Table 1. Annual mf prevalence survey and MDA data for three LF endemic sites.
| Village | Kirare, Tanzania [45] | Alagramam, India [46] | Peneng, PNG [6] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Regimen (efficacya) |
IVM+ALB (99/9) |
DEC (90/3) |
DEC+IVM (99/9) |
||||||
| Mosquito Genus | Anophelesb | Culex | Anopheles | ||||||
| ABRc | 2090b | 20000 [47] | 8194 | ||||||
| Year (Survey/ MDA)d |
Mf Prev (No. sampled) |
Total Population MDA Cov.f | Yeard | Mf Prev (No. sampledg) |
Total Population MDA Cov. | Yeard | Mf Prev (No. sampled) |
Total Population MDA Cov. | |
| Pre-treatment | Sept 2004/ Oct 2004 | 26.1% (471) | 72% | Nov 1994 | 17.2% (230) | 48%h | 1994 | 66.7% (63) | 50% |
| Mid-treatment (Post-MDA 1–4) | Jan 2006/ Feb 2006 | 20.8% (461) | 70% | May 1995 | 18.5% (230) | 48%h | 1995 | 61.5% (65) | 78% |
| Jan 2007/ May 2007 | 15.8% (438) | 62% | Aug 1996 | 14.5% (230) | 48%h | 1996 | 20.5% (88) | 75% | |
| Oct 2008/ Feb 2009 | 12.9% (302) | 59% | Nov 1997 | 11.8% (230) | 48%h | 1997 | 13.5% (89) | 68% | |
| Oct 2009/ Nov 2009 | 5.0% (259) | 76% | Feb 1999 | 12.2% (230) | 48%h | 1998 | 5.4% (92) | 72% | |
| Late-treatment (Post-MDA 5+) | Nov 2010/ Dec 2010 | 4.4% (400)e | 60% | April 2000 | 4.9% (230) | 48%h | 1999 | 3.7% (109) | - |
| Nov 2011 | 2.7% (393)e | - | April 2001 | 4.2% (230) | - | - | - | - | |
aDrug efficacy assumptions are listed as instantaneous mf kill rate/duration of sterilization in months [1]
bTransmission in Kirare is by both Anopheles and Culex mosquitoes, but models based on the dominant species (Anopheles) were used in this study. The ABR represents the combined biting rate [45].
cIn the model simulations, the allowed ABR range was informed by the observed ABRs reported here.
dThe “Mf Prev” columns denote the prevalence for a given year which was surveyed right before the MDA given in that year at the coverage reported in the column “MDA Cov”. Some mid-treatment surveys in Kirare, Tanazania do not follow this pattern exactly, so for that site the time of the mf survey and the time of the treatment of that year are given explicitly. The survey and MDA times are reflected in the model simulations.
eThe number tested represented those tested for CFA. Only those positive for CFA were tested for mf. The expected number of mf positives in the total sample were calculated as [number positive for CFA]x[number positive for mf]/[number of CFA positives examined for mf] as given in [45].
fThe total coverage was calculated using annual population sizes and coverage of the eligible population (≥ 5 years old) given in [45] and the fraction of individuals ≥ 5 years old calculated from [48].
gThe number of individuals sampled is reported as a random 7% of households which we assume here to represent 7% of the total population.