Towards Understanding the Microepidemiology of Lymphatic Filariasis at the Community Level in Ghana

Studies on the distribution of lymphatic filariasis (LF) have mostly focused on reporting prevalence at the community level and distribution at the district levels. Understanding the distribution patterns at community levels may help in designing surveillance strategies. This study aimed to characterize the spatial distribution of LF infections in four hotspot communities in Ghana. The research, involving 252 participants, collected demographic data, mass drug administration (MDA) information, household GPS coordinates, and antigen detection test results. The LF prevalence varied significantly among the communities, with Asemda having the highest (33.33%) and Mempeasem having the lowest (4.44%). Females had lower odds of infection than males (OR = 2.67, p = 0.003 CI: 1.39-5.13). Spatial analysis using kernel density, Anselin Local Moran's, Getis-Ord Gi models, Ordinary Least Squares, and Geographic Weighted Regression revealed mixed patterns of spatial autocorrelation. This study identified LF hotspots, indicating clusters of high or low prevalence with some areas showing disparities between MDA coverage and LF positivity rates. Despite these hotspots, the overall distribution of LF appeared random, suggesting the importance of purposeful sampling in surveillance activities. These findings contribute valuable insights into the micro-epidemiology of LF, emphasizing the need for community-specific investigations to understand the factors influencing the effectiveness of MDA programs in controlling filarial infections. The study highlights the importance of refining surveillance strategies based on community-level distribution patterns.

Modelling the cost of engage & treat and test & treat strategies towards the elimination of lymphatic filariasis in Ghana

BACKGROUND

Despite several years of LF-MDA implementation, Ghana still has some districts with mf prevalence >1%, partly due to poor treatment coverage levels resulting from non-participation in MDA. To address the challenges, we implemented Engage & Treat (E&T) and Test & Treat (T&T) strategies for individuals who miss or refuse MDA respectively, in a hotspot district, enabling us to reach many of those who seldom, or never, take part in MDA. This financial cost study was undertaken to analyse data on the LF-MDA, E&T and T&T implementation in 2021 and the financial cost to inform the rollout of the E&T and T&T as mop-up strategies in future LF-MDAs.

METHODS

This costing study analysed cost data from the 2021 LF-MDA implementation activities carried out by the Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTD) programme of the Ghana Health Service and the SENTINEL study, carried out in Ahanta West district for the two interventions (i.e., E&T and T&T). The 2021 Ghana Population and Housing Census data was used to estimate the LF-MDA-eligible population. The financial cost per person treated was estimated and these costs were applied to the projected population to obtain the financial cost for subsequent years.

RESULTS

Implementing MDA mop-up strategies either through the E&T or T&T to improve coverage comes at an additional cost to the elimination goals. For example, in 2024 the projected cost per person treated by the routine LF-MDA is estimated at US$0.83. The cost using the integrated LF-MDA and the E&T, T&T led by the NTD programme or T&T integrated into the health system was estimated at US$1.62, US$2.88, and US$2.33, respectively, for the same year. Despite the increased cost, the proposed combined LF-MDA and mop-up strategies will have a higher estimated population treated for 2024 (i.e., 1,392,211) compared to the routine LF-MDA approach (i.e., 988,470) for the same year.

CONCLUSION

Combining LF-MDA with E&T/T&T mop-up strategies, despite their high costs, may provide NTD Programmes with the options of improving treatment coverage and reaching the LF elimination target sooner, given that the routine LF-MDA alone approach has been implemented for many years with some districts yet to reach the elimination targets.

Factors associated with never treatment and acceptability of mass drug administration for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis in Guyana, 2021

Guyana remains one of four countries in the Americas endemic for lymphatic filariasis (LF). Elimination of LF requires repeated annual mass drug administration (MDA) with sufficient levels of coverage for success. This study assesses the acceptability and never treatment of LF MDA using data from a routine assessment survey in 2021. A subset of individuals, over 20 years of age (n = 2498), were selected to receive an expanded questionnaire to examine factors associated with acceptability and never treatment. Assessed factors include respondent demographics, knowledge, risk perceptions of LF, and opinions on the MDA programme. The majority (73%) of those with scores above the acceptability threshold (score ≥22.5) reported participating in MDA two or more times. Factors strongly and positively associated with scoring above the acceptability threshold include beliefs in importance of participation in MDA for their community (aOR = 2.8, 95%CI (1.1-7.2)), perception of importance of LF treatment (6.9 (3.2-14.7)), receiving treatment in 2021 (2.9 (1.5-5.4)), and the number of self-reported times taking treatment for LF (2.2 (1.1-4.4)). Ten percent of respondents participated in the MDA for the first time in 2021, while 15% reported never treatment during any round of LF MDA. Three factors were statistically associated with participation in MDA across the two levels of the models (level 1: took LF treatment once versus never, and level 2: took LF treatment twice versus never) included: 1) scoring above the acceptability threshold (aOR = 6.2, 95%CI(3.8-10.0)), 2) self-reported importance of participation in MDA for their community (7.1 (2.9-17.8)), and 3) personal beliefs that they should take LF treatment even if they are not sick (2.6 (1.7-3.9)). As Guyana moves closer to LF elimination, these results provide further insight and understanding into programmatic results and could inform further action following MDA activities-particularly if an approach is needed to address never treatment during MDA.

A Comparative Study of Lymphatic Filariasis-Related Perceptions among Treated and Non-Treated Individuals in the Ahanta West Municipality of Ghana

Background: Ghana joined the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF), established in the year 2000, with the aim of eliminating the disease as a public health problem through annual mass treatment of entire endemic populations. Since 2001, the country has implemented mass drug administration (MDA) in endemic districts, with great reductions in the population at risk for infection. However, in many districts, the elimination programme is faced with the presence of hotspots, which may be due in part to individuals not taking part in MDA (either intentionally or unintentionally) who may serve as reservoirs to sustain transmission. This paper compares the LF-related perceptions among individuals who regularly take the MDA drugs and those who seldom or never take part in the MDA in the Ahanta West Municipality of Ghana to determine community acceptable ways to implement an intervention aimed to track, engage, and treat individuals who regularly miss MDA or to test individuals who intentionally refuse MDA and treat them if positive for LF. Methods: This was a mixed method study employing questionnaire surveys and focus group discussions (FDG) for data collection. Survey participants were randomly selected from the 2019 treatment register to stratify respondents into treated and non-treated groups. FGD participants were selected purposively such that there are at least two non-treated persons in each discussion session. Results: Over 90% of the respondents were aware of the disease. Poor hygiene/dirty environment was wrongly reported by most respondents (76.8%) as the causes. MDA awareness was very high among both treated (96.9%) and non-treated (98.6%) groups. A low sense of vulnerability to LF infection was evident by a reduction in the number of people presenting clinical manifestations of the disease in communities. Slightly more, 65 (29.0%) of the non-treated group compared to the 42 (19.4%) treated group reported ever experiencing adverse effects of the MDA drugs. Barriers to MDA uptake reported in both groups were poor planning and implementation of the MDA, lack of commitments on the part of drug distributors, and adverse drug reactions. About 51% of the non-treated group reported never taking the drugs even once in the last five years, while 61% among the treated group took the MDA drug consistently in the past five years. Respondents in both groups believed that, when engaged properly, most non-treated persons will accept to take the drug but insisted community drug distributors (CDDs) must be trained to effectively engage people and have time for those they will be engaging in dialogue. The chiefs emerged as the most influential people who can influence people to take MDA drugs. Conclusions: The reduction in risk perception among respondents, adverse reactions and the timing of MDA activities may be influencing MDA non-participation in the study area; however, respondents think that non-treated individuals will accept the interventions when engaged properly by the CDDs. This has been corrected and it now read “Respondents in both groups believed that, when community drug distributors (CDDs) are trained on how to engage the non-treated persons in effective dialogue, most of them will accept to take the drugs”.