Geographically Targeted Interventions versus Mass Drug Administration to Control Taenia solium Cysticercosis, Peru
Seth E. O’Neal
, Ian W. Pray, Percy Vilchez, Ricardo Gamboa, Claudio Muro, Luz Maria Moyano, Viterbo Ayvar, Cesar M. Gavidia, Robert H. Gilman, Armando E. Gonzalez, Hector H. Garcia, and for the Cysticercosis Working Group in Peru
Author affiliations: Oregon Health & Science University–Portland State University School of Public Health, Portland, Oregon, USA (S.E. O’Neal, I.W. Pray); Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru (S.E. O’Neal, P. Vilchez, R. Gamboa, C. Muro, L.M. Moyano, H.H. Garcia); Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima (V. Ayvar, C.M. Gavidia, A.E. Gonzalez); Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. (R.H. Gilman)
Figure 4. Cumulative Taenia solium seroincidence among pigs by study approach over time, Peru. A) Ring screening; B) ring treatment; C) mass treatment. In ring screening, human participants living near pigs with cysticercosis were screened for taeniasis using stool coproantigen; identified cases were treated with niclosamide. In ring treatment, human participants living near pigs with cysticercosis received presumptive treatment with niclosamide. In mass treatment, human participants received treatment with niclosamide every 6 months regardless of location. Diamonds indicate point estimates; vertical bars indicate 95% CIs.
Page created: June 28, 2021
Page updated: August 17, 2021
Page reviewed: August 17, 2021
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.