An epidemic illness characterized by head nodding associated with onchocerciasis has been described in eastern Africa since the early 1960s; we summarize published reports and recent studies. Onset of nodding occurs in previously healthy 5–15-year-old children and is often triggered by eating or cold temperatures and accompanied by cognitive impairment. Its incidence has increased in Uganda and South Sudan over the past 10 years. Four case–control studies identified modest and inconsistent associations. There were nonspecific lesions seen by magnetic resonance imaging, no cerebrospinal fluid inflammation, and markedly abnormal electroencephalography results. Nodding episodes are atonic seizures. Testing has failed to demonstrate associations with trypanosomiasis, cysticercosis, loiasis, lymphatic filariasis, cerebral malaria, measles, prion disease, or novel pathogens; or deficiencies of folate, cobalamin, pyridoxine, retinol, or zinc; or toxicity from mercury, copper, or homocysteine. There is a consistent enigmatic association with onchocerciasis detected by skin snip or serologic analysis. Nodding syndrome is an unexplained epidemic epilepsy.
SummaryBackgroundThe morbidity and socioeconomic effects of onchocerciasis, a parasitic disease that is primarily endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, have motivated large morbidity and transmission control programmes. Annual community-directed ivermectin treatment has substantially reduced prevalence. Elimination requires intensified efforts, including more efficacious treatments. We compared parasitological efficacy and safety of moxidectin and ivermectin.MethodsThis double-blind, parallel group, superiority trial was done in four sites in Ghana, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We enrolled participants (aged ≥12 years) with at least 10 Onchocerca volvulus microfilariae per mg skin who were not co-infected with Loa loa or lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemic. Participants were randomly allocated, stratified by sex and level of infection, to receive a single oral dose of 8 mg moxidectin or 150 μg/kg ivermectin as overencapsulated oral tablets. The primary efficacy outcome was skin microfilariae density 12 months post treatment. We used a mixed-effects model to test the hypothesis that the primary efficacy outcome in the moxidectin group was 50% or less than that in the ivermectin group. The primary efficacy analysis population were all participants who received the study drug and completed 12-month follow-up (modified intention to treat). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00790998.FindingsBetween April 22, 2009, and Jan 23, 2011, we enrolled and allocated 998 participants to moxidectin and 501 participants to ivermectin. 978 received moxidectin and 494 ivermectin, of which 947 and 480 were included in primary efficacy outcome analyses. At 12 months, skin microfilarial density (microfilariae per mg of skin) was lower in the moxidectin group (adjusted geometric mean 0·6 [95% CI 0·3–1·0]) than in the ivermectin group (4·5 [3·5–5·9]; difference 3·9 [3·2–4·9], p<0·0001; treatment difference 86%). Mazzotti (ie, efficacy-related) reactions occurred in 967 (99%) of 978 moxidectin-treated participants and in 478 (97%) of 494 ivermectin-treated participants, including ocular reactions (moxidectin 113 [12%] participants and ivermectin 47 [10%] participants), laboratory reactions (788 [81%] and 415 [84%]), and clinical reactions (944 [97%] and 446 [90%]). No serious adverse events were considered to be related to treatment.InterpretationSkin microfilarial loads (ie, parasite transmission reservoir) are lower after moxidectin treatment than after ivermectin treatment. Moxidectin would therefore be expected to reduce parasite transmission between treatment rounds more than ivermectin could, thus accelerating progress towards elimination.FundingUNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases.
Sixty-four samples from six grade 4 astrocytomas were investigated ex vivo by 1H MRS at 360 MHz and subsequently by histopathology to obtain percentages of viable and necrotic tumour and grey and white matter. MR-visible lipids were detected in 87% of tumour samples. Necrotic foci were < 3 x 3 x 6 mm3. The means of the intensities/unit weight tissue of the lipid resonances at 5.33, 2.80, 1.29 and 0.89 ppm were significantly higher (p < 0.05) for three sets of comparisons: samples with 85-100% vs 50-75%; with 50-75% vs 10-40% and with 10-40% vs 0-5% necrosis. For the lipid resonance at 2.04 ppm the difference in the means was significant only for samples with 50-75% compared to those with 85-100% necrosis, because for samples with < 50% necrosis resonances from glutamine and possibly small amounts of glutamate, gamma-aminobutyrate and N-acetylaspartate anions contribute significantly to the spectral area at 2.0 ppm. We conclude that necrotic foci below MRI resolution yield the resonances at 1.3 and 0.9 ppm, and contribute to the intense resonance at 2.0 ppm observed in in vivo 1H spectra of some high grade astrocytomas.
BackgroundControl of onchocerciasis as a public health problem in Africa relies on annual mass ivermectin distribution. New tools are needed to achieve elimination of infection. This study determined in a small number of Onchocerca volvulus infected individuals whether moxidectin, a veterinary anthelminthic, is safe enough to administer it in a future large study to further characterize moxidectin's safety and efficacy. Effects on the parasite were also assessed.Methodology/Principal FindingsMen and women from a forest area in South-eastern Ghana without ivermectin mass distribution received a single oral dose of 2 mg (N = 44), 4 mg (N = 45) or 8 mg (N = 38) moxidectin or 150 µg/kg ivermectin (N = 45) with 18 months follow up. All ivermectin and 97%–100% of moxidectin treated participants had Mazzotti reactions. Statistically significantly higher percentages of participants treated with 8 mg moxidectin than participants treated with ivermectin experienced pruritus (87% vs. 56%), rash (63% vs. 42%), increased pulse rate (61% vs. 36%) and decreased mean arterial pressure upon 2 minutes standing still after ≥5 minutes supine relative to pre-treatment (61% vs. 27%). These reactions resolved without treatment. In the 8 mg moxidectin and ivermectin arms, the mean±SD number of microfilariae/mg skin were 22.9±21.1 and 21.2±16.4 pre-treatment and 0.0±0.0 and 1.1±4.2 at nadir reached 1 and 3 months after treatment, respectively. At 6 months, values were 0.0±0.0 and 1.6±4.5, at 12 months 0.4±0.9 and 3.4±4.4 and at 18 months 1.8±3.3 and 4.0±4.8, respectively, in the 8 mg moxidectin and ivermectin arm. The reduction from pre-treatment values was significantly higher after 8 mg moxidectin than after ivermectin treatment throughout follow up (p<0.01).Conclusions/SignificanceThe 8 mg dose of moxidectin was safe enough to initiate the large study. Provided its results confirm those from this study, availability of moxidectin to control programmes could help them achieve onchocerciasis elimination objectives.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrails.gov NCT00300768
BackgroundBetween 2013 and 2016, West Africa experienced the largest ever outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease. In the absence of registered treatments or vaccines to control this lethal disease, the World Health Organization coordinated and supported research to expedite identification of interventions that could control the outbreak and improve future control efforts. Consequently, the World Health Organization Research Ethics Review Committee (WHO-ERC) was heavily involved in reviews and ethics discussions. It reviewed 24 new and 22 amended protocols for research studies including interventional (drug, vaccine) and observational studies.WHO-ERC reviewsWHO-ERC provided the reviews within on average 6 working days. The WHO-ERC often could not provide immediate approval of protocols for reasons which were not Ebola Virus Disease specific but related to protocol inconsistencies, missing information and complex informed consents. WHO-ERC considerations on Ebola Virus Disease specific issues (benefit-risk assessment, study design, exclusion of pregnant women and children from interventional studies, data and sample sharing, collaborative partnerships including international and local researchers and communities, community engagement and participant information) are presented.ConclusionsTo accelerate study approval in future public health emergencies, we recommend: (1) internally consistent and complete submissions with information documents in language participants are likely to understand, (2) close collaboration between local and international researchers from research inception, (3) generation of template agreements for data and sample sharing and use during the ongoing global consultations on bio-banks, (4) formation of Joint Scientific Advisory and Data Safety Review Committees for all studies linked to a particular intervention or group of interventions, (5) formation of a Joint Ethics Review Committee with representatives of the Ethics Committees of all institutions and countries involved to strengthen reviews through the different perspectives provided without the ‘opportunity costs’ for time to final approval of multiple, independent reviews, (6) direct information exchange between the chairs of advisory, safety review and ethics committees, (7) more Ethics Committee support for investigators than is standard and (8) a global consultation on criteria for inclusion of pregnant women and children in interventional studies for conditions which put them at particularly high risk of mortality or other irreversible adverse outcomes under standard-of-care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.