Search

Background Ivermectin is being considered for mass drug administration for malaria, due to its ability to kill mosquitoes feeding on recently treated individuals. In a recent trial, 3-day courses of 300 and 600 mcg/kg/day were shown to kill Anopheles mosquitoes for at least 28 days post-treatment when fed patients’ venous blood using membrane feeding assays. Direct skin feeding on humans may lead to higher mosquito mortality, as ivermectin capillary concentrations are higher. We compared mosquito mortality following direct skin and membrane feeding. Methods We conducted a mosquito feeding study, nested within a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 141 adults with uncomplicated malaria in Kenya, comparing 3 days of ivermectin 300 mcg/kg/day, ivermectin 600 mcg/kg/day, or placebo, all co-administered with 3 days of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. On post-treatment day 7, direct skin and membrane feeding assays were conducted using laboratory-reared Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto. Mosquito survival was assessed daily for 28 days post-feeding. Results Between July 20, 2015, and May 7, 2016, 69 of 141 patients participated in both direct skin and membrane feeding (placebo, n = 23; 300 mcg/kg/day, n = 24; 600 mcg/kg/day, n = 22). The 14-day post-feeding mortality for mosquitoes fed 7 days post-treatment on blood from pooled patients in both ivermectin arms was similar with direct skin feeding (mosquitoes observed, n = 2941) versus membrane feeding (mosquitoes observed, n = 7380): cumulative mortality (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95–1.03, P = .69) and survival time (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.91–1.02, P = .19). Results were consistent by sex, by body mass index, and across the range of ivermectin capillary concentrations studied (0.72–73.9 ng/mL). Conclusions Direct skin feeding and membrane feeding on day 7 resulted in similar mosquitocidal effects of ivermectin across a wide range of drug concentrations, suggesting that the mosquitocidal effects seen with membrane feeding accurately reflect those of natural biting. Membrane feeding, which is more patient friendly and ethically acceptable, can likely reliably be used to assess ivermectin’s mosquitocidal efficacy. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02511353., Ivermectin is being considered for mass drug administration for malaria, due to its ability to kill mosquitoes feeding on recently-treated individuals. Membrane feeding, which is more patient friendly, likely reflects the effects of direct-skin feeding in assessing ivermectin’s mosquitocidal efficacy.

Background Oral ivermectin is a safe broad spectrum anthelminthic used for treating several neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Currently, ivermectin use is contraindicated in children weighing less than 15 kg, restricting access to this drug for the treatment of NTDs. Here we provide an updated systematic review of the literature and we conducted an individual-level patient data (IPD) meta-analysis describing the safety of ivermectin in children weighing less than 15 kg. Methodology/Principal findings A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for IPD guidelines by searching MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Embase, LILACS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, TOXLINE for all clinical trials, case series, case reports, and database entries for reports on the use of ivermectin in children weighing less than 15 kg that were published between 1 January 1980 to 25 October 2019. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42017056515. A total of 3,730 publications were identified, 97 were selected for potential inclusion, but only 17 sources describing 15 studies met the minimum criteria which consisted of known weights of children less than 15 kg linked to possible adverse events, and provided comprehensive IPD. A total of 1,088 children weighing less than 15 kg were administered oral ivermectin for one of the following indications: scabies, mass drug administration for scabies control, crusted scabies, cutaneous larva migrans, myiasis, pthiriasis, strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, and parasitic disease of unknown origin. Overall a total of 1.4% (15/1,088) of children experienced 18 adverse events all of which were mild and self-limiting. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions/Significance Existing limited data suggest that oral ivermectin in children weighing less than 15 kilograms is safe. Data from well-designed clinical trials are needed to provide further assurance., Author summary Oral ivermectin is a safe and efficacious drug for the treatment of neglected tropical diseases. To date, ivermectin is not indicated in children weighing less than 15 kg because there have been insufficient safety data to support a change of recommendation. A PRISMA-level systematic review was conducted, and 97 potential sources were identified. All lead investigators were contacted to share individual patient data if they could provide the minimum criteria. These were the known weights of the children less than 15 kg in whom there were possible adverse events. A total of 17 investigators replied, sharing individual-level patient data (IPD) from 15 studies, which represent a database of 1,088 children weighing less than 15 kg treated with oral ivermectin. Overall 18 adverse events were reported in 1.4% (15/1,088) of children, all of which were mild and self-limiting. No serious adverse events were recorded. These data suggest that ivermectin is safe for use in children weighing less than 15 kilograms. Further data from well-designed clinical trials are needed to assess the safety of oral ivermectin at escalating doses in children weighing less than 15 kg.

BACKGROUND With a decline in malaria burden, innovative interventions and tools are required to reduce malaria transmission further. Mass drug administration (MDA) of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) has been identified as a potential tool to further reduce malaria transmission, where coverage of vector control interventions is already high. However, the impact is limited in time. Combining an ACT with an endectocide treatment that is able to reduce vector survival, such as ivermectin (IVM), could increase the impact of MDA and offer a new tool to reduce malaria transmission. OBJECTIVE The study objective is to evaluate the impact of MDA with IVM plus dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) on malaria transmission in an area with high coverage of malaria control interventions. METHODS The study is a cluster randomized trial in the Upper River Region of The Gambia and included 32 villages (16 control and 16 intervention). A buffer zone of ~2 km was created around all intervention clusters. MDA with IVM plus DP was implemented in all intervention villages and the buffer zones; control villages received standard malaria interventions according to the Gambian National Malaria Control Program plans. RESULTS The MDA campaigns were carried out from August to October 2018 for the first year and from July to September 2019 for the second year. Statistical analysis will commence once the database is completed, cleaned, and locked. CONCLUSIONS This is the first cluster randomized clinical trial of MDA with IVM plus DP. The results will provide evidence on the impact of MDA with IVM plus DP on malaria transmission. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03576313; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03576313 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/20904

The Dutch Disciplinary Tribunal officially ‘warned’ two Dutch physicians following their study with a Kenyan collaborator on the efficacy of the homeopathic substance Iquilai (‘a potentized mineral supplement’) in 228 HIV/AIDS patients in Kenya.1,2 The case was brought forward by the Dutch Health Inspectorate, who had launched an investigation into the practice of the two involved physicians. The Tribunal deemed the study incompatible with basic medical ethical principles for human subjects’ research, as laid down in the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki: the study lacked a proper study protocol, informed consent forms, risk assessment, and ethical approval.2,3 \ud \ud This case and its ruling are remarkable for at least two reasons. First, we appreciate the Tribunal’s recognition of previous jurisprudence that their mandate in oversight over Dutch doctors extends beyond the country’s borders. This strengthens the extent to which foreign physicians working in low resource countries can be held accountable for their actions. \ud Second, given the misconduct, the lack of a ‘reprimand’ seems mild. The Tribunal justified it’s ruling with the ‘good intentions’ of the involved researchers, and the assumptions that ‘patients were well informed’ and ‘were not exposed to health risks’. Although we cannot comment on the former, there was no evidence to substantiate the latter two considerations; consent forms were lacking and data collection was inconsistent. We strongly believe that for all research – and especially in low resource settings where institutional ethical safeguards may be limited or easier to circumvent – that the burden to understand and comply with ethical principles is on the researcher, whether foreign or local, all good intentions aside. Finally, research collaborators from low resource settings must also be held accountable and every opportunity seized to collaboratively strengthen institutional ethical protection systems in low resource settings.

Background: Innovative approaches are needed to complement existing tools for malaria elimination. Ivermectin is a broad spectrum antiparasitic endectocide clinically used for onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis control at single doses of 150 to 200 mcg/kg. It also shortens the lifespan of mosquitoes that feed on individuals recently treated with ivermectin. However, the effect after a 150 to 200 mcg/kg oral dose is short-lived (6 to 11 days). Modeling suggests higher doses, which prolong the mosquitocidal effects, are needed to make a significant contribution to malaria elimination. Ivermectin has a wide therapeutic index and previous studies have shown doses up to 2000 mcg/kg (ie, 10 times the US Food and Drug Administration approved dose) are well tolerated and safe; the highest dose used for onchocerciasis is a single dose of 800 mcg/kg. Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of ivermectin doses of 0, 300, and 600 mcg/kg/day for 3 days, when provided with a standard 3-day course of the antimalarial dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP), on mosquito survival. Methods: This is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 3-arm, dose-finding trial in adults with uncomplicated malaria. Monte Carlo simulations based on pharmacokinetic modeling were performed to determine the optimum dosing regimens to be tested. Modeling showed that a 3-day regimen of 600 mcg/kg/day achieved similar median (5 to 95 percentiles) maximum drug concentrations (Cmax) of ivermectin to a single of dose of 800 mcg/kg, while increasing the median time above the lethal concentration 50% (LC50, 16 ng/mL) from 1.9 days (1.0 to 5.7) to 6.8 (3.8 to 13.4) days. The 300 mcg/kg/day dose was chosen at 50% of the higher dose to allow evaluation of the dose response. Mosquito survival will be assessed daily up to 28 days in laboratory-reared Anopheles gambiae s.s. populations fed on patients’ blood taken at days 0, 2 (Cmax), 7 (primary outcome), 10, 14, 21, and 28 after the start of treatment. Safety outcomes include QT-prolongation and mydriasis. The trial will be conducted in 6 health facilities in western Kenya and requires a sample size of 141 participants (47 per arm). Sub-studies include (1) rich pharmacokinetics and (2) direct skin versus membrane feeding assays. Results: Recruitment started July 20, 2015. Data collection was completed July 2, 2016. Unblinding and analysis will commence once the database has been completed, cleaned, and locked. Conclusions: High-dose ivermectin, if found to be safe and well tolerated, might offer a promising new tool for malaria elimination. [JMIR Res Protoc 2016;5(4):e213]