| Literature DB >> 25671125 |
Humphrey D Mazigo1, David W Dunne2, Safari M Kinung'hi3, Fred Nuwaha4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Animal studies have demonstrated that functional immune responses, as determined by the levels of CD4(+) cell counts and anti-schistosome antibodies responses, determine the efficacy of praziquantel. Based on this evidence, it has been hypothesised that the immunodeficiency effects of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 infection may affect the efficacy of praziquantel in co-infected human hosts. Thus, the present study assessed the efficacy of praziquantel by comparing parasitological cure rates and the reduction in infection intensity in HIV-1 seronegative individuals infected with S. mansoni and HIV-1 seropositive individuals co-infected with S. mansoni, following treatment with a single oral dose of praziquantel.Entities:
Keywords: Co-infection; Efficacy; HIV-1; Praziquantel; S. mansoni; Tanzania
Year: 2014 PMID: 25671125 PMCID: PMC4322465 DOI: 10.1186/2049-9957-3-47
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Poverty ISSN: 2049-9957 Impact factor: 4.520
Figure 1Study profile showing infection among HIV-1 seropositive and seronegative at baseline and at 12 weeks follow-up point.
Parasitological cure rate of praziquantel treatment in relation to demographic factors, HIV-1, CD4 count levels and infection intensities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 555 | 343 (61.80) | ||
|
| ||||
| Female | 241 | 148 (62.10) | 0.028 | 0.87 |
| Male | 314 | 195 (62.10) | ||
|
| ||||
| 21–30 | 241 | 149 (61.83) | 3.5550 | 0.31 |
| 31–40 | 177 | 103 (58.19) | ||
| 41–50 | 84 | 59 (70.24) | ||
| 51–60 | 53 | 32 (60.38) | ||
|
| ||||
| Small-scale business | 66 | 38 (57.58) | 0.5780 | 0.75 |
| Farming | 376 | 235 (62.50) | ||
| Fishing | 113 | 70 (61.95) | ||
|
| ||||
| Igombe | 112 | 67 (59.82) | 3.0418 | 0.39 |
| Igalagala | 98 | 54 (55.10) | ||
| Kayenze | 219 | 140 (63.93) | ||
| Sangabuye | 126 | 82 (65.08) | ||
|
| ||||
| 3–5 | 97 | 65 (67.01) | 1.8745 | 0.59 |
| 6–10 | 83 | 53 (63.86) | ||
| 11–20 | 136 | 83 (61.03) | ||
| ≥21 | 239 | 142 (59.41) | ||
|
| ||||
| Negative | 526 | 329 (62.55) | 2.3714 | 0.12 |
| Positive | 29 | 14 (48.28) | ||
|
| ||||
| <350 | 17 | 7 (43.75) | 1.4479 | 0.23 |
| >350 | 12 | 8 (66.67) | ||
|
| ||||
| Light (1–100 epg) | 234 | 143 (61.11) | 0.9542 | 0.62 |
| Moderate (101–399 epg) | 162 | 105 (64.81) | ||
| Heavy (≥400 epg) | 159 | 95 (59.75) | ||
*P-value by chi-square (χ2).
geometrical mean egg per gram of faeces (GM-epg) after praziquantel treatment in relation to demographic factors and infection intensities
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | GM-epg | 95% CI |
| N | GM-epg | 95% CI |
| |
|
| 555 | 174.21 | 154.14–196.87 | 212 | 39.88 | 36.77–43.25 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Female | 241 | 130.36 | 110.60–153.66 | 0.0001* | 119 | 128.19 | 99.33–165.43 | 0.01 |
| Male | 314 | 217.41 | 183.01–258.29 | 93 | 222.37 | 168.53–293.41 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| 21–30 | 241 | 198.67 | 163.49–241.42 | 0.25** | 92 | 37.53 | 33.07–42.58 | 0.36** |
| 31–40 | 177 | 156.18 | 126.12–193.41 | 74 | 43.95 | 38.14–50.66 | ||
| 41–50 | 84 | 164.09 | 125.66–214.26 | 25 | 33.63 | 28.48–39.71 | ||
| 51–60 | 53 | 152.13 | 98.56–234.79 | 21 | 45.30 | 33.83–60.66 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Small-scale business | 66 | 136.05 | 99.65–185.74 | 0.08** | 27 | 35.81 | 28.97–44.26 | 0.89** |
| Farming | 376 | 157.92 | 135.73–183.74 | 141 | 39.58 | 35.71–43.88 | ||
| Fishing | 113 | 278.74 | 214.63–362.00 | 44 | 43.65 | 36.72-51.88 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Igombe | 112 | 139.77 | 109.22–178.86 | 0.09** | 45 | 36.28 | 31.16–42.24 | 0.38** |
| Igalagala | 98 | 215.61 | 158.21–293.83 | 45 | 42.51 | 35.35–51.12 | ||
| Kayenze | 219 | 197.91 | 162.96–240.35 | 78 | 41.12 | 35.58–47.52 | ||
| Sangabuye | 126 | 144.04 | 110.22–188.24 | 44 | 38.99 | 32.51–46.76 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| 3–5 | 97 | 188.36 | 142.36–249.22 | 0.43** | 33 | 43.18 | 34.74–53.67 | 0.66** |
| 6–10 | 83 | 156.69 | 113.85–215.65 | 30 | 35.88 | 29.56–43.54 | ||
| 11–20 | 136 | 204.77 | 159.53–262.83 | 52 | 41.16 | 35.20–48.14 | ||
| ≥21 | 239 | 159.82 | 132.07–193.39 | 97 | 39.44 | 34.68–44.84 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Negative | 526 | 175.06 | 154.48–198.39 | 0.56* | 197 | 39.88 | 36.69–43.35 | 0.22* |
| Positive | 29 | 159.39 | 86.09–295.14 | 15 | 39.85 | 27.20–58.41 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| <350 | 17 | 134.59 | 52.19–347.07 | 0.75* | 11 | 49.66 | 27.16–90.79 | 0.16* |
| >350 | 12 | 215.78 | 80.79–576.36 | 4 | 31.59 | 13.18–75.69 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Light (1–100 epg) | 234 | 44.43 | 41.36–47.72 | 0.0001** | 92 | 30.89 | 28.49–33.49 | 0.0001** |
| Moderate (101–399 epg | 162 | 199.39 | 188.32–211.12 | 56 | 42.85 | 37.47–49.01 | ||
| Heavy (≥400 epg) | 159 | 1124.33 | 987.62–1277.36 | 64 | 54.07 | 44.81–65.25 | ||
P-values= t-test* and ANOVA**.
Factors associated with praziquantel cure failure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Female | 1 | 0.87 | 1 | |||
| Male | 0.97 | 0.69–1.37 | 0.98 | 0.68–1.39 | 0.89 | |
|
| ||||||
| 21–30 | 0.94 | 0.51–1.73 | 0.84 | 0.93 | 0.50–1.71 | 0.81 |
| 31–40 | 1.09 | 0.59–2.05 | 0.78 | 1.08 | 0.58–2.02 | 0.82 |
| 41–50 | 0.65 | 0.31–1.33 | 0.24 | 0.65 | 0.31–1.34 | 0.24 |
| 51–60 | 1 | 1 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| SME* | 1 | ---- | ---- | ----- | ||
| Peasants | 0.81 | 0.48–1.38 | 0.45 | ---- | ---- | ----- |
| Fishing | 0.83 | 0.45–1.55 | 0.56 | ---- | ---- | ----- |
|
| ||||||
| Igombe | 1 | ---- | ---- | ----- | ||
| Igalagala | 1.21 | 0.70–2.10 | 0.49 | ---- | ---- | ----- |
| Kayenze | 0.84 | 0.53–1.34 | 0.47 | ---- | ---- | ----- |
| Sangabuye | 0.79 | 0.47–1.35 | 0.40 | ---- | ---- | ----- |
|
| ||||||
| Negative | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Positive | 1.79 | 0.85–3.78 | 0.13 | 1.72 | 0.69–1.39 | 0.89 |
|
| ||||||
| <350 | 1 | ---- | ---- | ----- | ||
| ≥350 | 0.38 | 0.08–1.84 | 0.23 | ---- | ---- | ----- |
|
| ||||||
| Light | 1 | ---- | ---- | ----- | ||
| Moderate | 0.85 | 0.56–1.29 | 0.45 | ---- | ---- | ----- |
| Heavy | 1.06 | 0.70–1.59 | 0.79 | ---- | ---- | ----- |
*SME-Small business scale, OR = Odd Ratio aOR = Adjusted Odd Ratio.