| Literature DB >> 30467873 |
Mizuho Fukushige1, Francisca Mutapi2, Mark E J Woolhouse3.
Abstract
AIMS: Previous studies have reported that chemotherapy of schistosomiasis by praziquantel in humans boosts protective antibody responses against S mansoni and S haematobium. A number of studies have reported schistosome-specific antibody levels before and after chemotherapy. Using these reports, a meta-analysis was conducted to identify predictors of population level change in schistosome-specific antibody levels after chemotherapy. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: antibody levels; human; meta-analysis; population; praziquantel; schistosomiasis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30467873 PMCID: PMC6492179 DOI: 10.1111/pim.12604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasite Immunol ISSN: 0141-9838 Impact factor: 2.280
Figure 1A systematic review flow diagram. Diagram of the number of articles identified and examined at each stage of the review
Summary of 26 articles selected after systematic review
| References | Parasite species | Antigen type | Antibody isotype | Follow‐up (days) | No. of participants for each observation and antibody isotype (participants) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abebe et al. (2001) | S.m | SEA | IgA, IgE, IgG1, IGG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgG, IgM | 35 | 66 |
| Ali et al. (1994) | S.m, S.h | SEA/WWA | IgA | 90 | 21, 51 |
| Feldmeier et al. (1988) | S.m, S.h | WWA | IgE, IgG | 150 | 19 |
| Fouda et al. (2007) | S.m | WWA | IgE | 180 | 19 |
| Grogan et al. (1996) | S.h | SEA/WWA | IgE, IgG4 | 35 | 55 |
| Hamadto et al. (1990) | S.m | SEA/WWA | IgA, IgE, IgG, IgM | 49 | 36, 40 |
| Hussein et al. (1996) | S.m | SEA/WWA | IgG, IgM | 60 | 26, 38 |
| Ismail et al. (1992) | S.m, S.h | SEA/WWA | IgG, IgM | 90 | 20, 15, 14, 11 (SEA) |
| 10, 8, 7 (WWA) | |||||
| Joseph et al. (2004) | S.m | SEA/WWA | IgE, IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4 | 35 | 10 |
| Mutapi et al. (1998) (a) | S.m, S.h | SEA | IgA, IgG1 | 84 | 132 |
| Mutapi et al. (1998b) | S.h | SEA | IgA, IgE, IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4 | 126 | 37 |
| Nagaty et al. (1996) | S.m, S.h | SEA/WWA | IgA, IgE, IgG, IgM | 180 | 21, 51 |
| Nassr et al. (2002) | S.m | WWA | IgG1, IgG4 | 90 | 8 |
| Naus et al. 1998 | S.h | SEA/WWA | IgE, IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4,IgM | 30 | 97 |
| Reilly et al. (2008) | S.h | WWA | IgG1, IgG3 | 42 | 89 |
| Satti et al. (2004) | S.m | WWA | IgE, IgG4 | 21 | 28 |
| Satti et al. (1996) (a) | S.m | SEA/WWA | IgE, IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgM | 90 | 17 |
| Satti et al. (1996b) | S.m | WWA | IgA | 90 | 25 |
| Snyman et al. (1997) | S.h | WWA | IgE, IgG | 21 | 14 |
| Snyman et al. (1998) | S.h | WWA | IgE, IgG | 90 | 10, 9 |
| Tweyongyere et al. (2009) | S.m | SEA/WWA | IgE, IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4 | 42 | 89, 124 |
| van Lieshout et al. (1999) | S.m | WWA | IgE, IgG1, IgG3, IgG4, IgG, IgM | 63 | 30 |
| Vereecken et al. (2007) | S.m | SEA/WWA | IgA, IgE, IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgM | 42 | 21, 24, 61, 143 |
| Walter et al. (2006) | S.m | SEA/WWA | IgA, IgE, IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgM | 35 | 24, 28 (SEA) |
| 22, 23, 27, 28, 31 (WWA) | |||||
| Wilson et al. (2013) | S.m, S.h | WWA | IgE | 63 | 41 |
| Zinyowera et al. (2006) | S.h | SEA/WWA | IgA, IgE, IgG | 42 | 28 |
S.h, S haematobium; S.m, S mansoni; SEA, schistosome soluble egg antigen; WWA, whole worm antigen.
The numbers represent the number of participants for each observation of each antigen time (SEA/WWA) and antibody isotypes (IgA, IgE, IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgM).
These references are given in supporting information Appendix S1.
List of potential predictors investigated and their measurement units/codes
| Potential predictors (units) | Codes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevalence (%) | Low/Moderate | High | |
| <50 | ≥50 | ||
| Schistosome species | S.m | S.h | Co‐infection of S.m and S.h |
| Days after chemotherapy (days) | Continuous (14‐180 days) | ||
| Age | Child/low | Adolescent/low | Adult/low |
| Child/high | Adolescent/high | Adult/high | |
S.m, S mansoni; S.h, S haematobium.
Age category: child (0‐10 y), adolescent (11‐20 y), adult (≥21).
Infection intensity: S mansoni: Light 1‐99 eggs/1 g faeces, Heavy ≥100 eggs/1 g faeces, S haematobium: Light 1‐49 eggs/10 mL urine, Heavy ≥50 eggs/10 mL urine.
Figure 2The percentage of observations with increasing or decreasing levels of (A) anti‐SEA, and (B) anti‐WWA antibody isotypes after praziquantel treatment for eight antibody isotypes. The graph shows the fraction of observations that reported a decrease/no change (filled bar) or an increase (unfilled bar) in each antibody isotype. Chi‐square tests were conducted for each pair of anti‐SEA or anti‐WWA antibody isotype. NS non‐significant, *significant at p < 0.05, **significant at P < 0.01, ***significant at P < 0.001
Predictors identified by the classification and regression tree model analyses
| Predictors | Anti‐SEA antibodies | Anti‐WWA antibodies |
|---|---|---|
| Prevalence (%) | ‐ | ‐ |
| Schistosome species | ‐ | ‐ |
| Days after chemotherapy | IgE | |
| Age/infection intensity | IgA, IgG1, IgG2, IgM | IgG, IgM |
| No predictor: mostly decrease | IgG3, IgG4, IgG | ‐ |
| No predictor: mostly increase | ‐ | IgA, IgE, IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4 |
Figure 3Classification and Regression Tree Models identifying profiles of observations that had higher (increase) or lower (decrease/no change) anti‐SEA antibody isotype levels after praziquantel treatment for (A) anti‐SEA IgA, (B) anti‐SEA IgE, (C) anti‐SEA IgG1, (D) anti‐SEA IgG2 or (E) anti‐SEA IgM. No tree was obtained for the remaining anti‐SEA antibody isotypes. The hierarchy of the Classification and Regression Tree Model starts from the terminal nodes at the top. Abbreviations for age/infection intensity groups are listed in the text box and described in Table2
Figure 4Classification and Regression Tree Models identifying profiles of observations that had higher (increase) or lower (decrease/no change) anti‐WWA antibody isotype levels after praziquantel treatment for (A) anti‐WWA IgG or (B) anti‐WWA IgM. No tree was obtained for the remaining anti‐WWA antibody isotypes. The hierarchy of the Classification and Regression Tree Model starts from the terminal nodes at the top. Abbreviations for age/infection intensity groups are as listed in the text box in Fig 3, also described in Table 2
Figure 5The influence of age and pre‐treatment infection intensity for the direction of change of some antibody isotypes. The graph shows tendency of decrease (filled cell) or increase (unfilled cell) of each antibody isotype by age and pre‐treatment infection intensity for (A) anti‐SEA IgA, IgM, and anti‐WWA IgM, (B) anti‐SEA IgG1, (C) anti‐SEA IgG2 and (D) anti‐WWA IgG