Data Entry: Please note that the research database will be replaced by UNIverse by the end of October 2023. Please enter your data into the system https://universe-intern.unibas.ch. Thanks

Login for users with Unibas email account...

Login for registered users without Unibas email account...

 
Treatment of urinary schistosomiasis: methodological issues and research needs identified through a Cochrane systematic review
JournalArticle (Originalarbeit in einer wissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift)
 
ID 533445
Author(s) Danso-Appiah, A; Garner, P; Olliaro, P L; Utzinger, J
Author(s) at UniBasel Utzinger, Jürg
Year 2009
Title Treatment of urinary schistosomiasis: methodological issues and research needs identified through a Cochrane systematic review
Journal Parasitology
Volume 136
Number 13
Pages / Article-Number 1837-49
Keywords schistosomiasis, urinary schistosomiasis, Schistosoma haematobium, systematic review, meta-analysis, praziquantel, metrifonate, artemisinin
Abstract SUMMARYGuidelines recommend praziquantel (PZQ) for the treatment and control of schistosomiasis, with no real alternative. Metrifonate was still widely used against Schistosoma haematobium in the 1990s, and then withdrawn. Experimental studies and clinical trials suggest that artemisinin compounds are active against S. haematobium. In a Cochrane systematic review assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs for treating urinary schistosomiasis, 24 randomized controlled trials (n=6315 individuals) met our inclusion criteria. These trials compared a variety of single agent and combination regimens with PZQ, metrifonate or artemisinin derivatives. The review confirmed that both the standard recommended doses of PZQ (single 40 mg/kg oral dose) and metrifonate (3x7.5-10 mg/kg oral doses administered fortnightly) are efficacious and safe in treating urinary schistosomiasis, but there is no study comparing these two regimens head-to-head. There is currently not enough evidence to evaluate artemisinin compounds. Most of the studies included in the Cochrane systematic review were insufficiently powered, lacked standardization in assessing and reporting outcomes, and had a number of methodological limitations. In this paper we discuss the implications of these findings with respect to public health and research methodology and propose priority research needs
Publisher Cambridge University Press
ISSN/ISBN 0031-1820
edoc-URL http://edoc.unibas.ch/dok/A5843366
Full Text on edoc No
Digital Object Identifier DOI 10.1017/S0031182009005939
PubMed ID http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19493363
ISI-Number WOS:000272368200017
Document type (ISI) Journal Article, Review
 
   

MCSS v5.8 PRO. 0.375 sec, queries - 0.000 sec ©Universität Basel  |  Impressum   |    
03/05/2024