4.5 Article

Artemether, artesunate, praziquantel and tribendimidine administered singly at different dosages against Clonorchis sinensis:: A comparative in vivo study

Journal

ACTA TROPICA
Volume 106, Issue 1, Pages 54-59

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2008.01.003

Keywords

clonorchiasis; Clonorchis sinensis; artemether; artesunate; praziquantel; tribendimidine; in vivo study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We comparatively assessed the in vivo efficacy of artemether, artesunate, praziquantel and tribendimidine against different stages of Clonorchis sinensis. Rats were infected with 40-50 C. sinensis metacercariae, and drugs were administered singly by the oral route at different dosages. Rats were dissected 2-4 weeks post-treatment and C. sinensis trematodes were removed from the liver and bile ducts and counted. We used a negative binomial regression model to test the effect of drug and dosage in terms of worm burden reduction. Single 150 mg/kg oral doses of artesunate, artemether, tribendimidine and praziquantel, administered to rats infected with adult C. sinensis, resulted in mean worm burden reductions of 100, 100, 89.5 and 80.7%, respectively (all P < 0.001). Halving the dose to 75 mg/kg still resulted in highly significant worm burden reductions for artesunate, artemether and tribendimidine (71.4-100%), but not for praziquantel (20.7%). In the juvenile infection model, a single 150 mg/kg oral dose of tribendimidine and praziquantel resulted in mean worm burden reductions of 99.1 and 90.0%, respectively, whereas considerably lower reductions were observed for artemether (59.2%) and artesunate (57.6%) when used at the same single dose. The in vivo results presented here with the artemisinins and tribendimidine provide further data for clinical investigations to assess the safety and efficacy of these drugs in clonorchiasis patients. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available