Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - An investigation of the disparity in estimates of microfilaraemia and antigenaemia in lymphatic filariasis surveys
AU - Cano, Jorge
AU - Moraga, Paula
AU - Nikolay, Birgit
AU - Rebollo, Maria P
AU - Okorie, Patricia N
AU - Davies, Emmanuel
AU - Njenga, Sammy M
AU - Bockarie, Moses J
AU - Brooker, Simon J
N1 - © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
PY - 2015/8
Y1 - 2015/8
N2 - BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis (LF) is based typically on either microfilaraemia as assessed by microscopy or filarial antigenaemia using an immuno-chromatographic test. While it is known that estimates of antigenaemia are generally higher than estimates of microfilaraemia, the extent of the difference is not known.METHODS: This paper presents the results of an extensive literature search for surveys that estimated both microfilaraemia and antigenaemia in order to better understand the disparity between the two measures.RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In some settings there was a very large disparity, up to 40-70%, between estimates of microfilaraemia and antigenaemia. Regression analysis was unable to identify any predictable relationship between the two measures. The implications of findings for risk mapping and surveillance of LF are discussed.
AB - BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis (LF) is based typically on either microfilaraemia as assessed by microscopy or filarial antigenaemia using an immuno-chromatographic test. While it is known that estimates of antigenaemia are generally higher than estimates of microfilaraemia, the extent of the difference is not known.METHODS: This paper presents the results of an extensive literature search for surveys that estimated both microfilaraemia and antigenaemia in order to better understand the disparity between the two measures.RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In some settings there was a very large disparity, up to 40-70%, between estimates of microfilaraemia and antigenaemia. Regression analysis was unable to identify any predictable relationship between the two measures. The implications of findings for risk mapping and surveillance of LF are discussed.
KW - Animals
KW - Antigens, Helminth
KW - Carrier State
KW - Elephantiasis, Filarial
KW - Humans
KW - Microfilariae
KW - Surveys and Questionnaires
KW - Wuchereria bancrofti
KW - Journal Article
KW - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
KW - Review
U2 - 10.1093/trstmh/trv048
DO - 10.1093/trstmh/trv048
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 26101292
VL - 109
SP - 529
EP - 531
JO - Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
JF - Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
SN - 0035-9203
IS - 8
ER -