| Literature DB >> 28579708 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impact assessment of community-based ivermectin treatment control of onchocerciasis is required to determine its effectiveness. This study was conducted to evaluate geographic coverage and demographic ivermectin treatment compliance.Entities:
Keywords: Ivermectin; Microfilaria; Onchocerciasis; Onchodermatitis; Treatment Compliance; Visual Impairment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28579708 PMCID: PMC5440827 DOI: 10.4314/ejhs.v27i2.5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ethiop J Health Sci ISSN: 1029-1857
Figure 1Distribution of annual ivermectin (Mectizan®) treatment compliance. Participants who did not take ivermectin are the non-compliant (0) and those who took between 1–9 doses are the compliant.
Village treatment compliance, palpable nodule and skin microfilaria prevalence rates at post-decade intervention
| Study village | Sample | Dosage | Treatment compliance | Prevalence rates (%) | ||
| A. Sentinel | Population | Percentage | Nodule | Skin mf | ||
| Bomjock | 80 | 1 | 45 (56.3) | 7.0 | 5 (6.3) | 7 (8.75) |
| Gidan Tama | 61 | 10 | 57 (93.4) | 78.7 | 9 (14.8) | 0 |
| Ungwar Shaho | 65 | 8 | 57 (87.7) | 40.3 | 6 (9.4) | 5 (7.8) |
| Kurmin Gwaza | 64 | 4 | 53 (82.8) | 22.7 | 4 (6.0) | 1 (1.49) |
| Gatan | 68 | 10 | 54 (79.4) | 18.5 | 1 (1.5) | 3 (4.54) |
| Sabon Gatan | 100 | 7 | 95 (95.0) | 38.5 | 3 (3.0) | 0 |
| Rami Kura | 42 | 2 | 12 (28.6) | 3.6 | 6 (14.3) | 1 (2.38) |
| Ungwar Maisaje | 57 | 10 | 48 (84.2) | 20.5 | 2 (3.5) | 0 |
| Ungwar Kongo | 33 | 9 | 23 (69.7) | 20.0 | 7 (21.2) | 0 |
| Ibika | 62 | 0 | 1 (1.6) | 0 | 3 (4.8) | 0 |
The sign δ represent sample sizes that took 1–9 Mectizan® treatment doses. The percentage values of total actual doses divided by total expected doses of the sample population (§).
These control villages were enlisted for mass drug administration but had no baseline data. Standard deviation from mean (Stdev).
Comparing baseline with post-decade treatment parasitological data
| Parameter | Baseline data | Post- | Significant | Remarks |
| Skin mf prevalence | 201 (37.9%) | 17 (4.6%) | p<0.05) | Reduced mf due to clearance. |
| Skin mf density | 17.7 | 1.7 | p<0.05 | Effect on female fecundity to |
| Highest skin mf | 145 | 18 | p<0.05 | Skin snip mf count |
| CMFL | 1.7 | 0.06 | p<0.05 | Geometric mean mf load |
| Palpable Nodule | 77 (14.5%) | 28 (6.4%) | p<0.05 | Probable remission of nodules |
CMFL= Community microfilaria load, mf= microfilaria
Comparing baseline with post-treatment clinical data
| Clinical signs and | Baseline data | Post-Treatment | Difference | Remarks |
| Dermal changes | 51 (9.6) | 15 (4.0) | Significant | Decrease in overall |
| Itching | 382 (72) | 55 (14.8) | Significant | Reduction in severity |
| Papular | 38 (7.2) | 2 (0.5) | Significant | Remission of |
| Chronic | 26 (4.9) | 2 (0.5) | Significant | Remission of chronic |
| Leopard Skin | 10 (1.9) | 14 (3.8) | Significant | Increase in leopard |
| Visual Impairment | 20 (3.8) | 30 (8.0) | Not | Increased poor |
| Blindness | 6 (1.1) | 7 (2.4) | Not | Halted the |
The probability values (p<0.05) show statistical significance by unequalled data t-test. Figures in parenthesis are percentages.