4.3 Article

Albendazole for the control and elimination of lymphatic filariasis: systematic review

期刊

TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 818-825

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2005.01458.x

关键词

lymphatic filariasis; albendazole; systematic review; mass drug administration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis recommends albendazole in combination with other antifilarial drugs. This systematic review examines albendazole in treatment and control of lymphatic filariasis. DATA SOURCES The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE to April 2005; contacting experts, international organisations and drug manufacturers. METHODS Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials included; two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, quality, and extracted data. We calculated the relative risk of microfilaraemia (mf) prevalence using fixed effect, or random effects model in case of heterogeneity. RESULTS Six trials met inclusion criteria. Three trials compared albendazole with placebo: no effect was demonstrated on mf prevalence, but density was lower in one of the three studies at 6 months. Three trials added albendazole to ivermectin, with no demonstrable effect; prevalence tended to be lower at 4-6 months but not at 12 months (4-6 months; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.39, n = 255, 2 trials; 12 months: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13, n = 348, 2 trials). Mf density was significantly lower in two of the three trials; one of two trials measuring density at 12 months showed a difference. Three trials added albendazole to diethylcarbamazine; two were small trials with no difference demonstrated; the third study tended to favour combination at 6 months (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.21, n = 491), with a significant difference for density. CONCLUSIONS The effect of albendazole against adult and larval filarial parasites, alone and in combination with other antifilarial drugs, deserves further rigorous research.

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

4.3
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