Macfarlane Cara L, Budhathoki Shyam S, Johnson Samuel, Richardson Marty, Garner Paul
Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, UK, L3 5QA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 8;1(1):CD003753. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003753.pub4.
The Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis recommends mass treatment of albendazole co-administered with the microfilaricidal (antifilarial) drugs diethylcarbamazine (DEC) or ivermectin; and recommends albendazole alone in areas where loiasis is endemic.
To assess the effects of albendazole alone, and the effects of adding albendazole to DEC or ivermectin, in people and communities with lymphatic filariasis.
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), LILACS (BIREME), and reference lists of included trials. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing trials. We performed all searches up to 15 January 2018.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared albendazole to placebo or no placebo, or compared albendazole combined with a microfilaricidal drug to a microfilaricidal drug alone, given to people known to have lymphatic filariasis or communities where lymphatic filariasis was known to be endemic. We sought data on measures of transmission potential (microfilariae (mf) prevalence and density); markers of adult worm infection (antigenaemia prevalence and density, and adult worm prevalence detected by ultrasound); and data on clinical disease and adverse events.
At least two review authors independently assessed the trials, evaluated the risks of bias, and extracted data. The main analysis examined albendazole overall, whether given alone or added to a microfilaricidal drug. We used data collected from all randomized individuals at time of longest follow-up (up to 12 months) for meta-analysis of outcomes. We evaluated mf density data up to six months and at 12 months follow-up to ensure that we did not miss any subtle temporal effects. We conducted additional analyses for different follow-up periods and whether trials reported on individuals known to be infected or both infected and uninfected. We analysed dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We could not meta-analyse data on parasite density outcomes and we summarized them in tables. Where data were missing, we contacted trial authors. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
We included 13 trials (12 individually-randomized and one small cluster-randomized trial) with 8713 participants in total. No trials evaluated population-level effects of albendazole in mass drug administration programmes. Seven trials enrolled people with a variety of inclusion criteria related to filarial infection, and six trials enrolled individuals from endemic areas. Outcomes were reported as end or change values. Mf and antigen density data were reported using the geometric mean, log mean and arithmetic mean, and reductions in density were variously calculated. Two trials discounted any increases in mf density in individuals at follow-up by setting any density increase to zero.For mf prevalence over two weeks to 12 months, albendazole alone or added to another microfilaricidal drug makes little or no difference (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 5027 participants, 12 trials, high-certainty evidence). For mf density there is no trend, with some trials reporting a greater reduction in mf density with albendazole and others a greater reduction with the control group. For mf density up to six months and at 12 months, we do not know if albendazole has an effect (one to six months: 1216 participants, 10 trials, very low-certainty evidence; at 12 months: 1052 participants, 9 trials, very low-certainty evidence).For antigenaemia prevalence between six to 12 months, albendazole alone or added to another microfilaricidal drug makes little or no difference (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.12; 3774 participants, 7 trials, high-certainty evidence). For antigen density over six to 12 months, the trend shows little or no effect of albendazole; but we do not know if albendazole has an effect on antigen density (1374 participants, 5 trials, very low-certainty evidence). For adult worm prevalence detected by ultrasound at 12 months, albendazole added to a microfilaricidal drug may make little or no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.86; 165 participants, 3 trials, low-certainty evidence).For people reporting adverse events, albendazole makes little or no difference (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.13; 2894 participants, 6 trials, high-certainty evidence).We also provide meta-analyses and GRADE tables by drug, as operationally this may be of interest: for albendazole versus placebo (4 trials, 1870 participants); for albendazole with DEC compared to DEC alone (8 trials, 3405 participants); and albendazole with ivermectin compared to ivermectin alone (4 trials, 3438 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence that albendazole makes little difference to clearing microfilaraemia or adult filarial worms in the 12 months post-treatment. This finding is consistent in trials evaluating albendazole alone, or added to DEC or ivermectin. Trials reporting mf density included small numbers of participants, calculated density data variously, and gave inconsistent results.The review raises questions over whether albendazole has any important contribution to the elimination of lymphatic filariasis. To inform policy for areas with loiasis where only albendazole can be used, it may be worth conducting placebo-controlled trials of albendazole alone.
全球消除淋巴丝虫病规划建议采用阿苯达唑与杀微丝蚴(抗丝虫)药物乙胺嗪(DEC)或伊维菌素联合进行群体治疗;并建议在罗阿丝虫病流行地区单独使用阿苯达唑。
评估单独使用阿苯达唑,以及在使用DEC或伊维菌素时加用阿苯达唑,对淋巴丝虫病患者及社区的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane传染病组专业注册库、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、MEDLINE(PubMed)、Embase(OVID)、LILACS(BIREME)以及纳入试验的参考文献列表。我们还检索了世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台和ClinicalTrials.gov以识别正在进行的试验。所有检索截至2018年1月15日。
我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)和整群RCT,这些试验比较了阿苯达唑与安慰剂或无安慰剂,或比较了阿苯达唑联合杀微丝蚴药物与单独使用杀微丝蚴药物,给药对象为已知患有淋巴丝虫病的人群或已知淋巴丝虫病流行的社区。我们收集了关于传播潜能指标(微丝蚴(mf)患病率和密度)、成虫感染标志物(抗原血症患病率和密度,以及超声检测到的成虫患病率)的数据,以及关于临床疾病和不良事件的数据。
至少两名综述作者独立评估试验、评估偏倚风险并提取数据。主要分析总体考察阿苯达唑,无论其单独使用还是加用杀微丝蚴药物。我们使用在最长随访时间(长达12个月)时从所有随机分组个体收集的数据进行结局的Meta分析。我们评估了随访6个月及12个月时的mf密度数据,以确保我们没有遗漏任何细微的时间效应。我们针对不同的随访期以及试验是否报告了已知感染个体或感染与未感染个体的数据进行了额外分析。我们使用风险比(RR)及95%置信区间(CI)分析二分数据。我们无法对寄生虫密度结局的数据进行Meta分析,而是将其汇总在表格中。数据缺失时,我们联系了试验作者。我们使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。
我们纳入了13项试验(12项个体随机试验和1项小型整群随机试验),共8713名参与者。没有试验评估阿苯达唑在群体给药计划中的人群水平效应。7项试验纳入了具有各种丝虫感染相关纳入标准的人群,6项试验纳入了来自流行地区的个体。结局报告为终点值或变化值。mf和抗原密度数据报告采用几何均数、对数均数和算术均数,密度降低的计算方法各不相同。两项试验通过将任何密度增加设为零来排除随访个体中mf密度的任何增加。对于两周至12个月的mf患病率,单独使用阿苯达唑或加用另一种杀微丝蚴药物几乎没有差异(RR 0.95,95%CI 0.85至1.07;5027名参与者,12项试验,高确定性证据)。对于mf密度,没有趋势,一些试验报告阿苯达唑使mf密度降低更多,而另一些试验则报告对照组降低更多。对于6个月及12个月时的mf密度,我们不知道阿苯达唑是否有效果(6个月时:1216名参与者,10项试验,极低确定性证据;12个月时:1052名参与者,9项试验,极低确定性证据)。对于6至12个月的抗原血症患病率,单独使用阿苯达唑或加用另一种杀微丝蚴药物几乎没有差异(RR 1.04,95%CI 0.97至1.12;3774名参与者,7项试验,高确定性证据)。对于6至12个月的抗原密度,趋势显示阿苯达唑几乎没有影响;但我们不知道阿苯达唑对抗原密度是否有影响(1374名参与者,5项试验,极低确定性证据)。对于12个月时超声检测到的成虫患病率,加用阿苯达唑的杀微丝蚴药物可能几乎没有差异(RR 1.16,95%CI 0.72至1.86;165名参与者,3项试验,低确定性证据)。对于报告不良事件的人群,阿苯达唑几乎没有差异(RR 0.97,95%CI 0.84至1.13;2894名参与者,6项试验,高确定性证据)。我们还按药物提供了Meta分析和GRADE表格,因为在实际操作中这可能会引起关注:阿苯达唑与安慰剂比较(4项试验,1870名参与者);阿苯达唑与DEC联合与单独使用DEC比较(8项试验,3405名参与者);阿苯达唑与伊维菌素联合与单独使用伊维菌素比较(4项试验,3438名参与者)。
有充分证据表明,阿苯达唑在治疗后12个月清除微丝蚴血症或成虫方面几乎没有差异。这一发现在评估单独使用阿苯达唑或加用DEC或伊维菌素的试验中是一致的。报告mf密度的试验纳入的参与者数量较少,密度数据计算方法各异,结果不一致。该综述引发了关于阿苯达唑对消除淋巴丝虫病是否有任何重要贡献的疑问。为了为仅可使用阿苯达唑的罗阿丝虫病流行地区制定政策提供参考,可能值得开展单独使用阿苯达唑的安慰剂对照试验。