-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin. It occurs worldwide, but is particularly problematic in areas of poor sanitation, overcrowding, and social... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin. It occurs worldwide, but is particularly problematic in areas of poor sanitation, overcrowding, and social disruption. In recent years, permethrin and ivermectin have become the most relevant treatment options for scabies.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical permethrin and topical or systemic ivermectin for scabies in people of all ages.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 25 April 2017: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and IndMED. We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the ISRCTN registry, CenterWatch Clinical Trials Listing, ClinicalTrials.gov, TrialsCentral, and the UK Department of Health National Research Register for ongoing trials. We also searched multiple sources for grey literature and checked reference lists of included studies for additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared permethrin or ivermectin against each other for people with scabies of all ages and either sex.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the identified records, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included trials.The primary outcome was complete clearance of scabies. Secondary outcomes were number of participants re-treated, number of participants with at least one adverse event, and number of participants withdrawn from study due to an adverse event.We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). If it was not possible to calculate the point estimate, we described the data qualitatively. Where appropriate, we calculated combined effect estimates using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity. We calculated numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome when we found a difference.We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the control rate average to provide illustrative clearance rates in the comparison groups.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen studies (1896 participants) comparing topical permethrin, systemic ivermectin, or topical ivermectin met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias in the included trials was moderate: reporting in many studies was poor. Nearly all studies were conducted in South Asia or North Africa, where the disease is more common, and is associated with poverty.EfficacyOral ivermectin (at a standard dose of 200 μg/kg) may lead to slightly lower rates of complete clearance after one week compared to permethrin 5% cream. Using the average clearance rate of 65% in the trials with permethrin, the illustrative clearance with ivermectin is 43% (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.78; 613 participants, 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). However, by week two there may be little or no difference (illustrative clearance of permethrin 74% compared to ivermectin 68%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08; 459 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). Treatments with one to three doses of ivermectin or one to three applications of permethrin may lead to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance after four weeks' follow-up (illustrative cures with 1 to 3 applications of permethrin 93% and with 1 to 3 doses of ivermectin 86%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 581 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence).After one week of treatment with oral ivermectin at a standard dose of 200 μg/kg or one application of permethrin 5% lotion, there is probably little or no difference in complete clearance rates (illustrative cure rates: permethrin 73%, ivermectin 68%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; 120 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After two weeks of treatment, one dose of systemic ivermectin compared to one application of permethrin lotion may lead to similar complete clearance rates (extrapolated cure rates: 67% in both groups; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.29; 120 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence).There is probably little or no difference in rates of complete clearance between systemic ivermectin at standard dose and topical ivermectin 1% lotion four weeks after initiation of treatment (illustrative cure rates: oral ivermectin 97%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 272 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Likewise, after four weeks, ivermectin lotion probably leads to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance when compared to permethrin cream (extrapolated cure rates: permethrin cream 94%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 210 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and there is little or no difference among systemic ivermectin in different doses (extrapolated cure rates: 2 doses 90%, 1 dose 87%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 80 participants, 1 study; high-certainty evidence).SafetyReporting of adverse events in the included studies was suboptimal. No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred in either the systemic ivermectin or the permethrin group (moderate-certainty evidence). Two weeks after treatment initiation, there is probably little or no difference in the proportion of participants treated with systemic ivermectin or permethrin cream who experienced at least one adverse event (55 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After four weeks, ivermectin may lead to a slightly larger proportion of participants with at least one adverse event (extrapolated rates: permethrin 4%, ivermectin 5%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.83; 502 participants, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).Adverse events in participants treated with topical ivermectin were rare and of mild intensity and comparable to those with systemic ivermectin. For this comparison, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred (62 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether topical ivermectin or permethrin differ in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). We found no studies comparing systemic ivermectin in different doses that assessed safety outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that for the most part, there was no difference detected in the efficacy of permethrin compared to systemic or topical ivermectin. Overall, few and mild adverse events were reported. Our confidence in the effect estimates was mostly low to moderate. Poor reporting is a major limitation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Antiparasitic Agents; Humans; Ivermectin; Permethrin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scabies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29608022
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012994 -
The Ocular Surface Oct 2019We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment for Demodex blepharitis. Parameters studied were mites count,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment for Demodex blepharitis. Parameters studied were mites count, improvement of symptoms and mites' eradication, stratified on type of treatments and mode of delivery of treatments (local or systemic).
METHOD
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google scholar and Science Direct databases were searched for studies reporting an efficacy of treatments for Demodex blepharitis.
RESULTS
We included 19 studies (14 observational and 5 randomized clinical trials), for a total of 934 patients, 1741 eyes, and 13 different treatments. For mites count, eradication rate, and symptoms improvement, meta-analysis included fifteen, fourteen and thirteen studies, respectively. The overall effect sizes for efficiency of all treatments, globally, were 1.68 (95CI 1.25 to 2.12), 0.45 (0.26-0.64), and 0.76 (0.59-0.90), respectively. Except usual lid hygiene for mites count, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario ointment (CHEO) for both eradication rate and symptoms, and CHEO, 2% metronidazole ointment, and systemic metronidazole for eradication rate, all treatments were efficient. Stratified meta-analysis did not show significant differences between local and systemic treatments (1.22, 0.83 to 1.60 vs 2.24, 1.30 to 3.18 for mites count; 0.37, 0.21 to 0.54 vs 0.56, 0.06 to 0.99 for eradication rate; and 0.77, 0.58 to 0.92 vs 0.67, 0.25 to 0.98 for symptoms improvement).
CONCLUSION
We reported the efficiency of the different treatments of Demodex blepharitis. Because of less systemic side effects, local treatments seem promising molecules in the treatment of Demodex blepharitis.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antiparasitic Agents; Blepharitis; Eye Infections, Parasitic; Humans; Ivermectin; Metronidazole; Miotics; Mite Infestations; Mites; Pilocarpine; Tea Tree Oil
PubMed: 31229586
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtos.2019.06.004 -
Pharmacological Research Jan 2021Ivermectin is a macrolide antiparasitic drug with a 16-membered ring that is widely used for the treatment of many parasitic diseases such as river blindness,...
Ivermectin is a macrolide antiparasitic drug with a 16-membered ring that is widely used for the treatment of many parasitic diseases such as river blindness, elephantiasis and scabies. Satoshi ōmura and William C. Campbell won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of the excellent efficacy of ivermectin against parasitic diseases. Recently, ivermectin has been reported to inhibit the proliferation of several tumor cells by regulating multiple signaling pathways. This suggests that ivermectin may be an anticancer drug with great potential. Here, we reviewed the related mechanisms by which ivermectin inhibited the development of different cancers and promoted programmed cell death and discussed the prospects for the clinical application of ivermectin as an anticancer drug for neoplasm therapy.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Antiparasitic Agents; Cell Death; Humans; Ivermectin; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Neoplasms; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 32971268
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105207 -
BioMed Research International 2022or Tongkat Ali (family: Simaroubaceae) has the potential to be utilised as an antimicrobial and antiparasitic agent that correlated with its traditional use to treat... (Review)
Review
or Tongkat Ali (family: Simaroubaceae) has the potential to be utilised as an antimicrobial and antiparasitic agent that correlated with its traditional use to treat jaundice, malaria, antiseptic agent, and many more. This review is aimed at systematically sieving through articles regarding the antimicrobial and antiparasitic activity of . A total of 123 studies have been found using suitable keywords and manually searched from previous studies through the four databases. After title screening and abstract examination, 56 articles were excluded due to duplication and not meeting the acceptance criteria. 67 articles were assessed on full-text accessibility, 31 studies remained, and this number decreased to 20 articles after a careful examination of the full-text articles. Among the 20 articles selected, 17 articles proved the potential of as an antimicrobial and antiparasitic agent efficiently. 2 selected articles showed partial positive results, which specified specific microorganisms tested. In contrast, another 1 article gave a completely negative result. As for the conclusion, current studies highlighted by this review may shed light on the future direction of studies concerning as a novel antimicrobial and antiparasitic agent. However, more research should be done in the future focusing on the efficiency of for veterinary medicine utilisation.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Antiparasitic Agents; Eurycoma; Plant Extracts; Plant Roots
PubMed: 35845951
DOI: 10.1155/2022/4999797 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2013Infection with Toxoplasma gondii is asymptomatic or mild in immunocompetent people and leads to lifelong immunity, but it can have serious consequences in pregnancy.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Infection with Toxoplasma gondii is asymptomatic or mild in immunocompetent people and leads to lifelong immunity, but it can have serious consequences in pregnancy. About five per 1000 non-immune pregnant women may acquire toxoplasma infection, with a 10% to 100% risk of transmission to the baby. Risks of transmission to the baby are higher later in pregnancy, but risks of infection causing harm to the baby are greater earlier in pregnancy.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects on mother and baby of treating toxoplasmosis during pregnancy to reduce risk of vertical transmission and treat fetal infection? What are the effects of treating toxoplasmosis in neonates infected with toxoplasmosis prenatally? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found six systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antiparasitic drugs in pregnancy, and antiparasitic drugs in neonates.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antiparasitic Agents; Antiprotozoal Agents; Communicable Diseases; Genome, Protozoan; Humans; Models, Biological; Mothers; Protein Multimerization; Pyrimethamine; Toxoplasmosis, Congenital; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 23987732
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2015Head louse infection is diagnosed by finding live lice, as eggs take 7 days to hatch (but a few may take longer, up to 13 days) and may appear viable for weeks after... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Head louse infection is diagnosed by finding live lice, as eggs take 7 days to hatch (but a few may take longer, up to 13 days) and may appear viable for weeks after death of the egg. Infestation may be more likely in school children, with risks increased in children with more siblings or of lower socioeconomic group. Factors such as longer hair make diagnosis and treatment more difficult.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of physically acting treatments for head lice? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found six studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: 1,2-octanediol, dimeticone, herbal and essential oils, and isopropyl myristate.
Topics: Animals; Antiparasitic Agents; Dimethylpolysiloxanes; Humans; Lice Infestations; Myristates; Octanols; Oils, Volatile; Pediculus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25587918
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2010Infection with Toxoplasma gondii is asymptomatic or mild in immunocompetent people and leads to lifelong immunity, but it can have serious consequences in pregnancy.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Infection with Toxoplasma gondii is asymptomatic or mild in immunocompetent people and leads to lifelong immunity, but it can have serious consequences in pregnancy. About five per 1000 non-immune pregnant women may acquire toxoplasma infection, with a 10% to 100% risk of transmission to the baby. Risks of transmission to the baby are higher later in pregnancy, but risks of infection causing harm to the baby are greater earlier in pregnancy.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects on mother and baby of treating toxoplasmosis during pregnancy? What are the effects of treating toxoplasmosis in neonates exposed to toxoplasmosis prenatally? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found seven systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antiparasitic drugs in pregnancy, and antiparasitic drugs in neonates.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antiparasitic Agents; Humans; Incidence; Pregnancy Complications, Parasitic; Toxoplasma; Toxoplasmosis; Toxoplasmosis, Congenital
PubMed: 21418689
DOI: No ID Found -
Current Medicinal Chemistry 2022In a scenario of increased pathogens with multidrug resistance phenotypes, it is necessary to seek new pharmacological options. This fact is responsible for an increase...
BACKGROUND
In a scenario of increased pathogens with multidrug resistance phenotypes, it is necessary to seek new pharmacological options. This fact is responsible for an increase in neoplasms and multiresistant parasitic diseases. In turn, snake venom- derived peptides exhibited cytotoxic action on fungal and bacterial strains, possibly presenting activities in resistant tumor cells and parasites. Therefore, the aim of this work is to verify an antitumor and antiparasitic activity of antimicrobial peptides derived from snake venom.
METHODS
For this purpose, searches were performed in the Pubmed, Embase and Virtual Health Library databases by combining the descriptors peptides, venom and snake with antitumor/ antiparasitic agent and in silico. The inclusion criteria: in vitro and in vivo experimental articles in addition to in silico studies. The exclusion criteria: articles that were out of scope, review articles, abstracts, and letters to the reader. Data extracted: peptide name, peptide sequence, semi-maximal inhibitory concentration, snake species, tumor lineage or parasitic strain, cytotoxicity, in vitro and in vivo activity.
RESULTS
In total 164 articles were found, of which 14 were used. A total of ten peptides with antiproliferative activity on tumor cells were identified. Among the articles, seven peptides addressed the antiparasitic activity.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, snake venom-derived peptides can be considered as potential pharmacological options for parasites and tumors, however more studies are needed to prove their specific activity.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents; Antimicrobial Peptides; Antineoplastic Agents; Antiparasitic Agents; Neoplasms; Peptides; Snake Venoms; Snakes
PubMed: 35524668
DOI: 10.2174/0929867329666220507011719 -
American Journal of Therapeutics Feb 2021Albendazole is an anthelmintic drug used worldwide for prophylactic or curative treatment. Side effects include diarrhea, abdominal pain, elevated levels of hepatic...
BACKGROUND
Albendazole is an anthelmintic drug used worldwide for prophylactic or curative treatment. Side effects include diarrhea, abdominal pain, elevated levels of hepatic transaminases, dizziness, neutropenia, and alopecia.
AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
The main question of the systematic review is if albendazole administration can cause liver injury or liver failure.
DATA SOURCES
Two researchers conducted the search on PubMed and the key words used were: "albendazole," "anthelmintic," "drug-induced liver injury," and "acute hepatitis." Two new case reports were included in the systematic review.
RESULTS
Literature search concluded in 10 cases listed on PubMed. Another 2 new case reports from our experience are included in the systematic review. Most common symptoms presented are jaundice, anorexia, and vomiting after the single-use of albendazole or long-term usage. All cases presented high levels of transaminases, with remission after stopping the administration of albendazole. The treatment with albendazole was mostly given for liver hydatid cysts or empirically.
CONCLUSIONS
Albendazole is a prescription-based drug used by most patients without medical advice, without knowing the risk of side effects. The anthelmintic drug may induce liver injury, even in small doses; in result, practitioners and patients should take this information in consideration.
Topics: Albendazole; Anthelmintics; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury, Chronic; Echinococcosis, Hepatic; Humans
PubMed: 33590990
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001341 -
Preventive Veterinary Medicine Dec 2020A variety of antimicrobials and antiparasitics are used to treat British cattle and sheep to ensure animal welfare, a safe food supply, and maintain farm incomes....
A variety of antimicrobials and antiparasitics are used to treat British cattle and sheep to ensure animal welfare, a safe food supply, and maintain farm incomes. However, with increasing global concern about antimicrobial resistance in human and animal populations, there is increased scrutiny of the use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals. This systematic review sought to identify and describe peer and non-peer reviewed sources, published over the last ten years, detailing the usage of, and resistance to, antimicrobials and antiparasitics in sheep and cattle farming systems in Britain as well as identify knowledge gaps. Applying the PRISMA review protocol and guidelines for including grey literature; Scopus, Web of Science, Medline, and government repositories were searched for relevant articles and reports. Seven hundred and seventy titles and abstracts and 126 full-text records were assessed, of which 40 scholarly articles and five government reports were included for data extraction. Antibiotic usage in sheep and cattle in Britain appear to be below the UK average for all livestock and tetracyclines and beta-lactam antibiotics were found to be the most commonly used. However, the poor level of coverage afforded to these species compared to other livestock reduced the certainty of these findings. Although resistance to some antibiotics (using Escherichia coli as a marker) appeared to have decreased in sheep and cattle in England and Wales over a five-year period (2013-2018), levels of resistance remain high to commonly used antibiotics. The small number and fragmented nature of studies identified by this review describing anthelmintic usage, and the lack of available national sales data, prevented the identification of trends in either sheep or cattle. We recommend that additional efforts are taken to collect farm or veterinary level data and argue that extraction of this data is imperative to the development of antimicrobial and antiparasitic resistance strategies in Britain, both of which are needed to reduce usage of these anti-infective agents, curb the development of resistance, and safeguard national agricultural production. Finally, metrics produced by this data should be generated in a way to allow for maximum comparability across species, sectors, and countries.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents; Antiparasitic Agents; Cattle; Cattle Diseases; Drug Resistance; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; England; Scotland; Sheep; Sheep Diseases; Wales
PubMed: 33189057
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105174