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.
BackgroundCommunity Directed Treatment with ivermectin is the cornerstone of current efforts to eliminate onchocerciasis. However recent studies suggest there are foci where long-term annual distribution of the drug alone has failed to ensure elimination thresholds are reached. It is important to achieve high levels of compliance in order to obtain elimination targets. An epidemiological and entomological evaluation conducted in the western region of Cameroon in 2011 revealed that two health districts remained with a high prevalence of infection, despite long-term distribution of ivermectin since 1996. This paper explores potential factors that may have contributed to the non-interruption of transmission, focusing on ivermectin treatment compliance and the importance of systematic non-compliance within the population.Methodology/Principal findingsA mixed methods approach was used, including a population-based survey to assess treatment compliance and factors associated and qualitative assessments including focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with key programme stakeholders and drug distributors. Compliance was reported at 71.2% (95%CI: 61.7–79.2%;n = 853/1198). The key factors related to compliance in the most recent round related to either programmatic and delivery issues, primarily absenteeism at the time of the campaign or alternatively individual determinants. An individual’s experience of side effects in the past was strongly associated with non-compliance to ivermectin. Other factors included ethnicity, how long lived in the village and age. There was a high percentage of reported systematic non-compliance at 7.4% (95% CI: 4.3–12.3%; n = 86/1165), higher amongst females. This group may be important in facilitating the sustainment of on-going transmission.Conclusions/SignificanceEfforts to reduce the number of systematic non-compliers and non-compliance in certain groups may be important in ensuring the interruption of transmission in the study area. However, in areas with high pre-control force of transmission, as in these districts, annual distribution with ivermectin, even if sustaining high levels of compliance, may still be inadequate to achieve elimination. Further studies are required to better understand the transmission dynamics and focus of on-going transmission in the study districts.
Implementation of mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis (LF) has been delayed in central Africa because of incomplete mapping and coendemic loiasis. We mapped two regions in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo that were suspected to have LF. Night blood samples were collected from 2,724 subjects in 30 villages. Filarial antigenemia rates by card test exceeded 1% in 28 villages (range = 0–14%). Prevalence rates for large sheathed microfilariae (Mf) ranged from 4% to 40%; Mansonella perstans rates ranged from 22% to 98%. Large Mf were exclusively Loa loa by microscopy, and only 1 of 337 samples tested by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was positive for Wuchereria bancrofti DNA. Filarial antigen positivity was strongly associated with high L. loa Mf counts. Periodicity studies revealed atypical patterns, with no significant diurnal periodicity in some individuals. Thus, methods routinely used for LF mapping may not be reliable in areas in central Africa that are highly endemic for loiasis.
Onchocerciasis is a parasitic infection caused by the filarial nematode Onchocerca volvulus and transmitted through the bites of black flies of the genus Similium that breed in rivers and streams. The impact of mass treatment with ivermectin and supplemented by vector control in some countries has changed the global scene of onchocerciasis. There has been reported progress made in elimination of onchocerciasis in central and southern American countries and in some localities in Africa. The target for elimination in the Americas has been set at 2022 while for 12 countries in Africa this is expected in 2030. This review was conducted to examine the current status of onchocerciasis elimination at the global level and report on progress made. Literature searches were made through PubMed, articles in English or English abstracts, reports and any other relevant articles related to the subject. The global burden of onchocerciasis is progressively reducing and is no longer a public health problem in some regions. However, programs are challenged with a range of issues: cross-border transmission, diagnostic tools, Loa loa co-endemicity, limited workforce in entomology and maintaining enthusiasm among community drug distributors. More concerted effort using appropriate tools is required to overcome the challenges.
Abstractobjective To evaluate onchocerciasis control activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in the first 12 years of community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI).methods Data from the National Programme for Onchocerciasis (NPO) provided by the National Onchocerciasis Task Force (NOTF) through the annual reports of the 21 CDTI projects for the years 2001-2012 were reviewed retrospectively. A hypothetical-inputs-process-outputs-outcomes table was constructed.
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.