Survey Design to Monitor Drug Efficacy for the Control of Soil-Transmitted Helminthiasis and Schistosomiasis.
drug efficacy
health economics
schistosomiasis
soil-transmitted helminthiasis
survey design
Journal
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
ISSN: 1537-6591
Titre abrégé: Clin Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9203213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 06 2021
14 06 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
28
4
2021
medline:
6
7
2021
entrez:
27
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Control of soil-transmitted helminthiasis and schistosomiasis relies heavily on regular preventive chemotherapy. Monitoring drug efficacy is crucial to provide early warning of treatment failures. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a survey design in which only egg-positive individuals are retested after treatment. Although this practice makes more efficient use of resources, it may lead to biased drug efficacy estimates. We performed a simulation study to assess the potential for bias when evaluating drug efficacy using the World Health Organization-recommended survey design, and to identify alternative designs for evaluating drug efficacy that are less affected by bias. These designs were also based on selection of egg-positive individuals, but involve retesting them a second time at baseline and up to 2 times at follow-up. The utility of the different designs was compared fairly by constraining them to the same budget. The standard procedure of selecting egg-positive individuals can introduce a substantial positive bias in drug efficacy due to regression toward the mean, particularly when infection levels or drug efficacy are low. This bias was completely eliminated by using a second baseline sample, conditionally on the first sample being excluded from analysis. Precision of estimates can be improved by increasing the number of thick smears and/or samples per person at follow-up, despite fewer individuals being tested within the same budget. We present optimized survey designs to monitor drug efficacy in field settings, which are highly relevant for sustained control of soil-transmitted helminths and schistosomiasis, as well as onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Control of soil-transmitted helminthiasis and schistosomiasis relies heavily on regular preventive chemotherapy. Monitoring drug efficacy is crucial to provide early warning of treatment failures. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a survey design in which only egg-positive individuals are retested after treatment. Although this practice makes more efficient use of resources, it may lead to biased drug efficacy estimates.
METHODS
We performed a simulation study to assess the potential for bias when evaluating drug efficacy using the World Health Organization-recommended survey design, and to identify alternative designs for evaluating drug efficacy that are less affected by bias. These designs were also based on selection of egg-positive individuals, but involve retesting them a second time at baseline and up to 2 times at follow-up. The utility of the different designs was compared fairly by constraining them to the same budget.
RESULTS
The standard procedure of selecting egg-positive individuals can introduce a substantial positive bias in drug efficacy due to regression toward the mean, particularly when infection levels or drug efficacy are low. This bias was completely eliminated by using a second baseline sample, conditionally on the first sample being excluded from analysis. Precision of estimates can be improved by increasing the number of thick smears and/or samples per person at follow-up, despite fewer individuals being tested within the same budget.
CONCLUSIONS
We present optimized survey designs to monitor drug efficacy in field settings, which are highly relevant for sustained control of soil-transmitted helminths and schistosomiasis, as well as onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33906226
pii: 6255959
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab196
pmc: PMC8201552
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anthelmintics
0
Pharmaceutical Preparations
0
Soil
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S195-S202Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Références
BMJ. 2017 Sep 25;358:j4307
pubmed: 28947636
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017 Mar;5:49-55
pubmed: 28424794
J Infect Dis. 2020 Jun 11;221(Suppl 5):S531-S538
pubmed: 31829425
Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2020 Dec;14:183-187
pubmed: 33125936
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014 Oct 09;8(10):e3204
pubmed: 25299391
Trends Parasitol. 2011 Apr;27(4):176-81
pubmed: 21168366
Parasit Vectors. 2019 Sep 16;12(1):442
pubmed: 31522687
Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2015 Aug 18;5(3):163-71
pubmed: 26448902
J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2015 Dec;3(4):229-236
pubmed: 27842865
Vet Parasitol. 2012 Aug 13;188(1-2):120-6
pubmed: 22469484
Parasit Vectors. 2010 Aug 14;3:71
pubmed: 20707931
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Nov;23(11):819-825
pubmed: 28571767
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 Mar 29;5(3):e948
pubmed: 21468309
Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2011 Oct 14;1(1):14-27
pubmed: 24533260
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Apr 27;12(4):e0006458
pubmed: 29702653
Trends Parasitol. 2004 Oct;20(10):469-76
pubmed: 15363440
Adv Parasitol. 2019;103:91-115
pubmed: 30878060
Gates Open Res. 2020 Mar 10;4:28
pubmed: 32266328
Parasitology. 2014 Dec;141(14):1826-40
pubmed: 24725546
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010 Jun 15;4(6):e713
pubmed: 20559556
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Nov 2;12(11):e0006912
pubmed: 30388108