4.5 Article

Serious Neurological Adverse Events after Ivermectin-Do They Occur beyond the Indication of Onchocerciasis?

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC TROP MED & HYGIENE
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.17-0042

关键词

-

资金

  1. Uppsala Monitoring Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Serious neurological adverse events have been reported from large scale community-based ivermectin treatment campaigns against Onchocerciasis volvulus in Africa. The mechanism of these events has been debated in the literature, largely focusing on the role of concomitant infection with Loa loa versus the presence of mdr-1 gene variants in humans allowing ivermectin penetration into the central nervous system. A case series of serious neurological adverse events occurring with the use of ivermectin outside of the onchocerciasis indication has been identified in VigiBase, an international database of suspected adverse drug reactions. Forty-eight cases have been reported from multiple countries in which ivermectin has been prescribed for multiple indications; clinical review excluded 20 cases with more probable explanations or other exclusion criteria. Within the remaining 28 cases, there is supportive evidence for a causative role of ivermectin including presence of the drug in brain tissue in one case and recurrence of symptoms on repeated exposure in three cases. This series suggests that serious neurological adverse events observed with the use of ivermectin in the treatment of onchocerciasis may not be entirely explained by concomitant high burden loiasis infections. By comparison with the extensive post marketing experience with ivermectin in the successful treatment of parasitic infections, the number of reported cases suggests that such events are likely rare. However, elucidation of individual-level risk factors could contribute to therapeutic decisions that can minimize harms. Further investigation into the potential for drug-drug interactions and explorations of polymorphisms in the mdr-1 gene are recommended.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据