Antifilarial treatment strategies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Muayad Saud Albadrani, Amr Molla, Hossein M Elbadawy, Heba M Eltahir, Shyamkumar Sriram, Mekky M Abouzied, Eman Mohamed Sharaf Elsayed
{"title":"Antifilarial treatment strategies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Muayad Saud Albadrani, Amr Molla, Hossein M Elbadawy, Heba M Eltahir, Shyamkumar Sriram, Mekky M Abouzied, Eman Mohamed Sharaf Elsayed","doi":"10.1186/s12879-025-11105-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The World Health Organization (WHO) prescribes mass drug administration (MDA) to eradicate lymphatic filariasis within endemic populations. The WHO endorsed using ivermectin with diethylcarbamazine and albendazole (IDA) for MDA in specific settings devoid of onchocerciasis or loiasis. Still, the utilization of IDA in sub-Saharan Africa is restricted due to the potential of diethylcarbamazine to induce severe adverse ocular events in individuals with onchocerciasis.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We aim to investigate all documented combinations of antifilarial drugs available in the literature using a network meta-analysis (NWM) design, focusing specifically on the treatment of Lymphatic Filariasis (LF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A meticulous search was conducted across four electronic databases to identify pertinent studies. Subsequently, a frequentist NWM was executed. Risk ratios (RRs) served as the effect size metric for categorical outcomes, each with a 95% confidence interval (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our study encompassed 45 studies, including 61,369 patients. At six months, multiple doses of diethylcarbamazine plus albendazole (multiple DA) regimens demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing microfilaremia compared to a single intake of DA, diethylcarbamazine, ivermectin, and albendazole with RR and CI as follows: 0.37 [0.19; 0.72], 0.35 [0.17; 0.69], 0.30 [0.14; 0.64], and 0.28 [0.13; 0.57]. The combination of ivermectin plus albendazole (IA) also showed significant efficacy against the use of each of these drugs alone, with RR: 0.74 [0.57; 0.96] for ivermectin and 0.69 [0.53; 0.89] for albendazole, while diethylcarbamazine combined with albendazole showed substantial superiority over albendazole alone or placebo: RR = 0.09 [0.02; 0.36] and 0.08 [0.02; 0.34], respectively. By the twelfth month, diethylcarbamazine, followed by albendazole, ranked superior to IDA and DA: 0.12 [0.02; 0.89] and 0.11 [0.01; 0.79], respectively. At 24 months, no significant differences were found among the assessed drugs in reducing microfilaremia. The comparisons revealed no significant differences between the drug combinations we studied regarding safety and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Multiple doses of the DA regimen showed superior efficacy in reducing microfilaremia compared to combinations involving IA, diethylcarbamazine, ivermectin, and albendazole at six and twelve months. However, by the twenty-four-month, no significant differences were found. Safety profiles among interventions were generally comparable, with no specific drug showing superiority in adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":8981,"journal":{"name":"BMC Infectious Diseases","volume":"25 1","pages":"712"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12084920/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-025-11105-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) prescribes mass drug administration (MDA) to eradicate lymphatic filariasis within endemic populations. The WHO endorsed using ivermectin with diethylcarbamazine and albendazole (IDA) for MDA in specific settings devoid of onchocerciasis or loiasis. Still, the utilization of IDA in sub-Saharan Africa is restricted due to the potential of diethylcarbamazine to induce severe adverse ocular events in individuals with onchocerciasis.

Aim: We aim to investigate all documented combinations of antifilarial drugs available in the literature using a network meta-analysis (NWM) design, focusing specifically on the treatment of Lymphatic Filariasis (LF).

Methods: A meticulous search was conducted across four electronic databases to identify pertinent studies. Subsequently, a frequentist NWM was executed. Risk ratios (RRs) served as the effect size metric for categorical outcomes, each with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: Our study encompassed 45 studies, including 61,369 patients. At six months, multiple doses of diethylcarbamazine plus albendazole (multiple DA) regimens demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing microfilaremia compared to a single intake of DA, diethylcarbamazine, ivermectin, and albendazole with RR and CI as follows: 0.37 [0.19; 0.72], 0.35 [0.17; 0.69], 0.30 [0.14; 0.64], and 0.28 [0.13; 0.57]. The combination of ivermectin plus albendazole (IA) also showed significant efficacy against the use of each of these drugs alone, with RR: 0.74 [0.57; 0.96] for ivermectin and 0.69 [0.53; 0.89] for albendazole, while diethylcarbamazine combined with albendazole showed substantial superiority over albendazole alone or placebo: RR = 0.09 [0.02; 0.36] and 0.08 [0.02; 0.34], respectively. By the twelfth month, diethylcarbamazine, followed by albendazole, ranked superior to IDA and DA: 0.12 [0.02; 0.89] and 0.11 [0.01; 0.79], respectively. At 24 months, no significant differences were found among the assessed drugs in reducing microfilaremia. The comparisons revealed no significant differences between the drug combinations we studied regarding safety and adverse events.

Conclusion: Multiple doses of the DA regimen showed superior efficacy in reducing microfilaremia compared to combinations involving IA, diethylcarbamazine, ivermectin, and albendazole at six and twelve months. However, by the twenty-four-month, no significant differences were found. Safety profiles among interventions were generally comparable, with no specific drug showing superiority in adverse events.

抗丝虫病治疗策略:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。
背景:世界卫生组织(WHO)规定大规模给药(MDA)以根除流行人群中的淋巴丝虫病。世卫组织认可在没有盘尾丝虫病或loloasis的特定环境中使用伊维菌素与乙基卡马嗪和阿苯达唑(IDA)治疗丙二醛。尽管如此,由于二乙基卡马嗪在盘尾丝虫病患者中可能诱发严重的眼部不良事件,IDA在撒哈拉以南非洲的使用受到限制。目的:我们的目标是使用网络荟萃分析(NWM)设计调查文献中所有记录的抗丝虫病药物组合,特别关注淋巴丝虫病(LF)的治疗。方法:在四个电子数据库中进行了细致的搜索,以确定相关的研究。随后,一名频率主义者NWM被处决。风险比(rr)作为分类结果的效应大小度量,每个结果都有95%的置信区间(CI)。结果:我们的研究纳入了45项研究,包括61369名患者。6个月时,与单次服用DA、乙基卡马嗪、伊维菌素和阿苯达唑相比,多剂量乙基卡马嗪加阿苯达唑(多重DA)方案在减少微丝虫病方面表现出更优的疗效,RR和CI如下:0.37 [0.19;0.72], 0.35 [0.17;0.69], 0.30 [0.14;0.64], 0.28 [0.13;0.57]。伊维菌素联合阿苯达唑(IA)与单独使用这些药物相比也有显著的疗效,RR: 0.74 [0.57;伊维菌素为0.96,0.69 [0.53];0.89],而二乙基卡马嗪联合阿苯达唑较单用阿苯达唑或安慰剂有显著优势:RR = 0.09 [0.02;0.36]和0.08 [0.02;分别为0.34)。到第12个月,二乙基卡马嗪,其次是阿苯达唑,优于IDA和DA: 0.12 [0.02;0.89]和0.11 [0.01;分别为0.79)。在24个月时,被评估的药物在减少微丝虫病方面没有发现显著差异。比较显示我们研究的药物组合在安全性和不良事件方面没有显著差异。结论:在6个月和12个月时,与IA、乙基卡马嗪、伊维菌素和阿苯达唑联合使用相比,多剂量DA方案在减少微丝虫病方面表现出更好的疗效。然而,到了24个月,没有发现明显的差异。各种干预措施的安全性一般具有可比性,没有特定药物在不良事件方面表现出优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Infectious Diseases
BMC Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
860
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: BMC Infectious Diseases is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of infectious and sexually transmitted diseases in humans, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信