Dataset Information

Individual risk of post-ivermectin serious adverse events in subjects infected with Loa loa.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Implementation of onchocerciasis elimination programmes has been delayed in Central Africa because of the risk of ivermectin-related serious adverse events (SAEs) in individuals with high Loa loa microfilarial densities (MFD). We developed the first statistical models enabling prediction of SAE risk in individuals with a given MFD.

Methods

We used individual participant data from two trials conducted in loiasis-onchocerciasis co-endemic areas in Cameroon. among the 10 506 ivermectin-treated subjects included in the analysis, 38 (0·36%) developed an ivermectin-related SAE. To predict individual-level risk of SAE, we developed mixed multivariate logistic models including subjects' sex, age, pre-treatment L loa and Mansonella perstans MFDs, and study region.

Findings

The models predicted that regardless of sex, about 1% of people with 20 000 L loa microfilariae per millilitre of blood (mf/mL), 10% of people with 50 000 mf/mL and about one third of those with 100 000 mf/mL will develop an SAE. For a given MFD, males have a three-fold higher risk of developing an SAE than females.

Interpretation

By enabling the prediction of post-ivermectin SAE risk in communities with known distribution of L loa MFDs, our results can guide decisions on the choice of ivermectin-based treatment strategies. They also predict that 37 SAEs were prevented in 2015 by using a Test-and-Treat strategy in the Okola District of Cameroon.

Funding

UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases; Institut de Recherche pour le Développement; Mectizan Donation Program; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

SUBMITTER: Chesnais CB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7700892 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Individual risk of post-ivermectin serious adverse events in subjects infected with <i>Loa loa</i>.

Chesnais Cédric B CB Pion Sébastien D SD Boullé Charlotte C Gardon Jacques J Gardon-Wendel Nathalie N Fokom-Domgue Joël J Kamgno Joseph J Boussinesq Michel M

EClinicalMedicine 20201010

<h4>Background</h4>Implementation of onchocerciasis elimination programmes has been delayed in Central Africa because of the risk of ivermectin-related serious adverse events (SAEs) in individuals with high <i>Loa loa</i> microfilarial densities (MFD). We developed the first statistical models enabling prediction of SAE risk in individuals with a given MFD.<h4>Methods</h4>We used individual participant data from two trials conducted in loiasis-onchocerciasis co-endemic areas in Cameroon. among t ...[more]

PMID: 33294807

Similar Datasets

Project description:The occurrence of Serious Adverse Experiences (SAEs) following Mectizan(R) treatment of onchocerciasis in Loa loa endemic areas has been increasingly reported over the past decade. These SAEs include a severely disabling, and potentially fatal, encephalopathy, which appears to correlate with a high load of L. loa microfilariae (> 30,000 mf/ml).Previous consultations organized by the Mectizan(R) Donation Program (MDP) in 1995 and 1999 have developed useful "case" definitions of encephalopathic SAEs following Mectizan(R) treatment and have summarized available evidence on its pathogenesis and optimal clinical management. At both meetings, the need for better understanding of the pathogenesis of the encephalopathy was emphasized, including the need for biological and autopsy specimens from the affected cases.Following a recommendation at the Joint Action Forum of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control in December 2001, the MDP, on behalf of the Mectizan(R) Expert Committee, organized a Scientific Working Group on L. loa associated SAEs following Mectizan(R) treatment in May 2002. The present report includes the background, new evidence, conclusions and recommendations from that Scientific Working Group. The following points represent a summary of the present status:1. Although there are more and better quality clinical and epidemiological data on L. loa, the pathogenesis of the Mectizan(R)-related L. loa encephalopathy remains obscure.2. Very limited progress has been made in research on the pathogenesis of encephalopathy, because of the lack of specimens from cases, and the lack of animal models.3. There has been no particular breakthrough in terms of the medical management of patients with L. loa encephalopathy; however, a favorable outcome usually results from prompt general nursing and nutritional care which remain the major interventions.The main recommendations for future actions are as follows:1. Validate and update the mapping of L. loa with a combination of remote sensing and RAPLOA techniques.2. Conduct an expert analysis of the apparent clustering of encephalopathic SAEs reported so far.3. Investigate a possible "pre-treatment" scheme with high-dose albendazole in L. loa endemic communities at high risk of encephalopathic SAEs if treated with Mectizan(R); this study will be conducted in collaboration with WHO/TDR.4. Establish a post of Loiasis Technical Advisor for research and operational support in Cameroon, to conduct population surveys and to facilitate better data collection from SAE cases, including postmortem studies as appropriate.5. Investigate the possibility of developing an animal model of L. loa encephalopathy; this activity would be linked to the above-mentioned research agenda in Cameroon.6. Investigate the best care model for encephalopathic SAEs, including identification of early warning signs and therapeutic interventions.7. Develop further models for health education messages needed for community compliance with Mectizan(R) treatment, and family support for SAE cases.8. Conduct research studies on the safety of combination therapy of Mectizan(R) and albendazole in areas co-endemic for L. loa and lymphatic filariasis (LF) with coordination from the relevant technical bodies that oversee these issues.The above recommendations will be implemented through a continuing collaboration between the interested parties represented at the Scientific Working Group, involved in onchocerciasis control and/or the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis.

Project description:TopicA comparison between ranibizumab and bevacizumab of the incidence of systemic serious adverse events (SAEs) among patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) who participated in a large-scale randomized trial. Use of individual patient data, rather than aggregate data, allowed adjustment for strong predictors of SAEs.Clinical relevanceRelative safety of ranibizumab and bevacizumab is important in choosing an anti-VEGF drug for the hundreds of thousands of patients with nAMD treated each year worldwide.MethodsResults of a Cochrane aggregate meta-analysis of the relative efficacy and safety of bevacizumab and ranibizumab that used searches of bibliographic databases and clinical trial registries as of March 14, 2014 and hand searching were reviewed to identify 6 large-scale, multicenter clinical trials. Individual patient data on SAEs, assigned drug and dosing regimen, and baseline prognostic factors were requested from the leaders of the 6 trials. A two-stage approach was used to estimate relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for baseline prognostic factors. The primary outcome measure was development of ≥1 SAE; secondary outcome measures were death, arteriothrombotic events, events associated with systemic anti-VEGF therapy, and events not associated with systemic anti-VEGF therapy.ResultsIndividual patient data were received from 5 trials to provide information on 3052 patients. There were no large imbalances between drug groups on baseline factors. The adjusted relative risk (95% CI) for bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab was 1.06 [(0.84, 1.35); p=0.61] for ≥1 SAEs. For secondary outcomes, adjusted relative risks were 0.99 [ (0.69, 1.43); p=0.97] for death, 0.89 [ (0.62, 1.28); p=0.53] for arteriothrombotic events, 1.10 [ (0.81, 1.50); p=0.54] for events related to anti-VEGF treatment, and 1.11 [ (0.87, 1.40); p=0.40] for events not related to anti-VEGF treatment.ConclusionOur findings support the absence of large differences in risk of systemic serious adverse events between these two anti-VEGF drugs; i.e., relative risks of ≥1.5 are unlikely. Because additional head-to-head trials are unlikely, any further investigation of differential risk between anti-VEGF agents will only be achieved though post-marketing surveillance or through the interrogation of healthcare databases.

Project description:To examine the risk of treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation.Meta-analysis comparing study effects using four summary estimates.Medline, Cochrane Library, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists of identified articles.We included randomised controlled trials of current tobacco users of adult age comparing use of varenicline with an inactive control and reporting adverse events. We defined treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events as occurring during drug treatment or within 30 days of discontinuation, and included any ischaemic or arrhythmic adverse cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary revascularisation, coronary artery disease, arrhythmias, transient ischaemic attacks, stroke, sudden death or cardiovascular related death, or congestive heart failure).We identified 22 trials; all were double blinded and placebo controlled; two included participants with active cardiovascular disease and 11 enrolled participants with a history of cardiovascular disease. Rates of treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events were 0.63% (34/5431) in the varenicline groups and 0.47% (18/3801) in the placebo groups. The summary estimate for the risk difference, 0.27% (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.63; P = 0.15), based on all 22 trials, was neither clinically nor statistically significant. For comparison, the relative risk (1.40, 0.82 to 2.39; P = 0.22), Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (1.41, 0.82 to 2.42; P = 0.22), and Peto odds ratio (1.58, 0.90 to 2.76; P = 0.11), all based on 14 trials with at least one event, also indicated a non-significant difference between varenicline and placebo groups.This meta--analysis--which included all trials published to date, focused on events occurring during drug exposure, and analysed findings using four summary estimates-found no significant increase in cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use. For rare outcomes, summary estimates based on absolute effects are recommended and estimates based on the Peto odds ratio should be avoided.