Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Review
  • Open Access

Increasing evidence of low lymphatic filariasis prevalence in high risk Loa loa areas in Central and West Africa: a literature review

  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Parasites & Vectors201811:349

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-2900-y

  • Received: 5 February 2018
  • Accepted: 14 May 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

In West and Central Africa, there is a need to establish the prevalence of Wuchereria bancrofti in areas that are co-endemic for Loa loa, in order to implement the appropriate strategies to scale-up interventions for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis (LF). Due to the risk of severe adverse events (SAEs) to ivermectin in individuals with high L. loa microfilaraemia, the current strategy recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) is twice yearly mass drug administration (MDA) with albendazole, supplemented by vector control targeting the Anopheles vectors. Defining W. bancrofti prevalence in areas co-endemic with L. loa is complicated by the cross-reactivity of rapid diagnostic immunochromatographic card tests (ICT), widely used for LF mapping, in individuals with high L. loa microfilaraemia. This has probably resulted in the overestimation of LF prevalence, triggering the implementation of MDA strategies, which may be unnecessary and wasteful of the limited resources for elimination programme implementation. Here we review the literature and present historical evidence, which uniformly highlight low or no prevalence of W. bancrofti infection and/or clinical LF cases across five Central African countries, in more than 30 different geographical areas covering 280 individual sites and > 22,000 individuals tested within high risk L. loa areas. This highlights the very limited information available on LF prevalence in L. loa areas, and potentially has major policy implications, which could shift the focus towards revised mapping criteria to verify low or no W. bancrofti prevalence in high risk L. loa areas. In this situation, revising the current WHO strategy from MDA, to focus more on ensuring high and effective vector control, through insecticide treated/long-lasting impregnated bednets (ITNs/LLINs), integration of point-of-care test-and-treat options into health systems, and consolidating closer links with the malaria control programme may be a more effective and appropriate use of the limited resources and drug donations available for LF elimination.

Keywords

  • Loa loa
  • Loiasis
  • Tropical eye worm
  • Chrysops
  • Vector control
  • Lymphatic filariasis
  • LF
  • Onchocerciasis
  • Neglected tropical diseases
  • NTDs
  • Africa
  • IVM
  • Integrated vector management

Background

Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is a disabling parasitic disease transmitted by mosquitoes [1]. It is targeted for elimination and is one of the five neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) that are primarily controlled by preventive chemotherapy. The Global Programme to Eliminate LF (GPELF) has worked towards elimination for nearly two decades; first by interrupting transmission with mass drug administration (MDA) using different regimen combinations of albendazole, ivermectin and diethylcarbamazine (DEC), and second by alleviating suffering through morbidity management and disability prevention (MMDP) [2, 3]. Overall significant progress has been made towards elimination, but greater efforts are required in many countries in the World Health Organisation (WHO) African Region, where many countries remain behind the elimination targets [4].

In 2016, the African region was estimated to have 371.2 million people requiring MDA across 32 endemic countries, with a reported coverage of 56.9% [3]. While this marks an increase in coverage from previous years, there are still 17 African countries yet to start or scale-up MDA to full nationwide geographical coverage. The reasons for limited coverage are complex [5] and related to several factors including - but not limited to - political will, conflict, financial commitment, technical support, difficult to access populations, stakeholder interest, poverty, poor infrastructure, limited human capacity, competing priority diseases, and co-endemicity with the filarial parasite Loa loa, which causes the disease known as Tropical eye worm or loiasis.

Loa loa occurs in 10 countries in Central and West Africa (Fig. 1a) [6] and poses two problems for LF elimination. First, the use of ivermectin presents a risk of severe adverse events (SAEs) to individuals with high L. loa parasitaemias, i.e. > 30,000 microfilariae (Mf) per millilitre blood, and can induce encephalopathy, coma and death [7, 8]; secondly by complicating the mapping of LF distribution as the standard rapid antigen diagnostic tests for LF [e.g. BinaxNOW Filariasis immunochromatographic test (ICT) and/or the new Alere Filariasis Test Strip (FTS Alere, Scarborough, ME, USA)] [9], cross-react with L. loa, resulting in false positives for Wuchereria bancrofti, with strong associations between ICT positivity and L. loa Mfs [1013], e.g. around 30% and 50% of ICTs reacting to L. loa when densities were > 15,00 Mf/ml and > 30,000 Mf/ml respectively [13].
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Maps of loiasis prevalence and study areas with low LF risk. a Loiasis prevalence. b Loiasis high risk and LF low risk

The WHO recommends an alternative strategy for LF elimination in L. loa co-endemic areas, including twice yearly MDA with albendazole supplemented with vector control, primarily insecticide-treated/long-lasting bednets (ITNs/LLINs), which control Anopheles mosquitoes that transmit both LF and malaria [14]. In addition, a basic five step model for national LF programmes to work at implementation unit level has been developed to supplement the WHO guidelines and help initiate treatment plans [15]; however, countries are still struggling to implement the strategy. This is complicated by the lack of clarity on the extent of LF prevalence and evidence that W. bancrofti transmission is absent or low in countries with high risk of L. loa, such as Cameroon and Gabon [3, 16, 17]. This raises questions on how to accurately map LF in high risk L. loa areas and whether LF MDA in these areas is warranted.

Here we review existing literature on W. bancrofti prevalence in high risk L. loa areas, to highlight the extent of W. bancrofti-L. loa co-endemicity. This may further help to refine the needs of national programmes, and current WHO strategies [14, 15].

Geographical area and search strategy

High risk L. loa areas were defined as those with > 40% loiasis prevalence determined by the Rapid Assessment Procedure for Loiasis (RAPLOA) [18, 19], which correlates to 20% Mf prevalence and high risk of SAEs (Fig. 1a). The geographical high risk L. loa areas and the risk of LF prevalence mapped within these parameters are highlighted in Fig. 1b.

A literature search and collation of data was conducted using PubMed, JSTOR, SCOPUS and Google online sources. Search terms, and combinations thereof, included Wuchereria bancrofti, lymphatic filariasis, elephantiasis, Loa loa, loiasis, and tropical eye worm. Further sources of information were found within reference section of documents. Due to the cross-reactively problem associated with antigen tests, studies only using these tests to determine LF endemicity were excluded.

Evidence from the existing literature

In total, 16 documents with information on LF prevalence in humans in high risk L. loa areas were found between 1928 to 2018. The documents ranged from historical review articles with anecdotal reports, conference abstracts to specific research articles. Most documents with specific data were from Cameroon, Gabon and DRC, and are summarised below and in Table 1.
Table 1

Summary of studies examining Wuchereria bancrofti human infection

Country

Study yeara

Province/District

Diagnostic

Number of sites

Number sampled

Reference

Angola

2015

Bengo Province

Clinical

29

2017

[20]

DRC

2013

Oriental Province

Mf

30

2724

[10]

1974a

Mayombe, Bas Congo Province

Mf

32

2476

[22]

Cameroon

2018

East, Central, South, Littoral

Clinical; Mf; Wb123; qPCR

29

4698 (24)c

[23]

2017b

South, Central, South-east, North West, Far North

Wb123; qPCR

50

5000

[16]

2016

East, Central, South, Littoral

Mf

31

14,577 (185)c

[17]

2016

Messok District, Haut-Nyong Department

qPCR

8

1085

[24]

2013

Lolodorf surrounds

Wb123; qPCR

26

1812

[13]

2013

East, North-west, South-west

Mf; Clinical

42

2190 (24)c

[11]

1990a

Goura, Badissa Nyamanga

Mf

3

1324

[25, 29]

1975

Department Mifi

Mf; Clinical

6

1004

[25, 28]

1957a

Yoko Region

Mf

1

50

[25, 27, 36]

Total

 

287

38,957 (22,399)d

 

aIndicates publication year, when study year is not stated

bThe exact numbers in the high risk Loa areas is unclear until publication i.e. the North, West, far West have minimal or no overlap with high risk areas, and therefore related numbers are likely not to count

cIndicates the number of individuals initially examined for clinical conditions or using ICT or FTS (with positive cases examined further using different diagnostic tests)

dIndicates total number of individuals examined (total number excluding ICT or FTS)

Angola

In 2014, a micro-mapping clinical survey was conducted in Bengo Province in the northern region of Angola including 2017 individuals from 29 communities. Clinical cases of LF were confirmed by medical officers. Eight individuals had limb lymphoedema (0.4%) and 20 men had hydrocoele (2.6%) [20]. While clinical cases do not necessarily represent recent transmission, nor define endemicity, the relatively low numbers are in line with historical surveys in the same region in the 1960s [21], and highlight the probable distribution of isolated foci of W. bancrofti in northern Angola, with endemic zones in Cabinda District and the northern region of Zaire District.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

In 2011–2013, a seroprevalence survey was conducted in 30 villages in the Oriental Province in eastern DRC including 2724 individuals (aged ≥ 14 years) from the Ituri region (Mambasa Territory) and Haute Uele region (Watsa Territory) [10]. The presence of W. bancrofti was assessed by examining night blood slides for Mf by microscopy and parasite DNA by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Only one individual was positive for W. bancrofti DNA.

In 1974, a study in 32 villages in the Mayumbe region on the western coast of DRC, close to the mouth of the Congo River, including 2476 adult individuals who had lived in that region for at least 5 years. Only one village was positive for W. bancrofti by night blood slide Mf microscopy [22].

Cameroon

In 2017, two studies from Cameroon highlighted the absence of W. bancrofti in L. loa endemic areas [16, 17]. Wanji et al. [16] reported a seroprevalence study of 5000 individuals from 50 villages across the South, Central, South-east, North-west, Far-north areas of the country, which detected no W. bancrofti positivity using two different antibody Wb123 tests, examining night blood slides for Mf and confirming selected samples with pPCR methods. Similarly, Biholong et al. [17] reported on a seroprevalence study conducted in 2010–2012 of 14,577 individuals (aged ≥ 9 years), across 31 health districts which detected no W. bancrofti Mf by night blood slide in 185 of the 235 individuals who were initially found to be antigen-positive using FTS.

In 2016, a study examining the geographical distribution of podoconiosis using parasitological, serological and clinical evidence to exclude the causes of lymphoedema, including LF was conducted across ten Regions of Cameroon. In the four high risk L. loa regions, i.e. the Central, East, Littoral and South Regions, a total of 4698 people from 29 communities were examined. In total 24 lymphoedema cases were found in these four Regions, and of these one was FTS-positive (Littoral Region) and none were positive by Mf, Wb123 and qPCR test [23].

Additional findings in 2013 and 2016 suggested no LF. These included a seroprevalence study in eight villages in Messok District [24], including 1085 individuals (the majority aged > 15 years) in 2016, and a seroprevalence study in 26 communities within 50 km of Lolodorf, southern Cameroon, including 1812 individuals (aged ≥ 5 years) in 2013 [13]. The absence of W. bancrofti was confirmed by qPCR and Wb123 assays in 52 individuals initially found to be antigen-positive using ICTs. All other ICTs were negative.

Another seroprevalence study in 42 communities in the East, North-west and South-west of the Cameroon rainforest belt, including 2190 individuals (aged > 10 years) in 2013, found no W. bancrofti Mf by night blood slide in 24 individuals that were antigen-positive using ICTs. Twenty cases of lymphoedema were found and none of them were ICT-positive. No cases of hydrocele were found.

A review by Boussinesq in 1999 [25], of historical studies published in French, highlighted that in 1928, Sharp [26] found very low W. bancrofti Mf prevalence 0.4–2.0% in Mamfe region; in 1957, Languillion [27] reported no W. bancrofti Mf in 50 individuals from Yoko region; in 1975, Brengues [28] reported no W. bancrofti filaria in six localities in the Department of Mifi including 1004 individuals, and 32 cases of elephantiasis among 2395 individuals clinically examined; in 1990, Lochouarn [29] found no W. bancrofti Mf in three villages, Goura (Department du Mbam et Kim), Badissa and Nyamanga (Mbam et Inoubou) including 1324 individuals (aged > 10 years).

Excerpts from historical and/or anecdotal reports

While rigorous data on LF distribution in L. loa areas is limited, there are many anecdotal and historical reports that W. bancrofti across Central Africa is low or absent. These are presented here as excerpts with the approximate decade and country of the review, study or publication to provide perspective on time frame and place.
  • “W. bancrofti is said not to be found from the Uele river in the Belgian Congo to the Coast or from the Ouham river to Gabon. Nor has it been found in Gabon, according to Galliard. At M’Bomou (a head tributary of the Ubangui river), W. bancrofti was not found in 400 night bloods, although elephantiasis occurs; this is said to be due to Onchocerca.” (~1910–1950s; Gabon) [3032]

  • “… elephantiasis, on the contrary, is rather rare and a very limited distribution” (~1910s; French Equatorial Africa) [32]

  • “In the Cameroons, we have never found the microfilariae in night surveys in five large villages in the rainforest, not during the day in many thousands of bloods films. Elephantiasis only occurs in the rainforest where infection with O. volvulus is found.” (1950s; Cameroon) [30]

  • “It has never been encountered in many thousands of similar blood films taken in the Cameroons.” (~1950s; Cameroon) [33]

  • “In most of Belgian Congo, however, filariasis seems to be rare and unimportant.” (~1950s; Belgian Congo) [30]

  • in 1924, an extensive investigation into the incidence of infection by L. loa and A. perstans, and found that the percentage of population infection with L. loa was 17, with A. perstans 77, and with F. bancrofti only 0.4.” (~1920s; Cameroon) [26, 30]

  • “In Ayos, W. bancrofti is never seen.” (~1930s; French Cameroons) [30]

  • “In the Bankim district, located in the Tikar plain, the 10 surveyed villages were all hyperendemic for loiasis. … The low prevalence of hydroceles suggests that lymphatic filariasis is not endemic in this study area.” (~2000s; Cameroon) [34]

  • “According to Languillon (1957) the microfilaria rate is 16% in the savanna region of the north (Diamare and Benoue), but falls to 0.8% in the forest zone of the south…” (1950s; Cameroon) [27, 35]

  • “Infection with W. bancrofti is considered to be slight but there is little evidence on the subject (Hamon et al. 1967). Brumpt et al. (1972) who examined 100 persons in two small villages in the north near the Chad frontier, detected one case of infection with this parasite.” (1960s; Central African Republic) [3537]

  • “ … In the western region of Nigeria, with special reference to the Ibadan area, W. bancrofti was very rare in this region. … On the other hand, Ibadan lies in the heart of the Loa belt of West Africa and its infection there is common.” (~1970s; Nigeria) [38]

  • “For the Gabonese population one can approximately say that 3 out of 5 adult patients have filariasis, two being D. perstans and one L. loa. Consequently, these affections represent a major public health problem. Finally, one must note that no cases of lymphatic filariasis has been identified.” (~ 1980s; Gabon) [39]

  • “Because only a few infections were identified across Gabon … undergoing remapping to determine whether MDA for LF is warranted,” (~2010s; Gabon) [3]

Conclusions

This review highlights the very limited information available on LF prevalence in L. loa areas. The data that are available are consistent with anecdotal historical reports indicating that LF is very low or absent in high risk L. loa areas. The distinct ecological niches of the filarial parasites and their various vectors may explain these differences, i.e. Anopheles species transmitting W. bancrofti may prefer savanna-like habitats more than the deep forested ecology, where the L. loa vector Chrysops species thrive, and there may be competitive exclusion, given the co-endemicity of five human filarial parasites in these countries [40]. Regardless, these findings have major implications for co-endemic countries, and GPELF, and may significantly reduce the need for MDA for millions of people across vast geographical areas of Central and West Africa as noted recently in Cameroon [16, 17], with consequent resource implications. It is important that further confirmatory mapping is conducted, with appropriate population-based sampling strategies, including individuals over five years of age. Sentinel site surveys are not sufficient as the geographical scale is not sufficiently refined to detect focal transmission hotspots in low endemic areas. Targeted micro-mapping may be more suitable [20, 41, 42], especially in areas that are ecologically diverse where the co-endemicity may vary and different diagnostic tools may be required. Better delineation of where the rapid antigen test for W. bancrofti can or should be used is important (e.g. in low risk L. loa areas) as they may help to identify regions that do not require MDA [13]. Equally, it will be important to identify areas where alternative W. bancrofti diagnostics may be more appropriate to use such as the antibody Wb123-based mono or biplex test, qPCR or microscopy (e.g. high risk L. loa areas). Further, it will also be important to distinguish between LF clinical manifestations and other diseases with similar clinical presentations, notably podoconiosis (or non-filarial lymphoedema), which appears to be endemic in some of these countries [23, 43]. Monitoring the impact of other interventions used in these areas will be critical. The widespread distribution of community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) for onchocerciasis control may have impacted W. bancrofti transmission as shown elsewhere [44, 45]. Similarly, the recent significant scale-up of vector control for malaria, primarily ITNs/LLINs, which has reduced malaria prevalence [46], may have reduced W. bancrofti prevalence, as also demonstrated elsewhere [47, 48]. Revising the current WHO strategy for L. loa areas from MDA, to focus more on ensuring effective vector control, through ITNs/LLINs, integrating point-of-care test-and-treat options into health systems and consolidating closer links with the malaria control programme, may be a better use of the limited resources available for LF elimination programmes.

Abbreviations

CDTI: 

Community-directed treatment with ivermectin

DEC: 

Diethylcarbamazine

DRC: 

Democratic Republic of the Congo

FTS: 

Filariasis test strip

GPELF: 

Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis

ICT: 

Immunochromatographic test

LF: 

Lymphatic filariasis

MDA: 

Mass drug administration

Mf: 

Microfilaria

NTDs: 

Neglected tropical diseases

qPCR: 

Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction

RAPLOA: 

Rapid Assessment Procedure for Loiasis

SAE: 

Severe adverse event

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Funding

LAKH acknowledges the support from the Department for International Development (DFID), and DHM support from Sightsavers, and the COUNTDOWN programme (grant ID is PO 6407) funded by UKAID part of the DFID, and GSK.

Authors’ contributions

LAKH and DHM conceived the idea for the review. LAKH complied and analysed the data and wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK

References

  1. World Health Organization. Programmes and projects: Lymphatic Filariasis. Geneva: WHO; 2017. Available from: http://www.who.int/lymphatic_filariasis/en/ Google Scholar
  2. Ichimori K, King JD, Engels D, Yajima A, Mikhailov A, Lammie P, et al. Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis: the processes underlying programme success. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8:e3328.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. WHO. Summary of global update on preventive chemotherapy implementation in 2016: crossing the billion. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2017;92:589–93.Google Scholar
  4. World Health Organization. Integrating neglected tropical diseases in global health and development: Fourth WHO report on neglected tropical diseases. Geneva: WHO; 2017. Available from: http://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/resources/9789241565448/en/.
  5. Molyneux DH, Hopkins A, Bradley MH, Kelly-Hope LA. Multidimensional complexities of filariasis control in an era of large-scale mass drug administration programmes: a can of worms. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:363.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Zouré HGM, Wanji S, Noma MM, Amazigo UV, Diggle PJ, Tekle AH, et al. The geographic distribution of Loa loa in Africa: results of large-scale implementation of the rapid assessment procedure for Loiasis (RAPLOA). PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5:e1210.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Chippaux JP, Boussinesq M, Gardon J, Gardon-Wendel N, Ernould JC. Severe adverse reaction risks during mass treatment with ivermectin in loiasis-endemic areas. Parasitol Today. 1996;12:448–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gardon J, Gardon-Wendel N, Demanga-Ngangue KJ, Chippaux JP, Boussinesq M. Serious reactions after mass treatment of onchocerciasis with ivermectin in an area endemic for Loa loa infection. Lancet. 1997;350:18–22.Google Scholar
  9. Weil GJ, Curtis KC, Fakoli L, Fischer K, Gankpala L, Lammie PJ, et al. Laboratory and field evaluation of a new rapid test for detecting Wuchereria bancrofti antigen in human blood. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;89:11–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Bakajika DK, Nigo MM, Lotsima JP, Masikini GA, Fischer K, Lloyd MM, et al. Filarial antigenemia and Loa loa night blood microfilaremia in an area without bancroftian filariasis in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91:1142–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Wanji S, Amvongo-Adjia N, Koudou B, Njouendou AJ, Chounna Ndongmo PW, Kengne-Ouafo JA, et al. Cross-reactivity of filariais ICT cards in areas of contrasting endemicity of Loa loa and Mansonella perstans in Cameroon: implications for shrinking of the lymphatic filariasis map in the Central African Region. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:e0004184.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Wanji S, Amvongo-Adjia N, Njouendou AJ, Kengne-Ouafo JA, Ndongmo WPC, Fombad FF, et al. Further evidence of the cross-reactivity of the Binax NOW® Filariasis ICT cards to non-Wuchereria bancrofti filariae: experimental studies with Loa loa and Onchocerca ochengi. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9:267.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Pion SD, Montavon C, Chesnais CB, Kamgno J, Wanji S, Klion AD, et al. Positivity of antigen tests used for diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis in individuals without Wuchereria bancrofti infection but with high Loa loa microfilaremia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;95:1417–23.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. World Health Organization. Provisional strategy for interrupting lymphatic filariasis transmission in loiasis endemic countries. Geneva: WHO; 2012.Google Scholar
  15. Kelly-Hope LA, Stanton MC, Zouré HGM, Kinvi BE, Mikhailov A, Tekle A, et al. A practical approach for scaling up the alternative strategy for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis in Loa loa endemic countries - developing an action plan. Glob Health Res Policy. 2017;2:12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Wanji S, Esum M, Jelil A, Mbeng A, Patrick C, Abong R, et al. Mapping of lymphatic filariasis in loiasis areas: a new strategy shows no evidence for Wuchereria bancrofti endemicity in Cameroon. 66th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Baltimore; 2017.Google Scholar
  17. Biholong B, Mbia P, Akame J, Moungui H, Ayissi G, Wanji S, et al. A significant step towards lymphatic filariasis elimination in Cameroon: the disease is not endemic in 31 health districts co-endemic with Loa loa and hypoendemic for onchocerciasis. 66th Annual Meeting of the American Society of TropicalMedicine and Hygiene. Baltimore; 2017.Google Scholar
  18. Wanji S, Akotshi DO, Mutro MN, Tepage F, Ukety TO, Diggle PJ, et al. Validation of the rapid assessment procedure for loiasis (RAPLOA) in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Parasit Vectors. 2012;5:25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Zouré HGM, Wanji S, Noma M, Amazigo UV, Diggle PJ, Tekle AH, et al. The geographic distribution of Loa loa in Africa: results of large-scale implementation of the Rapid Assessment Procedure for Loiasis (RAPLOA). PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5:e1210.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Brito M, Paulo R, Van-Dunem P, Martins A, Unnasch TR, Novak RJ, et al. Rapid integrated clinical survey to determine prevalence and co-distribution patterns of lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis in a Loa loa co-endemic area: the Angolan experience. Parasite Epidemiol Control. 2017;2:71–84.Google Scholar
  21. Casaca VM. Contribution to the study of bancrofti filariasis in Angola. 1. Possibilities of its existence and probable distribution. 2. Bibliographic review and personal observations. An Inst Med Trop (Lisb. Portugal). 1966;23:127–32. (In Portuguese)Google Scholar
  22. Fain A, Elsen P, Wery M, Maertens K. Les filarioses humaines au Mayumbe et dans les regions limitrophes (République du Zaire). Evaluation de la densite microfilarienne. Ann Soc Belg Med Trop. 1974;54:5–34.Google Scholar
  23. Deribe K, Beng AA, Cano J, Njouendo AJ, Fru-Cho J, Awah AR, et al. Mapping the geographical distribution of podoconiosis in Cameroon using parasitological, serological, and clinical evidence to exclude other causes of lymphedema. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12:e0006126.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Drame PM, Montavon C, Pion SD, Kubofcik J, Fay MP, Nutman TB. Molecular epidemiology of blood-borne human parasites in a Loa loa-, Mansonella perstans-, and Plasmodium falciparum-endemic region of Cameroon. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;94:1301–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Boussinesq M. La filariose lymphatique au Cameroun: état des connaissances. Le Bul. liaison documnetation l’OCEAC. 1999;34:7–12.Google Scholar
  26. Sharp NA. Filariasis in Cameroon, with special reference to skn infections by microfilariae. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1928;21:413–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Languillon J. Map of filaria of the Cameroons. Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 1957;50:417–27. (In French)Google Scholar
  28. Brengues J. La filariose de Bancroft en Afrique de l’Ouest Memoires. Paris: ORSTOM; 1975.Google Scholar
  29. Lochouarn L. Action des régulateurs de croissance a doses sublétales sur des vecteurs de filarioses en Afrique Centrale. Thèse de Doctorat (spécialité : entomologie mé- dicale), Université Paris VI, France; 1990.Google Scholar
  30. Hawking F. The distribution of Bancroftian Filariasis in Africa. Bull World Health Organ. 1957;16:581–92.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Galliard H. Recherches sur les filarioses au Gabon Occidental. Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 1932;25:167–74.Google Scholar
  32. Ouzilleau F. Human filariae in the region of M’Bomou (French Equatorial Africa). Pathology of elephantiasis in this region. The role of Filaria volvulus. Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 1913;6:80–8.Google Scholar
  33. Kershaw WE. Demonstrations Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine Department of Tropical Medicine (Laboratory meeting). Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1953;47:1–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Kamgno J, Boussinesq M. Hyperendemic loaiasis in the Tikar plain, shrub savanna region of Cameroon. Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 2001;94:342–6. (In French)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hawking F. The distribution of human filariasis throughout the World. Part III. Africa. WHO/FIL/74, vol. 124. Geneva: WHO; 1974. p. 1–38.Google Scholar
  36. Hamon J, Burnett GF, Adam JP, Rickenbach A, Grjebine A. Culex pipiens fatigans Wiedemann, Wuchereria bancrofti Cobbold and the economic development of tropical Africa. Bull World Health Organ. 1967;37:217–37. (In French)PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Brumpt LC, Sang HT, Jaeger G. Blood and intestinal parasitism in 2 central African villages. Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 1972;65:263–70. (In French)Google Scholar
  38. Sasa M. Human filariasis - a global survey of epidemiology and control. Baltimore: University Park Press; 1976.Google Scholar
  39. Richard-Lenoble D, Kombila M, Carme B, Gilles JC, Delattre PY. Prevalence of human filariasis with microfilaremia in Gabon. Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 1980;73:192–9. (In French)Google Scholar
  40. Molyneux DH, Mitre E, Bockarie MJ, Kelly-Hope LA. Filaria zoogeography in Africa: ecology, competitive exclusion, and public health relevance. Trends Parasitol. 2014;30:163–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Tekle AH, Zoure H, Wanji S, Leak S, Noma M, Remme JHF, et al. Integrated rapid mapping of onchocerciasis and loiasis in the Democratic Republic of Congo: impact on control strategies. Acta Trop. 2011;120(Suppl):S81–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Brant TA, Okorie PN, Ogunmola O, Ojeyode NB, Fatunade SB, Davies E, et al. Integrated risk mapping and landscape characterisation of lymphatic filariasis and loiasis in South West Nigeria. Parasite Epidemiol Control. 2018;3:21–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Deribe K, Cano J, Newport MJ, Pullan RL, Noor AM, Enquselassie F, et al. The global atlas of podoconiosis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5:e477–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Kyelem D, Sanou S, Boatin B, Medlock J, Coulibaly S, Molyneux DH. Impact of long-term ivermectin (Mectizan) on Wuchereria bancrofti and Mansonella perstans infections in Burkina Faso: strategic and policy implications. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2003;97:827–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Tekle AH, Zoure HGM, Noma M, Boussinesq M, Coffeng LE, Stolk WA, et al. Progress towards onchocerciasis elimination in the participating countries of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control: epidemiological evaluation results. Infect Dis Poverty. 2016;5:66.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Bhatt S, Weiss DJ, Cameron E, Bisanzio D, Mappin B, Dalrymple U, et al. The effect of malaria control on Plasmodium falciparum in Africa between 2000 and 2015. Nature. 2015;526:207–11.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. van den Berg H, Kelly-Hope LA, Lindsay SW. Malaria and lymphatic filariasis: the case for integrated vector management. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:89–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Nsakashalo-Senkwe M, Mwase E, Chizema-Kawesha E, Mukonka V, Songolo P, Masaninga F, et al. Significant decline in lymphatic filariasis associated with nationwide scale-up of insecticide-treated nets in Zambia. Parasite Epidemiol Control. 2017;2:7–14.Google Scholar

Copyright

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement