| Literature DB >> 29954461 |
Susana Vaz Nery1,2, Jessica Qi3, Stacey Llewellyn4, Naomi E Clarke5, Rebecca Traub6, Darren J Gray5, Andrew J Vallely7, Gail M Williams8, Ross M Andrews9, James S McCarthy4, Archie C A Clements5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Soil-transmitted helminths (STHs) including Ascaris lumbricoides, Necator americanus, Ancylostoma spp. and Trichuris trichiura are cause of significant global morbidity. To mitigate their disease burden, at-risk groups in endemic regions receive periodic mass drug administration using anthelmintics, most commonly albendazole and mebendazole. Assessing the efficacy of anthelmintic drugs is important for confirming that these regimens are working effectively and that drug resistance has not emerged. In this study we aimed to characterise the therapeutic efficacy of albendazole against Ascaris spp. and N. americanus in Timor-Leste, using a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) method for parasite detection and quantification.Entities:
Keywords: Albendazole; Anthelminthic drug efficacy; Ascaris lumbricoides; Efficacy; Hookworm; Necator americanus; Soil-transmitted helminths
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29954461 PMCID: PMC6025744 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2838-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Efficacy study diagram
Cure rates for N. americanus and Ascaris spp., overall and across sex and age groups
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Cure rate (%) (95% CI) |
|
| Cure rate (%) (95% CI) |
| |||
| Overall | 218 | 58.3 (51.4–64.9) | 162 | 91.4 (85.9–95.2) | ||||
| Sex | 1.77 | 0.184 | 2.19 | 0.139 | ||||
| Male | 104 | 54.8 (44.7–64.6) | 74 | 89.2 (79.8–95.2) | ||||
| Female | 114 | 61.4 (51.8–70.4) | 88 | 93.2 (85.7–97.5) | ||||
| Age group (years) | 1.88 | 0.758 | 5.71 | 0.222 | ||||
| 1–5 | 35 | 60 (42.1–76.1) | 40 | 92.5 (79.6–98.4) | ||||
| 6–11 | 64 | 62.5 (49.5–74.3) | 51 | 88.2 (76.1–95.6) | ||||
| 12–17 | 29 | 58.6 (38.9–76.5) | 22 | 95.5 (77.2–99.9) | ||||
| 18–64 | 75 | 52 (40.2–63.9) | 43 | 93.0 (80.9–98.5) | ||||
| 65+ | 15 | 66.7 (38.4–88.2) | 6 | 83.3 (35.9–99.6) | ||||
Abbreviations: n, number of individuals positive pre-treatment; CI, confidence interval
Results of multivariate logistic regression for infection cure
| Odds ratio | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Baseline prevalence in community (%) |
|
|
|
| Baseline infection intensity (Ct-value) | 1.04 | 0.94–1.14 | 0.474 |
| Age (years) | 0.99 | 0.98–1.01 | 0.463 |
| Female sex | 0.76 | 0.43–1.32 | 0.327 |
| Baseline prevalence in community (%) | 0.98 | 0.95–1.02 | 0.448 |
| Baseline infection intensity (Ct-value) | 1.02 | 0.94–1.12 | 0.596 |
| Age (years) | 1.00 | 0.97–1.03 | 0.975 |
| Female sex | 0.56 | 0.18–1.75 | 0.321 |
Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval
Bold indicates statistical significance
Infection intensity values before treatment, after treatment and reduction in infection intensity
| Pre-intervention mean infection intensity, RFU (95% CI) | Post-intervention mean infection intensity, RFU (95% CI) | Infection intensity reduction rate (%) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18,283 (13,251–23,316) | 2024 (505–3,543) | 88.9 (84.0–97.0) | |
| 1,517,583 (1,124,742–1,910,424) | 67,696 (0–200,926) | 95.5 (88.3–100.0) |
Abbreviations: n, number of individuals positive pre-treatment; RFU, relative fluorescent units
Distribution of individual infection intensity reduction rates
| Infection intensity reduction rate (%) | Number (%) of individuals | |
|---|---|---|
| 100 (cured) | 127 (58.3) | 148 (91.4) |
| 80–99.9 | 58 (26.6) | 10 (6.2) |
| 60–79.9 | 12 (5.5) | 1 (0.6) |
| 40–59.9 | 4 (1.8) | 0 |
| 20–39.9 | 2 (0.9) | 1 (0.6) |
| 0–19.9 | 1 (0.5) | 0 |
| Increase in infection intensity | 14 (6.4) | 2 (1.2) |
Results of multivariate linear regression for infection intensity reduction rate (%)
| Variable | Regression coefficient | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Baseline infection intensity (Ct-value) |
|
|
|
| Age (years) | -0.6 | -2.2 | 0.371 |
| Female sex | 38.7 | -6.6 | 0.083 |
| Baseline infection intensity (Ct-value) | -0.20 | -0.55 | 0.238 |
| Age (years) | 0.09 | -0.30 | 0.594 |
| Female sex | -9.90 | -28.87 | 0.257 |
Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval
Bold indicates statistical significance