| Literature DB >> 30968052 |
Sébastien D Pion1, Jules Brice Tchatchueng-Mbougua2, Cédric B Chesnais1, Joseph Kamgno3,4, Jacques Gardon5, Jean-Philippe Chippaux6, Stéphane Ranque7, Jean-Christophe Ernould6, André Garcia6, Michel Boussinesq1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In central Africa, millions of individuals infected with Loa loa have received the anthelminthic drug ivermectin (IVM) as part of mass drug administration (MDA) campaigns targeting onchocerciasis control or elimination. Nonetheless, the parasitological surveys that are occasionally conducted to evaluate the impact of IVM treatments on Onchocerca volvulus do not include an assessment of the extra benefits of those MDA campaigns on L. loa.Entities:
Keywords: embryostatic; filariasis; ivermectin; loiasis; meta-analysis; microfilaricidal
Year: 2019 PMID: 30968052 PMCID: PMC6449757 DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofz019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis ISSN: 2328-8957 Impact factor: 3.835
Figure 1.Flowchart summarizing the results of the literature search of a standard dose of ivermectin on Loa loa microfilarial density.
Ivermectin Trials Providing Results on Loa loa Microfilaremia Included in the Analysis
| Reference | Country | Sex, Age Range, y | Inclusion Criteria for IVM Treatment | Blood Sample/Processing | IVM Dose, µg/kg | No. of Participantsa | Initial MFD (WGM) [range], mf/mL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Republic of Congo | M+F, NA | MFD >0 mf/mL | 2 × 20 µL/leucoconcentration if no mf in blood smears | 200 | 28 | 5850 [2500–46 000] |
| [ | Cameroon | M+F, >5 | MFD >0 mf/mL | 30 µL | 200 | 80 | 1914 [33–139 086] |
| [ | Cameroon | M+F, 19–60 | MFD >30 mf/mL | 30 µL | 200 | 112 | 15 725 [633–164 550] |
| [ | Gabon | M+F, 15–76 | MFD >0 mf/mL | 10 µL + 4 mL if no mf in blood smear | 200 | 71 | 39 [0.25–35 700] |
| [ | Cameroon | M+F, ≥15 | Random sampling in 7 microfilaremia strata | 50 µL | 150 | 533 | 503.8 [0–198 660] |
| [ | Cameroon | M+F, 18–70 | 5 ≤ MFD ≤ 150 mf/mL | 50 µL | 150 | 13 | 535 [80–2240] |
| [ | Cameroon | M+F, ≥15–70 | 100 ≤ MFD ≤ 15 000 mf/mL | 50 µL | 150 | 31 | 3261 [420–16 220] |
| [ | Gabon | M+F, 7–78 | Symptoms of loiasis | 4 mL/leucoconcentration if no mf found in 10-µL aliquot | 200 | 84 | 129.3 [NA] |
| [ | Cameroon-Gabon | M+F, NA | MFD >0 mf/mL | NA | 200 | 7 | 1222 [300–11 150] |
| [ | Cameroon | M+F, 2–81 | Not documented | 30 µL | 200 | 448 | 8813 [67–101 690] |
| [ | Gabon | M, 18–70 | Moderate loiasis | 3–5 mL/leucoconcentration | 150 | 5 (group 1) | 290 [NA] |
| M, 18–70 | MFD >0 mf/mL & infected with | 200 | 5 (group 2) | 292 [NA] | |||
| M+F, 13–72 | 200 | 17 (group 3) | 222 [NA] |
Abbreviations: IVM, ivermectin; MFD, microfilarial density; WGM, Williams geometric mean.
aWith at least 1 post-treatment measure.
Figure 2.Loa loa microfilarial density before (time = 0) and after ivermectin treatment in individuals with initial microfilaremia (A) below 20 000 mf/mL and (B) above 20 000 mf/mL. Abbreviation: MFD, microfilarial density.
Figure 3.Weighed geometric mean of Loa loa microfilarial density after ivermectin treatment. The dashed line is a hand drawing representing the average trend in microfilarial density.
Multilevel Regression of Loa loa MFD Over the First Week of Treatment
| D0-D7 | Coef. | 95% CI Lower Limit | 95% CI Upper Limit |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time, d | –0.2370 | –0.3924 | –0.0815 | .003 |
| Quartile of pretreatment density (ref: 0–166 mf/mL) | ||||
| 167–3139 mf/mL | 3.2746 | 2.0505 | 4.4986 | .0001 |
| 3140–16 179 mf/mL | 5.3553 | 4.1415 | 6.5691 | .0001 |
| 16 180–198 660 mf/mL | 7.0997 | 5.8848 | 8.3146 | .0001 |
| Pretreatment density × time | ||||
| 167–3139 mf/mL × time | 0.0847 | –0.0800 | 0.2493 | .313 |
| 3140–16 179 mf/mL × time | 0.1133 | –0.0514 | 0.2780 | .178 |
| 16 180–198 660 mf/mL × time | –0.0541 | –0.2193 | 0.1111 | .521 |
| Sex (ref: females) | –0.1569 | –0.4227 | –0.1089 | .0247 |
| Age | –0.0113 | –0.0201 | –0.0025 | .012 |
| Constant | 3.3148 | 2.0809 | 4.5487 | .0001 |
| Random effect (SD) | Estimate | 95% CI Lower Limit | 95% CI Upper Limit | |
| Study | 0.1403 | 0.0291 | 0.6752 | |
| Individual | 1.0105 | 0.9040 | 1.1297 | |
| Residual | 0.6213 | 0.5797 | 0.6659 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; MFD, microfilarial density.
Figure 4.Geometric mean of Loa loa microfilarial density after ivermectin treatment in the 4 different quartiles of pretreatment density. Abbreviations: GM, geometric mean; MFD, microfilarial density.
Multilevel Regression of Loa loa MFD Over the Period D8–D365 After Treatment
| D8-D360 | Coef. | 95% CI Lower Limit | 95% CI Upper Limit |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time, d | –0.0003 | –0.0026 | 0.0020 | .809 |
| Quartile of pretreatment density (ref: 0–166 mf/mL) | ||||
| 167–3139 mf/mL | 3.8833 | 3.1102 | 4.6563 | .0001 |
| 3140–16 179 mf/mL | 6.7864 | 6.0258 | 7.5470 | .0001 |
| 16 180–198 660 mf/mL | 8.3234 | 7.4741 | 9.1726 | .0001 |
| Pretreatment density × time | ||||
| 167–3139 mf/mL × time | –0.0044 | –0.0074 | –0.0014 | .004 |
| 3140–16 179 mf/mL × time | –0.0020 | –0.0050 | 0.0011 | .216 |
| 16 180–198 660 mf/mL × time | –0.0019 | –0.0051 | 0.0013 | .251 |
| Sex (ref: females) | 0.0363 | –0.2337 | 0.3063 | .792 |
| Age | 0.0024 | –0.0057 | 0.0104 | .565 |
| Constant | 0.4417 | –0.2698 | 1.1533 | .224 |
| Random effect (SD) | ||||
| Study | 0 | 0 | 0.3757 | |
| Individual | 1.5937 | 1.4803 | 1.7159 | |
| Residual | 0.9353 | 0.8520 | 1.0267 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; MFD, microfilarial density.
Figure 5.Predicted and observed geometric mean of Loa loa microfilaremia. Predicted geometric means were obtained using a latent trajectory model with 2 latent classes. Solid lines: observed geometric mean of L. loa microfilarial density. Dashed lines: predicted geometric mean of L. loa microfilarial density.
Characteristics Associated With Loa loa MFD Evolution After Ivermectin Treatment in Each Latent Class
| Microfilaremia at Initiation | Coefficient | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Class 1 | |||
| Age | –0.04 | (–0.05 to –0.03) | <.001 |
| Time | 1.81 | (0.29 to 0.33) | .02 |
| Time2 | –1.16 | (–2.23 to 0.09) | .03 |
| Time3 | 3.50 | (–0.72 to 7.74) | .1 |
| Time × age | –0.06 | (–0.09 to 0.02) | .003 |
| Time2 × age | –0.04 | (–0.07 to 0.01) | .002 |
| Time3 × age | –0.16 | (–0.26 to 0.05) | <.001 |
| Class 2 | |||
| Age | 0.001 | (–0.01 to 0.01) | .76 |
| Time | –1.84 | (–2.62 to 1.06) | <.001 |
| Time2 | –1.9 | (–2.53 to 1.28) | <.001 |
| Time3 | 1.10 | (–1.34 to 3.55) | .38 |
| Time × age | 0.03 | (0.01 to 0.05) | .004 |
| Time2 × age | –0.01 | (–0.03 to 0) | .06 |
| Time3 × age | –0.04 | (–0.1 to 0.02) | .27 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; MFD, microfilarial density.
Risk Factor Associated With Each Latent Class (Reference Class 2)
| Risk Factor | OR | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Microfilaremia at initiation | |||
| 0–167 | 6124 | (699 to 53 630) | <.001 |
| 168–3139 | 1236 | (138 to 11 121) | <.001 |
| 3140–16 179 | 1.8 | (0.55 to 5.9) | .33 |
| 16 180–198 660 | 1 | ||
| Male | 0.7 | (0.25 to 2.17) | .58 |
| Age | 1 | (0.95 to 1.03) | .62 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.
Table A1. Hypothetical Results for Determination of the Optimal Number of Latent Classes Using BIC
| Models | BIC | Percentage of Sample Size Per Class Based on Most Likely Class Membership |
|---|---|---|
| Model with 1 class without covariate | 11 386.13 | 100/0 |
| Model with 2 latent classes without covariate | 10 058.23 | 55.2/44.8 |
| Model with 3 latent classes without covariate | 10 437.2 | 53/20.9/26.1 |
| Model with 4 latent classes without covariate | 10 220.8 | 39.7/24.6/17.7/17.9 |
| Model with 2 class with covariate (final model) | 8992.4 | 50.9/49.1 |
The model without a covariate with the lowest BIC was the model with 2 latent classes. Thus the optimal number of latent classes chosen was 2 latent classes. When we added a significant covariate in the model, we observed little variation of the percentages of subjects in each latent class: 7.1% of the subjects were reassigned from latent class 1 to latent class 2, and 2.8% of the subjects were reassigned from latent class 2 to latent class 1.
The second step consisted of estimating, for each individual, (1) the probability of belonging to each latent class by maximum likelihood estimation and (2) the latent trajectory of MFD over time in each homogeneous latent cluster. The model estimated the membership probabilities for each patient, and a unique latent trajectory was assigned to each patient based on the maximal membership probability. This model assumes that repeated observations of the same individual are independent, conditional on latent trajectory, meaning that the within-person correlation structure is explained completely by the estimated trajectory curve for each person in a given latent cluster. The association between the probability of belonging to each latent class and individual risk factors, namely age, sex, and initial microfilaremia, was assessed by logistic regression. Different models were fitted and compared with the BIC. This analysis was performed using the latent classes mixed model (lcmm) package from R-Cran software [32].
Abbreviation: BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.