BackgroundStrongyloidiasis is frequently under diagnosed since many infections remain asymptomatic and conventional diagnostic tests based on parasitological examination are not sufficiently sensitive. Serology is useful but is still only available in reference laboratories. The need for improved diagnostic tests in terms of sensitivity and specificity is clear, particularly in immunocompromised patients or candidates to immunosuppressive treatments. This review aims to evaluate both conventional and novel techniques for the diagnosis of strongyloidiasis as well as available cure markers for this parasitic infection.Methodology/Principal FindingsThe search strategy was based on the data-base sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Register for systematic review, EmBase, Global Health and LILACS and was limited in the search string to articles published from 1960 to August 2012 and to English, Spanish, French, Portuguese and German languages. Case reports, case series and animal studies were excluded. 2003 potentially relevant citations were selected for retrieval, of which 1649 were selected for review of the abstract. 143 were eligible for final inclusion.ConclusionsSensitivity of microscopic-based techniques is not good enough, particularly in chronic infections. Furthermore, techniques such as Baermann or agar plate culture are cumbersome and time-consuming and several specimens should be collected on different days to improve the detection rate. Serology is a useful tool but it might overestimate the prevalence of disease due to cross-reactivity with other nematode infections and its difficulty distinguishing recent from past (and cured) infections. To evaluate treatment efficacy is still a major concern because direct parasitological methods might overestimate it and the serology has not yet been well evaluated; even if there is a decline in antibody titres after treatment, it is slow and it needs to be done at 6 to 12 months after treatment which can cause a substantial loss to follow-up in a clinical trial.

No abstract

BackgroundFew studies have assessed the burden of Chagas disease in non-endemic countries and most of them are based on prevalence estimates from Latin American (LA) countries that likely differ from the prevalence in migrants living in Europe. The aim of this study was to systematically review the existing data informing current understanding of the prevalence of Chagas disease in LA migrants living in European countries.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting prevalence of Chagas disease in European countries belonging to the European Union (EU) before 2004 in accordance with the MOOSE guidelines and based on the database sources MEDLINE and Global Health. No restrictions were placed on study date, study design or language of publication. The pooled prevalence was estimated using random effect models based on DerSimonian & Laird method.ResultsWe identified 18 studies conducted in five European countries. The random effect pooled prevalence was 4.2% (95%CI:2.2-6.7%); and the heterogeneity of Chagas disease prevalence among studies was high (I2 = 97%,p<0.001). Migrants from Bolivia had the highest prevalence of Chagas disease (18.1%, 95%CI:13.9–22.7%).ConclusionsPrevalence of Chagas in LA migrants living in Europe is high, particularly in migrants from Bolivia and Paraguay. Data are highly heterogeneous dependent upon country of origin and within studies of migrants from the same country of origin. Country-specific prevalence differs from the estimates available from LA countries. Our meta-analysis provides prevalence estimates of Chagas disease that should be used to estimate the burden of disease in European countries.

No abstract

Background Ivermectin is a key anthelmintic for the control of neglected tropical diseases. The main indications for population-level control with ivermectin through mass drug administration are onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis; however, there is interest in using higher, fixed-dose regimens for the control of scabies, soil-transmitted helminths and malaria. Safety data for these higher-dose regimens are needed. Methods A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the safety and doses of ivermectin was conducted. Eligible studies reported patient-level data and, for the meta-analysis, clinical trials reporting data on doses ≥200 and ≥400 μg/kg were included. Incidence ratios were used to compare adverse events by severity and organ system affected. Results The systematic search identified six studies for inclusion, revealing no differences in the number of individuals experiencing adverse events. A descriptive analysis of these clinical trials for a variety of indications showed no difference in the severity of the adverse events between standard (up to 400 μg/kg) and higher doses of ivermectin. Organ system involvement only showed an increase in ocular events in the higher-dose group in one trial for the treatment of onchocerciasis, all of them transient and mild to moderate in intensity. Conclusions Although within this review the safety of high-dose ivermectin appears to be comparable to standard doses, there are not enough data to support a recommendation for its use in higher-than-approved doses. Ocular adverse events, despite being transient, are of concern in onchocerciasis patients. These data can inform programme managers and guide operational research activities as new approaches for the use of ivermectin are evaluated.

Strongyloidiasis is an intestinal parasitic infection becoming increasingly important outside endemic areas, not only because of the high prevalence found in migrant populations, but also because immunosuppressed patients may suffer a potentially fatal disseminated disease. The aim of these guidelines is to provide evidence-based guidance for screening and treatment of strongyloidiasis in non-endemic areas. A panel of experts focused on three main clinical questions (who should be screened and how, how to treat), and reviewed pertinent literature available in international databases of medical literature and in documents released by relevant organizations/societies. A consensus of the experts' opinion was sought when specific issues were not covered by evidence. In particular, six systematic reviews were retrieved and constituted the main support for this work. The evidence and consensus gathered led to recommendations addressing various aspects of the main questions. Grading of evidence and strength of recommendation were attributed to assess the quality of supporting evidence. The screening of individuals at risk of the infection should be performed before they develop any clinical complication. Moreover, in immunosuppressed patients, the screening should be mandatory. The screening is based on a simple and widely accessible technology and there is now a universally accepted treatment with a high efficacy rate. Therefore, the screening could be implemented as part of a screening program for migrants although further cost-effectiveness studies are required to better evaluate this strategy from a public health point of view.

BackgroundMigrants, including refugees, asylum seekers, labour migrants, and undocumented migrants, now constitute a considerable proportion of most high-income countries’ populations, including their skilled and unskilled workforces. Migrants may be at increased risk of COVID-19 due to their health and social circumstances, yet the extent to which they are being affected and their predisposing risk factors are not clearly understood. We did a systematic review to assess clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in migrant populations (cases, hospitalisations, deaths), indirect health and social impacts, and to determine key risk factors.MethodsWe did a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222135). We searched databases including PubMed, Global Health, Scopus, CINAHL, and pre-print databases (medRxiv) via the WHO Global Research on COVID-19 database to Nov 18, 2020 for peer-reviewed and grey literature pertaining to migrants (defined as foreign born) and COVID-19 in 82 high-income countries. We used our international networks to source national datasets and grey literature. Data were extracted on our primary outcomes (cases, hospitalisations, deaths) and we evaluated secondary outcomes on indirect health and social impacts, and risk factors, using narrative synthesis.Results3016 data sources were screened with 158 from 15 countries included in the analysis (35 data sources for primary outcomes: cases [21], hospitalisations [4]; deaths [15]; 123 for secondary outcomes). We found that migrants are at increased risk of infection and are disproportionately represented among COVID-19 cases. Available datasets suggest a similarly disproportionate representation of migrants in reported COVID-19 deaths, as well as increased all-cause mortality in migrants in some countries in 2020. Undocumented migrants, migrant health and care workers, and migrants housed in camps and labour compounds may have been especially affected. In general, migrants have higher levels of many risk factors and vulnerabilities relevant to COVID-19, including increased exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to high-risk occupations and overcrowded accommodation, and barriers to health care including inadequate information, language barriers, and reduced entitlement to healthcare coverage related to their immigration status.ConclusionsMigrants in high-income countries are at high risk of exposure to, and infection with, COVID-19. These data are of immediate relevance to national public health responses to the pandemic and should inform policymaking on strategies for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in this population. Robust data on testing uptake and clinical outcomes in migrants, and barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination, are urgently needed, alongside strengthening engagement with diverse migrant groups.

No abstract