BACKGROUND: Lymphatic filariasis (LF) has been targeted for global elimination as a public health problem since 1997. The primary strategy to interrupt transmission is annual mass drug administration (MDA) for ≥5 years. The transmission assessment survey (TAS) was developed as a decision-making tool to measure LF antigenemia in children to determine when MDA in a region can be stopped. The objective of this study was to investigate potential sampling strategies for follow-up of LF-positive children identified in TAS to detect evidence of ongoing transmission. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: Nippes Department in Haiti passed TAS 1 with 2 positive cases and stopped MDA in 2015; however, 8 positive children were found during TAS 2 in 2017, which prompted a more thorough assessment of ongoing transmission. Purposive sampling was used to select the closest 50 households to each index case household, and systematic random sampling was used to select 20 households from each index case census enumeration area. All consenting household members aged ≥2 years were surveyed and tested for circulating filarial antigen (CFA) using the rapid filarial test strip and for Wb123-specific antibodies using the Filaria Detect IgG4 ELISA. Among 1,927 participants, 1.5% were CFA-positive and 4.5% were seropositive. CFA-positive individuals were identified for 6 of 8 index cases. Positivity ranged from 0.4-2.4%, with highest positivity in the urban commune Miragoane. Purposive sampling found the highest number of CFA-positives (17 vs. 9), and random sampling found a higher percent positive (2.4% vs. 1.4%). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, both purposive and random sampling methods were reasonable and achievable methods of TAS follow-up in resource-limited settings. Both methods identified additional CFA-positives in close geographic proximity to LF-positive children found by TAS, and both identified strong signs of ongoing transmission in the large urban commune of Miragoane. These findings will help inform standardized guidelines for post-TAS surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to characterize the timing and trends of select mitigation policies, changes in community mobility, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemiology in Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective abstraction of publicly available mitigation policies obtained from media reports and government websites. METHODS: Data analyzed include seven kinds of mitigation policies (mass gathering restrictions, international travel restrictions, passenger screening, traveler isolation/quarantine, school closures, business closures, and domestic movement restrictions) implemented between January 1 and April 26, 2020, changes in selected measures of community mobility assessed by Google Community Mobility Reports data, and COVID-19 epidemiology in Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. RESULTS: During the study period, community mobility decreased in Australia, Japan, and Singapore; there was little change in Hong Kong. The largest declines in mobility were seen in places that enforced mitigation policies. Across settings, transit-associated mobility declined the most and workplace-associated mobility the least. Singapore experienced an increase in cases despite the presence of stay-at-home orders, as migrant workers living in dormitories faced challenges to safely quarantine. CONCLUSIONS: Public policies may have different impacts on mobility and transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus-2 transmission. When enacting mitigation policies, decision makers should consider the possible impact of enforcement measures, the influence on transmission of factors other than movement restrictions, and the differential impact of mitigation policies on subpopulations.

On June 1, 2020, with declines in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and hospitalizations in Rhode Island,* child care programs in the state reopened after a nearly 3-month closure implemented as part of mitigation efforts. To reopen safely, the Rhode Island Department of Human Services (RIDHS) required licensed center- and home-based child care programs to reduce enrollment, initially to a maximum of 12 persons, including staff members, in stable groups (i.e., staff members and students not switching between groups) in physically separated spaces, increasing to a maximum of 20 persons on June 29. Additional requirements included universal use of masks for adults, daily symptom screening of adults and children, and enhanced cleaning and disinfection according to CDC guidelines.(†) As of July 31, 666 of 891 (75%) programs were approved to reopen, with capacity for 18,945 children, representing 74% of the state's January 2020 child care program population (25,749 children).

Lymphatic filariasis is a debilitating and disfiguring mosquitoborne parasitic disease. As part of the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends at least five rounds of annual mass drug administration (MDA) in areas with endemic disease to reduce incidence and prevalence (1). Onward transmission is expected to end once community prevalence falls below 1% (1). | | American Samoa, located in the southern Pacific Ocean, is the only U.S. territory with evidence of ongoing lymphatic filariasis transmission. After 7 years of MDA (2000–2006), the prevalence of lymphatic filariasis antigenemia in American Samoa declined from 16.5% to 2.3%, and MDA was stopped (2,3). In 2016, a household survey among 2,507 participants revealed that the prevalence of antigenemia had rebounded to 6.2%, and transmission was ascertained to be widespread across the territory (4). MDA was resumed in 2018 using a novel three-drug regimen of ivermectin, diethylcarbamazine, and albendazole, which has been shown to more effectively clear filarial larvae from the blood than the standard two-drug treatment of albendazole with diethylcarbamazine or ivermectin alone (5,6). This WHO-recommended three-drug regimen is anticipated to accelerate progress toward global elimination goals in areas without other filarial infections that would contraindicate the use of diethylcarbamazine (onchocerciasis) or ivermectin (loiasis).