Pharmacological therapies for neglected tropical diseases: a systematic review and evidence gap mapping.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 PARASITOLOGY
Julia Barbosa Domingues da Silva, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, Helena Hiemisch Lobo Borba
{"title":"Pharmacological therapies for neglected tropical diseases: a systematic review and evidence gap mapping.","authors":"Julia Barbosa Domingues da Silva, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, Helena Hiemisch Lobo Borba","doi":"10.1590/0037-8682-0056-2026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) comprise 21 endemic infections that affect over one billion people worldwide. This study mapped and identified evidence gaps regarding pharmacological therapies for all WHO-recognized NTDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed for systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the ClinicalTrials.gov database for ongoing RCTs. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 for SRs and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs. Data were synthesized into evidence and gap maps, and the distribution of evidence was analyzed according to quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four maps were developed, including 74 SRs, 500 RCTs, and 70 ongoing clinical trials; of these, only seven SRs and 17 RCTs were rated as high quality or as having a low risk of bias, respectively. Trachoma exhibited the highest number of evidence gaps, while Buruli ulcer had the lowest. Taeniasis/cysticercosis presented the highest proportion (31.8%) of high-quality SRs, whereas Chagas disease showed the highest proportion of RCTs with a low risk of bias (18.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Significant gaps remain in the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for WHO-recognized NTDs. The currently available evidence is predominantly of low methodological quality and is often insufficient to support robust therapeutic conclusions, highlighting the urgent need for rigorously designed clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":21199,"journal":{"name":"Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical","volume":"59 ","pages":"e00562026"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13331190/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0056-2026","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PARASITOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) comprise 21 endemic infections that affect over one billion people worldwide. This study mapped and identified evidence gaps regarding pharmacological therapies for all WHO-recognized NTDs.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed for systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the ClinicalTrials.gov database for ongoing RCTs. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 for SRs and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs. Data were synthesized into evidence and gap maps, and the distribution of evidence was analyzed according to quality.

Results: Twenty-four maps were developed, including 74 SRs, 500 RCTs, and 70 ongoing clinical trials; of these, only seven SRs and 17 RCTs were rated as high quality or as having a low risk of bias, respectively. Trachoma exhibited the highest number of evidence gaps, while Buruli ulcer had the lowest. Taeniasis/cysticercosis presented the highest proportion (31.8%) of high-quality SRs, whereas Chagas disease showed the highest proportion of RCTs with a low risk of bias (18.4%).

Conclusions: Significant gaps remain in the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for WHO-recognized NTDs. The currently available evidence is predominantly of low methodological quality and is often insufficient to support robust therapeutic conclusions, highlighting the urgent need for rigorously designed clinical trials.

被忽视的热带病的药物治疗:系统综述和证据缺口制图。
背景:被忽视的热带病(NTDs)包括21种地方性感染,影响全世界超过10亿人。这项研究绘制并确定了世卫组织承认的所有被忽视热带病的药物治疗方面的证据差距。方法:我们系统地检索PubMed的系统评价(SRs)和随机对照试验(rct),并检索ClinicalTrials.gov数据库中正在进行的rct。采用AMSTAR-2评估SRs和Cochrane随机对照试验的偏倚风险工具评估方法学质量。将数据综合成证据图和缺口图,并按质量分析证据分布。结果:共绘制了24个图,包括74个SRs、500个rct和70个正在进行的临床试验;其中,分别只有7项SRs和17项rct被评为高质量或低偏倚风险。沙眼的证据缺失数量最多,布鲁里溃疡的证据缺失数量最少。高质量随机对照试验中,带绦虫/囊虫病的比例最高(31.8%),低偏倚风险的南美锥虫病的比例最高(18.4%)。结论:关于世卫组织认可的被忽视热带病药物治疗的有效性和安全性的证据仍然存在重大差距。目前可获得的证据主要是低方法学质量,往往不足以支持强有力的治疗结论,强调迫切需要严格设计的临床试验。
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
195
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine (JBSTM) isan official journal of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine) with open access. It is amultidisciplinary journal that publishes original researches related totropical diseases, preventive medicine, public health, infectious diseasesand related matters. Preference for publication will be given to articlesreporting original observations or researches. The journal has a peer-reviewsystem for articles acceptance and its periodicity is bimonthly. The Journalof the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine is published in English.The journal invites to publication Major Articles, Editorials, Reviewand Mini-Review Articles, Short Communications, Case Reports, TechnicalReports, Images in Infectious Diseases, Letters, Supplements and Obituaries.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书