Countries other than USA treat for bacterial and parasitic infections every 6 months?

1. Historical example: Korea’s twice-yearly school deworming was explicit and effective

Korea’s nationwide anti‑parasite campaign beginning in 1969 included screening of all schoolchildren and treatment of all egg‑positive cases twice a year, a policy credited with driving down hyperendemic parasite rates and forming a formal prevention law; that twice‑yearly student treatment program continued through the late 20th century and is documented in national reviews of Korea’s control success ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Mass drug administration (MDA) for neglected tropical diseases often uses periodic schedules, sometimes biannual

The WHO’s long‑standing guidance and technical work on intestinal parasites and control strategies describe community‑level preventive medicine and coordinated control measures that underpin programs where periodic MDA (mass drug administration) is used, and many NTD programs adopt scheduled dosing intervals based on parasite biology and epidemiology rather than individual clinical care (WHO technical series, context for MDA) ^[3].

3. Refugee and migration programs favor presumptive single‑dose or targeted follow‑up, not routine six‑monthly treatment

For U.S.‑bound refugees, CDC guidance documents describe overseas presumptive treatment schedules—typically single doses of albendazole or targeted praziquantel/ivermectin regimens depending on origin and contraindications—and advise follow‑up testing or treatment only if symptoms or persistent eosinophilia appear 3–6 months after arrival; these are population‑targeted one‑time or situational interventions rather than ongoing six‑monthly blanket courses ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Routine six‑monthly antibacterial courses are not standard public‑health practice because of resistance and clinical considerations

Global public‑health guidance warns that routine, repeated use of antimicrobials promotes antimicrobial resistance across bacteria and parasites; WHO surveillance and fact sheets underline that misuse or routine mass antibiotic administration without clear indication contributes to rising resistance, which is a major reason most countries avoid indiscriminate six‑month antibiotic cycles for bacterial infections ^[6].

5. In high‑income settings the approach tends to be targeted diagnosis and treatment, not periodic mass therapy

Developed countries and tertiary care systems emphasize diagnostic testing, targeted therapy for symptomatic or high‑risk patients (including immunocompromised hosts), and travel‑ or exposure‑based screening; parasites are treated with appropriate anti‑parasitics when diagnosed or indicated, but there is not a routine practice of treating entire populations every six months in most high‑income health systems ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

6. Program design depends on the parasite, prevalence and policy tradeoffs—no single global rule

Whether a country adopts biannual treatment depends on disease ecology, prior prevalence, program financing, and public‑health goals: where intestinal helminths were historically hyperendemic, school‑based twice‑yearly deworming has been used (Korea is a clear example), whereas other jurisdictions prefer single pre‑departure presumptive treatment for migrants, targeted case management, or episodic MDA campaigns tied to surveillance data ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

7. Caveats, evidence gaps and where to look next

The sources establish concrete examples (Korea’s twice‑yearly school program and WHO/NTD frameworks for periodic MDA) and contrast those with CDC refugee protocols and global resistance concerns, but they do not provide a comprehensive catalog of every country’s current dosing frequency for all parasites or bacterial syndromes—programs vary widely by pathogen, population and time, and further country‑level policy documents or WHO/NTD implementation reports are needed for a definitive, up‑to‑date inventory ^{[1] [3] [4] [6]}.