风疹的治疗:临床管理建议综述。

IF 8.1 1区 医学
Dorothea Ekoka Mbassi, Rike Dreeßen, Rella Zoleko Manego, Saskia Dede Davi, Tamara Nordmann, Johannes Mischlinger, Michael Ramharter
{"title":"风疹的治疗:临床管理建议综述。","authors":"Dorothea Ekoka Mbassi, Rike Dreeßen, Rella Zoleko Manego, Saskia Dede Davi, Tamara Nordmann, Johannes Mischlinger, Michael Ramharter","doi":"10.1186/s40249-025-01300-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Loiasis affects more than 20 million residents of endemic regions in Central and West Africa causing chronic and often lifelong disease. Antifilarial treatment options for loiasis include diethylcarbamazine, ivermectin, and albendazole. Safe and effective management requires classifying patients into occult, microfilaremia, and hypermicrofilaremia categories. Treatment is complicated by the risk of severe adverse events, particularly encephalitis. Clear guidance on the appropriate use of antifilarial therapy is therefore of utmost importance. The aim of this review is to evaluate current treatment recommendations and assess their quality and consistency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted to evaluate treatment recommendations for loiasis. The literature search encompassed multiple databases, including PubMed and specialized medical repositories, without restrictions on publication date or language. The approach included a systematic search with specific loiasis-related keywords and an unstructured search of guidelines from health ministries in endemic countries, along with grey literature and professional recommendations. Renowned tropical medicine textbooks were also consulted. Data were extracted with a detailed table collaboratively developed and reviewed by multiple researchers to ensure consistency and accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review identified 33 sources, consisting of nine guidelines, ten reviews, and 14 textbook excerpts. Publications reviewed spanned from 2001 to 2024 with no major innovations in treatment noted. Evidence quality was often low, with only two guidelines detailing their development process. Variability was particularly noted in dosage protocols for diethylcarbamazine, typically dosed incrementally. Ivermectin and albendazole were mostly noted as alternatives based on microfilarial levels. The common microfilarial threshold was 8000 microfilariae per millilitre, dictating treatment strategy adjustments. Adjunctive treatments, such as corticosteroids and antihistamines, were inconsistently proposed to mitigate side effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inconsistencies between some recommendations were observed. There is an urgent need for internationally harmonized, evidence-based guidelines to address these inconsistencies, improve patient outcomes and minimize treatment-associated severe adverse events and fatalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":48820,"journal":{"name":"Infectious Diseases of Poverty","volume":"14 1","pages":"35"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12057256/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment of loiasis: a review of clinical management recommendations.\",\"authors\":\"Dorothea Ekoka Mbassi, Rike Dreeßen, Rella Zoleko Manego, Saskia Dede Davi, Tamara Nordmann, Johannes Mischlinger, Michael Ramharter\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40249-025-01300-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Loiasis affects more than 20 million residents of endemic regions in Central and West Africa causing chronic and often lifelong disease. Antifilarial treatment options for loiasis include diethylcarbamazine, ivermectin, and albendazole. Safe and effective management requires classifying patients into occult, microfilaremia, and hypermicrofilaremia categories. Treatment is complicated by the risk of severe adverse events, particularly encephalitis. Clear guidance on the appropriate use of antifilarial therapy is therefore of utmost importance. The aim of this review is to evaluate current treatment recommendations and assess their quality and consistency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted to evaluate treatment recommendations for loiasis. The literature search encompassed multiple databases, including PubMed and specialized medical repositories, without restrictions on publication date or language. The approach included a systematic search with specific loiasis-related keywords and an unstructured search of guidelines from health ministries in endemic countries, along with grey literature and professional recommendations. Renowned tropical medicine textbooks were also consulted. Data were extracted with a detailed table collaboratively developed and reviewed by multiple researchers to ensure consistency and accuracy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review identified 33 sources, consisting of nine guidelines, ten reviews, and 14 textbook excerpts. Publications reviewed spanned from 2001 to 2024 with no major innovations in treatment noted. Evidence quality was often low, with only two guidelines detailing their development process. Variability was particularly noted in dosage protocols for diethylcarbamazine, typically dosed incrementally. Ivermectin and albendazole were mostly noted as alternatives based on microfilarial levels. The common microfilarial threshold was 8000 microfilariae per millilitre, dictating treatment strategy adjustments. Adjunctive treatments, such as corticosteroids and antihistamines, were inconsistently proposed to mitigate side effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inconsistencies between some recommendations were observed. There is an urgent need for internationally harmonized, evidence-based guidelines to address these inconsistencies, improve patient outcomes and minimize treatment-associated severe adverse events and fatalities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48820,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infectious Diseases of Poverty\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"35\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12057256/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infectious Diseases of Poverty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-025-01300-0\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious Diseases of Poverty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-025-01300-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:路易丝虫病影响中非和西非流行地区的2000多万居民,导致慢性且往往是终身疾病。抗丝虫病治疗方案包括乙基卡马嗪、伊维菌素和阿苯达唑。安全有效的管理需要将患者分为隐匿性、微丝虫病和超微丝虫病三类。严重不良事件(特别是脑炎)的风险使治疗复杂化。因此,对正确使用抗丝虫病治疗的明确指导至关重要。本综述的目的是评价目前的治疗建议,并评估其质量和一致性。方法:进行了一项范围审查,以评估治疗建议的loloasis。文献检索包括多个数据库,包括PubMed和专业医学知识库,没有出版日期和语言的限制。该方法包括系统地搜索与路易病相关的特定关键词,以及对流行国家卫生部的指南进行非结构化搜索,以及灰色文献和专业建议。还参考了著名的热带医学教科书。数据提取的详细表格由多位研究人员共同开发和审查,以确保一致性和准确性。结果:综述确定了33个来源,包括9个指南、10个综述和14个教科书摘要。从2001年到2024年的文献回顾中,没有发现治疗方面的重大创新。证据质量往往很低,只有两个指南详细说明了它们的发展过程。在二乙基卡马嗪的剂量方案中特别注意到可变性,通常是增量给药。伊维菌素和阿苯达唑主要被认为是基于微丝虫水平的替代品。常见的微丝阈值为每毫升8000微丝,这决定了治疗策略的调整。辅助治疗,如皮质类固醇和抗组胺药,被不一致地建议减轻副作用。结论:观察到一些建议之间的不一致。迫切需要制定国际上统一的循证指南,以解决这些不一致之处,改善患者预后,并尽量减少与治疗相关的严重不良事件和死亡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Treatment of loiasis: a review of clinical management recommendations.

Background: Loiasis affects more than 20 million residents of endemic regions in Central and West Africa causing chronic and often lifelong disease. Antifilarial treatment options for loiasis include diethylcarbamazine, ivermectin, and albendazole. Safe and effective management requires classifying patients into occult, microfilaremia, and hypermicrofilaremia categories. Treatment is complicated by the risk of severe adverse events, particularly encephalitis. Clear guidance on the appropriate use of antifilarial therapy is therefore of utmost importance. The aim of this review is to evaluate current treatment recommendations and assess their quality and consistency.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted to evaluate treatment recommendations for loiasis. The literature search encompassed multiple databases, including PubMed and specialized medical repositories, without restrictions on publication date or language. The approach included a systematic search with specific loiasis-related keywords and an unstructured search of guidelines from health ministries in endemic countries, along with grey literature and professional recommendations. Renowned tropical medicine textbooks were also consulted. Data were extracted with a detailed table collaboratively developed and reviewed by multiple researchers to ensure consistency and accuracy.

Results: The review identified 33 sources, consisting of nine guidelines, ten reviews, and 14 textbook excerpts. Publications reviewed spanned from 2001 to 2024 with no major innovations in treatment noted. Evidence quality was often low, with only two guidelines detailing their development process. Variability was particularly noted in dosage protocols for diethylcarbamazine, typically dosed incrementally. Ivermectin and albendazole were mostly noted as alternatives based on microfilarial levels. The common microfilarial threshold was 8000 microfilariae per millilitre, dictating treatment strategy adjustments. Adjunctive treatments, such as corticosteroids and antihistamines, were inconsistently proposed to mitigate side effects.

Conclusions: Inconsistencies between some recommendations were observed. There is an urgent need for internationally harmonized, evidence-based guidelines to address these inconsistencies, improve patient outcomes and minimize treatment-associated severe adverse events and fatalities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Infectious Diseases of Poverty
Infectious Diseases of Poverty INFECTIOUS DISEASES-
自引率
1.20%
发文量
368
期刊介绍: Infectious Diseases of Poverty is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on addressing essential public health questions related to infectious diseases of poverty. The journal covers a wide range of topics including the biology of pathogens and vectors, diagnosis and detection, treatment and case management, epidemiology and modeling, zoonotic hosts and animal reservoirs, control strategies and implementation, new technologies and application. It also considers the transdisciplinary or multisectoral effects on health systems, ecohealth, environmental management, and innovative technology. The journal aims to identify and assess research and information gaps that hinder progress towards new interventions for public health problems in the developing world. Additionally, it provides a platform for discussing these issues to advance research and evidence building for improved public health interventions in poor settings.
×
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