Advertisement

Transmission Dynamics of Diurnally Subperiodic Lymphatic Filariasis in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands

  • A. N. ShriramEmail author
  • K. Krishnamoorthy
  • P. Vijayachari
Chapter

Abstract

Diurnally subperiodic filariasis (DspWb) is confined to the Nicobar district of Andaman and Nicobar archipelago, India. Point studies have suggested that this type of lymphatic filariasis (LF) is prevalent in the Nancowry group of an archipelago with Downsiomyia nivea as the vector. In-depth studies were undertaken to quantify the transmission dynamics of LF in Nicobar district keeping in perspective its control and assessment of interventions, hitherto not known. Parameters that reflect the dynamics and intensity of transmission, i.e., the annual biting rate (ABR), annual infective biting rate (AIBR), annual transmission index (ATI), risk of infection index (RII), and annual transmission potential (ATP), were estimated. These estimates indicated that a person received 21,851 bites (ABR) of which 107 had harbored infective stage (L3) larvae (AIBR). Each person stood at threat of getting a probable number of 22 L3 larvae per year. Host efficiency index of Do. nivea showed that >40% of the microfilariae ingested developed into L3 stages. ATP indicated perennial transmission. The sequential monthly transmission potential indicated that the force of transmission was high during summer. Persistent transmission of DspWb in the characteristic sylvatic ecology was noticeable with a high risk for transmission during summer. Although personal protection measures are the method of choice for risk reduction, in view of the adult behavior of the vector mosquito and larval ecology, conventional larvicidal measures are not applicable. Alternate methods of reducing the parasite load in the community are discussed in this chapter.

References

  1. Basu PC (1958) A note on malaria and filariasis in Andaman and Nicobar. Bull Nat Soc India for Mal and other Mosq Borne Dis 6:193–206Google Scholar
  2. Bilham R, Engdahl ER, Feldl N, Satyabala SP (2005) Partial and complete rupture of the Indo-Andaman plate boundary 1847-2004. Seism Res Lett 76:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brengues J, Bain O (1972) Passages de microfilaires vers l’hémocèle du vecteur, dans les couples Wuchereria bancroftiAnopheles gambiae, W. bancroftiAedes aegypti et Setaria labiatopapillosa – A. aegypti. Cahiers ORSTOM, Série d’Entomolgie Mèdicale et Parasitologie 10, 235–249Google Scholar
  4. Buck A (1991) Filariasis. In: Strickland TG (ed) Hunter’s tropical medicine, vol 1, 7th edn. W.B. Saunders Company, Baltimore, 153 pGoogle Scholar
  5. De Meillon B, Hayashi S, Sebastian A (1967) Infection and reinfection of Culex pipiens fatigans with Wuchereria bancrofti and the loss of mature larvae in blood feeding. Bull World Health Organ 36:91–100PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietz K (1982) The population dynamics of onchocerciasis. In: Anderson RM (ed) The population dynamics of infectious diseases: theory and applications. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 209–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duerr HP, Dietz K, Eichner M (2005) Determinants of the eradicability of filarial infections: a conceptual approach. Trends Parasitol 21:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ewert A, Ho BC (1967) The fate of Brugia pahangi larvae immediately after feeding by infective vector mosquitoes. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 61:659–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gould D, Bailey CL, Vongpradist S (1982) Implication of forest mosquitoes in the transmission of W. bancrofti in Thailand. Mosq News 42:560–564Google Scholar
  10. Gyapong JO, Kumaraswami V, Biswas G, Ottesen EA (2005) Treatment strategies underpinning the global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis. Expert Opin Pharmacother 6:179–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harinasuta C, Sucharit S, Deesin T, Surathin K, Vutikes S (1970) Bancroftian filariasis in Thailand, a new endemic area. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Health 1:233–245Google Scholar
  12. Joseph H, Moloney J, Maiava F, McClintock S, Lammie P, Melrose W (2011) First evidence of spatial clustering of lymphatic filariasis in an Aedes polynesiensis endemic area. Acta Trop 120S:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lindsay SW, Denham DA, Mc Greevy PB (1984) The effect of humidity on the transmission of Brugia pahangi infective larvae to mammalian hosts by Aedes aegypti. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 78:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mak JW (1981) Filariasis in Southeast Asia. Ann Acad Med 10:112–119Google Scholar
  15. Manguin S, Bangs MJ, Pothikasikorn J, Chareonviriyaphap T (2010) Review on global co-transmission of human Plasmodium species and Wuchereria bancrofti by Anopheles mosquitoes. Infect Genet Evol 10(2):159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meyrowitsch DW, Nguyen DT, Hoang TH, Nguyen TD, Michael E (1998) A review of the present status of lymphatic filariasis in Vietnam. Acta Trop 70:335–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pichon G (2002) Limitation and facilitation in the vectors and other aspects of the dynamics of filarial transmission: the need for vector control against Anopheles transmitted filariasis. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 96(Suppl 2):S143–S152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pichon G, Perault G, Laigret J (1974) Rendement parasitaire chez les vecteurs de filarioses. Bull World Health Organ 51:517–524PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Pothikasikorn J, Bangs MJ, Boonplueang R, Chareonviriyaphap T (2008) Susceptibility of various mosquitoes in Thailand to nocturnal subperiodic Wuchereria bancrofti. J Vector Ecol 33:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ramaiah KD, Das PK, Arunachalam N, Rajavel AR, Paily KP (1992) Observations on population density of Culex quinquefasciatus and transmission indices of bancroftian filariasis during and after integrated vector management strategy. J Commun Dis 24:173–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramanamurthy MV, Sundaramoorthy S, Pari Y, Ranga Rao V, Mishra P, Bhat M, Usha T, Venkatesan R, Subramanian BR (2005) Inundation of sea water in Andaman and Nicobar Islands and part of Tamil Nadu coast during 2004 Sumatra tsunami. Curr Sci 88:1736–1740Google Scholar
  22. Reinert JF, Harbach RE, Kitching IJ (2004) Phylogeny and classification of Aedini (Diptera: Culicidae) based on morphological characters of all life stages. Zool J Linn Soc 142:289–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Samarawickrema WA, Kimura E, Spears GFS, Penaia L, Sone F, Paulson GS et al (1987) Distribution of vectors, transmission indices and microfilaria rates of sub-periodic Wuchereria bancrofti in relation to village ecotypes in Samoa. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 81:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shriram AN, Murhekar MV, Ramaiah KD, Sehgal SC (2002) Prevalence of diurnally subperiodic bancroftian filariasis among the Nicobarese in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India: effect of age and gender. Tropical Med Int Health 7:949–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shriram AN, Krishnamoorthy K, Sehgal SC (2008) Transmission dynamics of diurnally subperiodic lymphatic filariasis transmitted by Ochlerotatus (Finlaya) niveus in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Indian J Med Res 127:37–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Shriram AN, Krishnamoorthy K, Saha BP, Roy A, Kumaraswami V, Shah WA, Jambulingam P, Vijayachari P (2011) Diurnally sub periodic filariasis in India-prospects of elimination: precept to action? Parasitol Res 109(5):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shriram AN, Krishnamoorthy K, Vanamail P (2014a) Survival of diurnally sub periodic Wuchereria bancrofti in Downsiomyia nivea (Diptera: Culicidae): a density dependent factor from Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Indian J Med Res 139:167–173PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Shriram AN, Krishnamoorthy K, Sivan A, Saha BP, Kumaraswami V, Vijayachari P (2014b) Impact of MDA and the prospects of elimination of the lone focus of diurnally sub periodic lymphatic filariasis in Nicobar Islands, India. Acta Trop 133:93–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2014.02.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Snow LC, Bockarie MJ, Michael E (2006) Transmission dynamics of lymphatic filariasis: vector-specific density dependence in the development of Wuchereria bancrofti infective larvae in mosquitoes. Med Vet Entomol 20:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Southgate BA, Bryan JH (1992) Factors affecting transmission of Wuchereria bancrofti by Anopheline mosquitoes. 4. Facilitation, limitation, proportionality and their epidemiological significance. Trans Roy Soc Trop Med Hyg 86:523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Subramanian S, Krishnamoorthy K, Ramaiah KD, Habbema JDF, Das PK, Plaisier AP (1998) The relationship between microfilarial load in the human host and uptake and development of Wuchereria bancrofti microfilariae by Culex quinquefasciatus: a study under natural conditions. Parasitology 116:243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tewari SC, Hiriyan JH, Reuben R (1995) Epidemiology of sub periodic W. bancrofti infection in the Nicobar Islands, India. Trans Roy Soc Trop Med Hyg 89:163–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Webber RH (1991) Can Anopheline-transmitted filariasis be eradicated? J Trop Med Hyg 94:241–244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilcock C (1942) Medical organization and diseases of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Abst Trop Dis Bull 41:703–708Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. N. Shriram
    • 1
    Email author
  • K. Krishnamoorthy
    • 2
  • P. Vijayachari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of IndiaICMR-Regional Medical Research CentrePort BlairIndia
  2. 2.Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of IndiaICMR-Vector Control Research CentrePuducherryIndia

Personalised recommendations