-
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 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Mar 2018Podoconiosis is one of the few diseases that could potentially be eliminated within one generation. Nonetheless, the global distribution of the disease remains largely... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Podoconiosis is one of the few diseases that could potentially be eliminated within one generation. Nonetheless, the global distribution of the disease remains largely unknown. The global atlas of podoconiosis was conceived to define the epidemiology and distribution of podoconiosis through dedicated surveys and assembling the available epidemiological data.
METHODS
We have synthesized the published literature on the epidemiology of podoconiosis. Through systematic searches in SCOPUS and MEDLINE from inception to February 14, 2018, we identified observational and population-based studies reporting podoconiosis. To establish existence of podoconiosis, we used case reports and presence data. For a study to be included in the prevalence synthesis, it needed to be a population-based survey that involved all residents within a specific area. Studies that did not report original data were excluded. We undertook descriptive analyses of the extracted data. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018084959.
RESULTS
We identified 3,260 records, of which 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Podoconiosis was described to exist or be endemic in 32 countries, 18 from the African Region, 3 from Asia and 11 from Latin America. Overall, podoconiosis prevalence ranged from 0·10% to 8.08%, was highest in the African region, and was substantially higher in adults than in children and adolescents. The highest reported prevalence values were in Africa (8.08% in Cameroon, 7.45% in Ethiopia, 4.52% in Uganda, 3.87% in Kenya and 2.51% in Tanzania). In India, a single prevalence of 0.21% was recorded from Manipur, Mizoram and Rajasthan states. None of the Latin American countries reported prevalence data.
CONCLUSION
Our data suggest that podoconiosis is more widespread in the African Region than in the rest of the regions, although this could be related to the fact that most podoconiosis epidemiological research has been focused in the African continent. The assembled dataset confirms that comprehensive podoconiosis control strategies such as promotion of footwear and personal hygiene are urgently needed in endemic parts of Africa. Mapping, active surveillance and a systematic approach to the monitoring of disease burden must accompany the implementation of podoconiosis control activities.
Topics: Elephantiasis; Endemic Diseases; Global Health; Health Surveys; Humans
PubMed: 29494642
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006324 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Jul 2021Leprosy, podoconiosis, and lymphatic filariasis (LF) are among the priority neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) in Ethiopia. The disability, psychosocial, and mental...
Leprosy, podoconiosis, and lymphatic filariasis (LF) are among the priority neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) in Ethiopia. The disability, psychosocial, and mental health status of people affected by these NTDs are still overlooked in global NTD discourse. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the existing evidence describing the disability, psychosocial, and mental health status of people affected by leprosy, podoconiosis, and LF prior to developing a holistic physical and psychosocial care package for these individuals. We searched papers reporting on disability, psychosocial, and mental health status linked to these 3 NTDs. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD42019128400. Peer-reviewed articles were searched and extracted from Medline, PsycINFO, Global Health, and Embase. Articles published in English, irrespective of the year of publication, using a quantitative study methodology, were included. Abstracts and full texts were reviewed by 2 reviewers. Data were extracted and narratively summarized, as the studies were heterogeneous and used different outcome measures. Out of 1,318 titles/abstracts screened and 59 full text studies reviewed, 24 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies provided evidence of the disability associated with leprosy, podoconiosis, or LF. Ten studies provided evidence on the association between the 3 NTDs and mental health or psychosocial outcomes. The prevalence of grade 2 disability varied from 3.9% to 86%. The most commonly reported mental health impacts were depression and mental distress. A high burden of mental illness was reported, varying from 12.6% to 71.7%; the suicidal ideation was also high (18.5%). In conclusion, disability and poor psychosocial and mental health status are associated with leprosy, podoconiosis, and LF. For optimum management of these NTDs, holistic care including both physical and psychosocial interventions is vital.
Topics: Disabled Persons; Elephantiasis; Elephantiasis, Filarial; Humans; Leprosy; Mental Health; Neglected Diseases
PubMed: 34237079
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009492 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2021The Global Program to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) is a program that aims to eliminate lymphatic filariasis by 2030. The GPELF strategy is based on... (Review)
Review
The Global Program to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF) is a program that aims to eliminate lymphatic filariasis by 2030. The GPELF strategy is based on interrupting transmission using mass drug administration (MDA) and, in parallel, managing morbidity cases. However, it has been seen that there is a shortage of research in the literature and public policies regarding this last pillar. In this study, we reviewed the literature and available information regarding the burden of filarial morbidity. In addition, we identified that in the Americas, the implementation of structured services with regard to morbidity assistance in the Americas was scarce. We formed a review that aimed to assess the pathogenesis, epidemiology, repercussions, and treatment of filarial morbidity in countries in the Americas where lymphatic filariasis is endemic. Structured searches were carried out on PubMed, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science databases without time and language restrictions. Three reviewers evaluated the 2150 studies and performed data extraction, and quality assessment by assigning scores to the studies found. The current literature and available information on the burden of filarial morbidity, as well as the implementation of structured services with regard to morbidity assistance in the Americas, were all found to be scarce. Now that this knowledge gap has been identified, both health services and researchers need to seek the implementation and enhancement of the maintenance of GPELF strategies that relate to the morbidity pillar.
Topics: Elephantiasis, Filarial; Humans; Morbidity
PubMed: 35010576
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19010316 -
Tropical Medicine & International... Mar 2022Lymphatic filariasis is a serious public health issue. Recent studies showed that a single dosage of triple therapy (Ivermectin, Diethylcarbamazepine, and Albendazole)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Lymphatic filariasis is a serious public health issue. Recent studies showed that a single dosage of triple therapy (Ivermectin, Diethylcarbamazepine, and Albendazole) is more effective than dual therapy (Ivermectin plus Albendazole or Diethylcarbamazepine plus Albendazole) for clearing microfilaria from the blood. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy versus dual therapy in patients infected with microfilaria and communities endemic to lymphatic filariasis.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science until 24th June 2021. We included randomized control trials that compared triple with dual therapy given to patients with lymphatic filariasis or endemic communities. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021266724).
RESULTS
We included eight articles after the screening process. Triple therapy caused more clearance of microfilaria in the blood (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.15, 2.02; p = 0.003), while dual therapy caused more clearance of the circulating filariae antigen in the blood (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.88; p = 0.0003), both 12 months after drug administration. The triple therapy had a similar adverse effect compared with the dual therapy group.
CONCLUSION
Based on the greater efficacy in the clearance of microfilaria and the safety of triple therapy, it constitutes a better strategy for the eradication programs of lymphatic filariasis in endemic regions. However, further studies are needed to confirm our results.
Topics: Albendazole; Animals; Diethylcarbamazine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Elephantiasis, Filarial; Filaricides; Humans; Ivermectin; Microfilariae
PubMed: 35080325
DOI: 10.1111/tmi.13727 -
PloS One 2015Despite its largely mountainous terrain for which this Himalayan country is a popular tourist destination, Nepal is now endemic for five major vector-borne diseases... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite its largely mountainous terrain for which this Himalayan country is a popular tourist destination, Nepal is now endemic for five major vector-borne diseases (VBDs), namely malaria, lymphatic filariasis, Japanese encephalitis, visceral leishmaniasis and dengue fever. There is increasing evidence about the impacts of climate change on VBDs especially in tropical highlands and temperate regions. Our aim is to explore whether the observed spatiotemporal distributions of VBDs in Nepal can be related to climate change.
METHODOLOGY
A systematic literature search was performed and summarized information on climate change and the spatiotemporal distribution of VBDs in Nepal from the published literature until December 2014 following providing items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
We found 12 studies that analysed the trend of climatic data and are relevant for the study of VBDs, 38 studies that dealt with the spatial and temporal distribution of disease vectors and disease transmission. Among 38 studies, only eight studies assessed the association of VBDs with climatic variables. Our review highlights a pronounced warming in the mountains and an expansion of autochthonous cases of VBDs to non-endemic areas including mountain regions (i.e., at least 2,000 m above sea level). Furthermore, significant relationships between climatic variables and VBDs and their vectors are found in short-term studies.
CONCLUSION
Taking into account the weak health care systems and difficult geographic terrain of Nepal, increasing trade and movements of people, a lack of vector control interventions, observed relationships between climatic variables and VBDs and their vectors and the establishment of relevant disease vectors already at least 2,000 m above sea level, we conclude that climate change can intensify the risk of VBD epidemics in the mountain regions of Nepal if other non-climatic drivers of VBDs remain constant.
Topics: Animals; Climate Change; Dengue; Elephantiasis, Filarial; Encephalitis, Japanese; Humans; Insect Vectors; Insecta; Leishmaniasis, Visceral; Malaria; Nepal
PubMed: 26086887
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129869 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2012To assess the quantity and distribution of evidence from randomised controlled trials for the treatment of the major neglected tropical diseases and to identify gaps in... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the quantity and distribution of evidence from randomised controlled trials for the treatment of the major neglected tropical diseases and to identify gaps in the evidence with network analysis.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed from inception to 31 August 2011.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials that examined treatment of 16 neglected tropical diseases or complications thereof published in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, or Dutch.
RESULTS
We identified 971 eligible randomised trials. Leishmaniasis (184 trials, 23,039 participants) and geohelminth infections; 160 trials, 46,887 participants) were the most studied, while dracunculiasis (nine trials, 798 participants) and Buruli ulcer (five trials, 337 participants) were least studied. Relative to its global burden of disease, lymphatic filariasis had the fewest trials and participants. Only 11% of trials were industry funded. Either a single trial or trials with fewer than 100 participants comprised the randomised evidence for first or second line treatments for Buruli ulcer, human African trypanosomiasis, American trypanosomiasis, cysticercosis, rabies, echinococcosis, New World cutaneous leishmaniasis, and each of the foodborne trematode infections. Among the 10 disease categories with more than 40 trials, five lacked sufficient head to head comparisons between first or second line treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
There is considerable variation in the amount of evidence from randomised controlled trials for each of the 16 major neglected tropical diseases. Even in diseases with substantial evidence, such as leishmaniasis and geohelminth infections, some recommended treatments have limited supporting data and lack head to head comparisons.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Buruli Ulcer; Dengue; Dracunculiasis; Echinococcosis; Elephantiasis, Filarial; Helminthiasis; Humans; Leishmaniasis, Mucocutaneous; Leprosy; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Neglected Diseases; Rabies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Research Support as Topic; Schistosomiasis; Strongyloidiasis; Trachoma; Trematode Infections; Tropical Medicine; Trypanosomiasis
PubMed: 23089149
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e6512 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases May 2016Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are generally assumed to be concentrated in poor populations, but evidence on this remains scattered. We describe within-country... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are generally assumed to be concentrated in poor populations, but evidence on this remains scattered. We describe within-country socioeconomic inequalities in nine NTDs listed in the London Declaration for intensified control and/or elimination: lymphatic filariasis (LF), onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminthiasis (STH), trachoma, Chagas' disease, human African trypanosomiasis (HAT), leprosy, and visceral leishmaniasis (VL).
METHODOLOGY
We conducted a systematic literature review, including publications between 2004-2013 found in Embase, Medline (OvidSP), Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Popline, Lilacs, and Scielo. We included publications in international peer-reviewed journals on studies concerning the top 20 countries in terms of the burden of the NTD under study.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
We identified 5,516 publications, of which 93 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 59 papers reported substantial and statistically significant socioeconomic inequalities in NTD distribution, with higher odds of infection or disease among poor and less-educated people compared with better-off groups. The findings were mixed in 23 studies, and 11 studies showed no substantial or statistically significant inequality. Most information was available for STH, VL, schistosomiasis, and, to a lesser extent, for trachoma. For the other NTDs, evidence on their socioeconomic distribution was scarce. The magnitude of inequality varied, but often, the odds of infection or disease were twice as high among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups compared with better-off strata. Inequalities often took the form of a gradient, with higher odds of infection or disease each step down the socioeconomic hierarchy. Notwithstanding these inequalities, the prevalence of some NTDs was sometimes also high among better-off groups in some highly endemic areas.
CONCLUSIONS
While recent evidence on socioeconomic inequalities is scarce for most individual NTDs, for some, there is considerable evidence of substantially higher odds of infection or disease among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. NTD control activities as proposed in the London Declaration, when set up in a way that they reach the most in need, will benefit the poorest populations in poor countries.
Topics: Chagas Disease; Child; Elephantiasis, Filarial; Humans; Leishmaniasis, Visceral; Leprosy; Neglected Diseases; Schistosomiasis; Social Class; Soil; Tropical Medicine
PubMed: 27171166
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004546 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Jun 2016Lymphedema is a debilitating and disfiguring sequela of an overwhelmed lymphatic system. The most common causes of secondary lymphedema are lymphatic filariasis (LF), a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lymphedema is a debilitating and disfiguring sequela of an overwhelmed lymphatic system. The most common causes of secondary lymphedema are lymphatic filariasis (LF), a vector-borne, parasitic disease endemic in 73 tropical countries, and treatment for cancer in developed countries. Lymphedema is incurable and requires life-long care so identification of effective lymphedema management is imperative to improve quality of life, reduce the burden on family resources and benefit the local community. This review was conducted to evaluate the evidence for effective lymphedema self-care strategies that might be applicable to management of all types of secondary lymphedema.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL and Scopus databases in March 2015. Included studies reported before and after measures of lymphedema status or frequency of acute infections. The methodological quality was assessed using the appropriate Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist. Descriptive synthesis and meta-analysis were used to evaluate effectiveness of the outcomes reported. Twenty-eight papers were included; two RCTs were found to have strong methodology, and overall 57% of studies were rated as methodologically weak. Evidence from filariasis-related lymphedema (FR-LE) studies indicated that hygiene-centred self-care reduced the frequency and duration of acute episodes by 54%, and in cancer-related lymphedema (CR-LE) home-based exercise including deep breathing delivered significant volume reductions over standard self-care alone. Intensity of training in self-care practices and frequency of monitoring improved outcomes. Cultural and economic factors and access to health care services influenced the type of intervention delivered and how outcomes were measured.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE
There is evidence to support the adoption of remedial exercises in the management of FR-LE and for a greater emphasis on self-treatment practices for people with CR-LE. Empowerment of people with lymphedema to care for themselves with access to supportive professional assistance has the capacity to optimise self-management practices and improve outcomes from limited health resources.
Topics: Elephantiasis, Filarial; Humans; Lymphedema; Neoplasms; Self Care
PubMed: 27275844
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004740 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Oct 2014Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) are one of the main interventions used for malaria control. However, these nets may also be effective against other vector borne diseases... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) are one of the main interventions used for malaria control. However, these nets may also be effective against other vector borne diseases (VBDs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of ITNs, insecticide-treated curtains (ITCs) and insecticide-treated house screening (ITS) against Chagas disease, cutaneous and visceral leishmaniasis, dengue, human African trypanosomiasis, Japanese encephalitis, lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and Tropical Disease Bulletin databases were searched using intervention, vector- and disease-specific search terms. Cluster or individually randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials with pre- and post-intervention data and rotational design studies were included. Analysis assessed the efficacy of ITNs, ITCs or ITS versus no intervention. Meta-analysis of clinical data was performed and percentage reduction in vector density calculated.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were identified which met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of clinical data could only be performed for four cutaneous leishmaniasis studies which together showed a protective efficacy of ITNs of 77% (95%CI: 39%-91%). Studies of ITC and ITS against cutaneous leishmaniasis also reported significant reductions in disease incidence. Single studies reported a high protective efficacy of ITS against dengue and ITNs against Japanese encephalitis. No studies of Chagas disease, human African trypanosomiasis or onchocerciasis were identified.
CONCLUSION
There are likely to be considerable collateral benefits of ITN roll out on cutaneous leishmaniasis where this disease is co-endemic with malaria. Due to the low number of studies identified, issues with reporting of entomological outcomes, and few studies reporting clinical outcomes, it is difficult to make strong conclusions on the effect of ITNs, ITCs or ITS on other VBDs and therefore further studies be conducted. Nonetheless, it is clear that insecticide-treated materials such as ITNs have the potential to reduce pathogen transmission and morbidity from VBDs where vectors enter houses.
Topics: Animals; Arthropod Vectors; Dengue; Elephantiasis, Filarial; Encephalitis, Japanese; Humans; Immunologic Tests; Insecticide-Treated Bednets; Insecticides; Leishmaniasis; Malaria; Mosquito Control
PubMed: 25299481
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003228