儿童肠道土源性蠕虫驱虫药物:对营养指标、血红蛋白及学习成绩的影响
Deworming drugs for soil-transmitted intestinal worms in children: effects on nutritional indicators, haemoglobin and school performance.
作者信息
Taylor-Robinson David C, Maayan Nicola, Soares-Weiser Karla, Donegan Sarah, Garner Paul
机构信息
International Health Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
出版信息
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:CD000371. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000371.pub5.
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends treating all school children at regular intervals with deworming drugs in areas where helminth infection is common. The WHO state this will improve nutritional status, haemoglobin, and cognition and thus will improve health, intellect, and school attendance. Consequently, it is claimed that school performance will improve, child mortality will decline, and economic productivity will increase. Given the important health and societal benefits attributed to this intervention, we sought to determine whether they are based on reliable evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the effects of giving deworming drugs to children to treat soil-transmitted intestinal worms (nematode geohelminths) on weight, haemoglobin, and cognition; and the evidence of impact on physical well being, school attendance, school performance, and mortality.
SEARCH METHODS
In February 2012, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, mRCT, and reference lists, and registers of ongoing and completed trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing deworming drugs for geohelminth worms with placebo or no treatment in children aged 16 years or less, reporting on weight, haemoglobin, and formal test of intellectual development. In cluster-RCTs treating communities or schools, we also sought data on school attendance, school performance, and mortality. We included trials that included health education with deworming.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two authors independently assessed the trials, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data. Continuous data were analysed using the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where data were missing, we contacted trial authors. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality, and this is reflected in the wording we used: high quality ("deworming improves...."); moderate quality ("deworming probably improves..."); low quality ("deworming may improve...."); and very low quality ("we don't know if deworming improves....").
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 42 trials, including eight cluster trials, that met the inclusion criteria. Excluding one trial where data are awaited, the 41 trials include 65,168 participants.Screening then treatingFor children known to be infected with worms (by screening), a single dose of deworming drugs may increase weight (0.58 kg, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76, three trials, 139 participants; low quality evidence) and may increase haemoglobin (0.37 g/dL, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.64, two trials, 108 participants; low quality evidence), but we do not know if there is an effect on cognitive functioning (two trials, very low quality evidence).Single dose deworming for all childrenIn trials treating all children, a single dose of deworming drugs gave mixed effects on weight, with no effects evident in seven trials, but large effects in two (nine trials, 3058 participants, very low quality evidence). The two trials with a positive effect were from the same very high prevalence setting and may not be easily generalised elsewhere. Single dose deworming probably made little or no effect on haemoglobin (mean difference (MD) 0.06 g/dL, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.17, three trials, 1005 participants; moderate evidence), and may have little or no effect on cognition (two trials, low quality evidence).Mulitple dose deworming for all childrenOver the first year of follow up, multiple doses of deworming drugs given to all children may have little or no effect on weight (MD 0.06 kg, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.30; seven trials, 2460 participants; low quality evidence); haemoglobin, (mean 0.01 g/dL lower; 95% CI 0.14 lower to 0.13 higher; four trials, 807 participants; low quality evidence); cognition (three trials, 30,571 participants, low quality evidence); or school attendance (4% higher attendance; 95% CI -6 to 14; two trials, 30,243 participants; low quality evidence);For time periods beyond a year, there were five trials with weight measures. One cluster-RCT of 3712 children in a low prevalence area showed a large effect (average gain of 0.98 kg), whilst the other four trials did not show an effect, including a cluster-RCT of 27,995 children in a moderate prevalence area (five trials, 37,306 participants; low quality evidence). For height, we are uncertain whether there is an effect of deworming (-0.26 cm; 95% CI -0.84 to 0.31, three trials, 6652 participants; very low quality evidence). Deworming may have little or no effect on haemoglobin (0.00 g/dL, 95%CI -0.08 to 0.08, two trials, 1365 participants, low quality evidence); cognition (two trials, 3720 participants; moderate quality evidence). For school attendance, we are uncertain if there is an effect (mean attendance 5% higher, 95% CI -0.5 to 10.5, approximately 20,000 participants, very low quality evidence).Stratified analysis to seek subgroup effects into low, medium and high helminth endemicity areas did not demonstrate any pattern of effect. In a sensitivity analysis that only included trials with adequate allocation concealment, we detected no significant effects for any primary outcomes.One million children were randomized in a deworming trial from India with mortality as the primary outcome. This was completed in 2005 but the authors have not published the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Screening children for intestinal helminths and then treating infected children appears promising, but the evidence base is small. Routine deworming drugs given to school children has been more extensively investigated, and has not shown benefit on weight in most studies, except for substantial weight changes in three trials conducted 15 years ago or more. Two of these trials were carried out in the same high prevalence setting. For haemoglobin and cognition, community deworming seems to have little or no effect, and the evidence in relation to school attendance, and school performance is generally poor, with no obvious or consistent effect. Our interpretation of this data is that it is probably misleading to justify contemporary deworming programmes based on evidence of consistent benefit on nutrition, haemoglobin, school attendance or school performance as there is simply insufficient reliable information to know whether this is so.
背景
世界卫生组织(WHO)建议,在蠕虫感染常见的地区,定期对所有学童使用驱虫药物进行治疗。WHO表示,这将改善营养状况、血红蛋白水平和认知能力,从而增进健康、提高智力并增加入学率。因此,据称这将提高学习成绩、降低儿童死亡率并提高经济生产力。鉴于这一干预措施具有重要的健康和社会效益,我们试图确定这些效益是否有可靠的证据支持。
目的
总结给儿童服用驱虫药物治疗土源性肠道蠕虫(线虫类土源性蠕虫)对体重、血红蛋白和认知的影响;以及对身体健康、入学率、学习成绩和死亡率影响的证据。
检索方法
2012年2月,我们检索了Cochrane传染病专业组注册库、MEDLINE、EMBASE、LILACS、mRCT以及参考文献列表,以及正在进行和已完成试验的注册库。
选择标准
我们选择了随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机对照试验,比较16岁及以下儿童使用驱虫药物治疗土源性蠕虫与使用安慰剂或不治疗的效果,报告体重、血红蛋白以及智力发育的正式测试结果。在对社区或学校进行治疗的整群随机对照试验中,我们还收集了入学率、学习成绩和死亡率的数据。我们纳入了包括健康教育和驱虫的试验。
数据收集与分析
至少两名作者独立评估试验、评估偏倚风险并提取数据。连续数据采用均数差(MD)及95%置信区间(CI)进行分析。数据缺失时,我们与试验作者联系。我们使用GRADE评估证据质量,这反映在我们使用的措辞中:高质量(“驱虫可改善……”);中等质量(“驱虫可能改善……”);低质量(“驱虫可能改善……”);极低质量(“我们不知道驱虫是否能改善……”)。
主要结果
我们确定了42项试验,包括8项整群试验,符合纳入标准。排除一项等待数据的试验后,41项试验包括65168名参与者。
筛查后治疗
对于已知感染蠕虫的儿童(通过筛查),单剂量驱虫药物可能增加体重(0.58kg,95%CI 0.40至0.76,3项试验,139名参与者;低质量证据),可能增加血红蛋白(0.37g/dL,95%CI 0.1至0.64,2项试验,108名参与者;低质量证据),但我们不知道对认知功能是否有影响(2项试验,极低质量证据)。
对所有儿童进行单剂量驱虫
在对所有儿童进行治疗的试验中,单剂量驱虫药物对体重的影响不一,7项试验中无明显影响,但2项试验中有较大影响(9项试验,3058名参与者,极低质量证据)。产生积极效果的2项试验来自同一高流行地区,可能不易推广到其他地方。单剂量驱虫可能对血红蛋白影响很小或无影响(均数差(MD)0.06g/dL,95%CI -0.06至0.17,3项试验,1005名参与者;中等质量证据),可能对认知影响很小或无影响(2项试验,低质量证据)。
对所有儿童进行多剂量驱虫
在随访的第一年,对所有儿童给予多剂量驱虫药物可能对体重影响很小或无影响(MD 0.06kg,95%CI -0.17至0.30;7项试验,2460名参与者;低质量证据);对血红蛋白(平均低0.01g/dL;95%CI低0.14至高0.13;4项试验,807名参与者;低质量证据);对认知(3项试验,30571名参与者,低质量证据);或对入学率(出勤率高4%;95%CI -6至14;2项试验,30243名参与者;低质量证据);
对于一年以上的时间段,有5项试验进行了体重测量。一项在低流行地区对3712名儿童进行的整群随机对照试验显示有较大影响(平均增加0.98kg),而其他4项试验未显示有影响,包括一项在中等流行地区对27995名儿童进行的整群随机对照试验(5项试验,37306名参与者;低质量证据)。对于身高方面,我们不确定驱虫是否有影响(-0.26cm;95%CI -0.84至0.31,3项试验,6652名参与者;极低质量证据)。驱虫可能对血红蛋白影响很小或无影响(0.00g/dL,95%CI -0.08至0.08,2项试验,1365名参与者,低质量证据);对认知(2项试验,3720名参与者;中等质量证据)。对于入学率,我们不确定是否有影响(平均出勤率高约5%,95%CI -0.5至10.5,约20000名参与者,极低质量证据)。
按蠕虫低、中、高流行地区进行亚组效应分层分析未显示出任何效应模式。在仅纳入具有充分分配隐藏的试验的敏感性分析中,我们未检测到任何主要结局有显著效应。
在印度进行的一项以死亡率为主要结局的驱虫试验中,100万儿童被随机分组。该试验于2005年完成,但作者尚未发表结果。
作者结论
对儿童进行肠道蠕虫筛查然后治疗感染儿童似乎有前景,但证据基础较小。对学童常规使用驱虫药物已进行了更广泛的研究,除15年前或更早进行的3项试验中有显著体重变化外,大多数研究未显示对体重有益。其中2项试验在同一高流行地区进行。对于血红蛋白和认知,社区驱虫似乎影响很小或无影响,与入学率和学习成绩相关的证据总体较差,无明显或一致的效应。我们对这些数据的解读是,基于营养、血红蛋白、入学率或学习成绩持续受益的证据来证明当代驱虫计划的合理性可能具有误导性,因为根本没有足够的可靠信息来确定是否如此。