IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0001254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Randomized Clinical Trial on Ivermectin versus Thiabendazole for the Treatment of Strongyloidiasis

Author

Listed:
  • Zeno Bisoffi
  • Dora Buonfrate
  • Andrea Angheben
  • Marina Boscolo
  • Mariella Anselmi
  • Stefania Marocco
  • Geraldo Monteiro
  • Maria Gobbo
  • Giulia Bisoffi
  • Federico Gobbi

Abstract

Background: Strongyloidiasis may cause a life-threatening disease in immunosuppressed patients. This can only be prevented by effective cure of chronic infections. Direct parasitologic exams are not sensitive enough to prove cure if negative. We used an indirect immune fluorescent antibody test (IFAT) along with direct methods for patient inclusion and efficacy assessment. Methodology/Principal Findings: Prospective, randomized, open label, phase III trial conducted at the Centre for Tropical Diseases (Verona, Italy) to compare efficacy and safety of ivermectin (single dose, 200 µg/kg) and thiabendazole (two daily doses of 25 mg/Kg for two days) to cure strongyloidiasis. The first patient was recruited on 6th December, 2004. Follow-up visit of the last patient was on 11th January, 2007. Consenting patients responding to inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to one of the treatment arms. Primary outcome was: negative direct and indirect (IFAT) tests at follow-up (4 to 6 months after treatment) or subjects with negative direct test and drop of two or more IFAT titers. Considering 198 patients who concluded follow-up, efficacy was 56.6% for ivermectin and 52.2% for thiabendazole (p = 0.53). If the analysis is restricted to 92 patients with IFAT titer 80 or more before treatment (virtually 100% specific), efficacy would be 68.1% for ivermectin and 68.9% for thiabendazole (p = 0.93). Considering direct parasitological diagnosis only, efficacy would be 85.7% for ivermectin and 94.6% for thiabendazole (p = 0.21). In ivermectin arm, mild to moderate side effects were observed in 24/115 patients (20.9%), versus 79/108 (73.1%) in thiabendazole arm (p = 0.00). Conclusion: No significant difference in efficacy was observed, while side effects were far more frequent in thiabendazole arm. Ivermectin is the drug of choice, but efficacy of single dose is suboptimal. Different dose schedules should be assessed by future, larger studies. Trial Registration: Portal of Clinical Research with Medicines in Italy 2004–004693–87 Author Summary: Strongyloidiasis is the infection caused by the worm Strongyloides stercoralis. Due to its peculiar life cycle Strongyloides may remain indefinitely in the host, if not effectively cured. Although the disease is usually mild, in case of weakening of the host's immune defenses the worm may invade virtually all organs and tissues (disseminated strongyloidiasis, almost invariably fatal). The treatment must then reach the goal of the complete elimination of the parasite. Small size clinical trials showed similar, high efficacy of the two drugs ivermectin (used as a single dose) and thiabendazole (used twice daily for two consecutive days). All trials used as the criterion for cure the absence of larvae in stool exams. The latter however may easily miss the infection, falsely suggesting that the infection has been cured. This trial, using a test detecting specific Strongyloides antibodies as an additional and more sensitive diagnostic tool, confirms previous reports: the two drugs have similar efficacy but ivermectin is better tolerated and is therefore the first choice. However the cure rate was lower than 70% for the standard, single dose. The authors then conclude that a larger, multi center trial is needed to find the optimal dose schedule of ivermectin.

Suggested Citation

  • Zeno Bisoffi & Dora Buonfrate & Andrea Angheben & Marina Boscolo & Mariella Anselmi & Stefania Marocco & Geraldo Monteiro & Maria Gobbo & Giulia Bisoffi & Federico Gobbi, 2011. "Randomized Clinical Trial on Ivermectin versus Thiabendazole for the Treatment of Strongyloidiasis," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-6, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0001254
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0001254
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0001254&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001254?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0001254. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.