgroundThe 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 findingsLarge 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 ConclusionsIn 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 registrationClinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT02899936

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

BackgroundMany 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 findingsTo 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) (PConclusions/significanceIDA 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

COVID-19 Case Investigations Among Federally Quarantined Evacuees From Wuhan, China, and Exposed Personnel at a US Military Base, United States, February 5-21, 2020

In February 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, 232 evacuees from Wuhan, China, were placed under federal 14-day quarantine upon arrival at a US military base in San Diego, California. We describe the monitoring of evacuees and responders for symptoms of COVID-19, case and contact investigations, infection control procedures, and lessons learned to inform future quarantine protocols for evacuated people from a hot spot resulting from a novel pathogen. Thirteen (5.6%) evacuees had COVID-19-compatible symptoms and 2 (0.9%) had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Two case investigations identified 43 contacts; 3 (7.0%) contacts had symptoms but tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Daily symptom and temperature screening of evacuees and enacted infection control procedures resulted in rapid case identification and isolation and no detected secondary transmission among evacuees or responders. Lessons learned highlight the challenges associated with public health response to a novel pathogen and the evolution of mitigation strategies as knowledge of the pathogen evolves