Search

Background: Establishment of efficient control programs for strongyloidiasis, the infection by Strongyloides stercoralis, is among the World Health Organization (WHO) targets for 2030. Ivermectin is a drug of choice for strongyloidiasis, but its weight-based administration can be unfeasible in remote areas. We evaluated a WHO tablet pole for administration of ivermectin in school-age children living in remote villages in Ecuador. Methods: Children were enrolled in 16 villages in Esmeraldas Province of Ecuador, between July 2021 and June 2022. The pole identified four height intervals corresponding to ivermectin doses going from one to four tablets. For each child, we calculated the dose (µg/kg) administered with both weight-based and pole-based administration. Results were classified as follows: optimal dose, acceptable, overdose, underdose. Agreement between the two methods for estimating the number of tablets was assessed with Cohen's kappa coefficient. Estimations were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Total of 778 children (47.3% female) were enrolled, with median age of 9.59 years (interquartile range: 7.42‒11.22). Optimal dose was achieved for a higher proportion of children when assessed with weight (37.9%) than with pole (25.7%). Underdose and overdose were more frequent with the pole (8.3% and 19.2% children, respectively) than with the weight-based (3.7% and 6.0%, respectively) administration. Agreement between weight-based and pole-based administration was moderate: 0.56 (95% CI 0.51, 0.61). The two methods indicated the same number of tablets in 71.6% (95% CI 0.684, 0.748) cases. Conclusions: In our setting, the tablet pole could be a valid alternative. The tool needs further evaluation in different populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: WHO recommends the implementation of control programmes for strongyloidiasis, a neglected tropical disease caused by Strongyloides stercoralis. Specific recommendations on the diagnostic test or tests to be used for such programmes have yet to be defined. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the accuracy of five tests for strongyloidiasis. Secondary objectives were to evaluate acceptability and feasibility of use in an endemic area., Methods: The ESTRELLA study was a cross-sectional study for which we enrolled school-age children living in remote villages of Ecuador. Recruitment took place in two periods (Sept 9-19, 2021, and April 18-June 11, 2022). Children supplied one fresh stool sample and underwent blood collection via finger prick. Faecal tests were a modified Baermann method and an in-house real-time PCR test. Antibody assays were a recombinant antigen rapid diagnostic test; a crude antigen-based ELISA (Bordier ELISA); and an ELISA based on two recombinant antigens (Strongy Detect ELISA). A Bayesian latent class model was used to analyse the data., Findings: 778 children were enrolled in the study and provided the required samples. Strongy Detect ELISA had the highest sensitivity at 83·5% (95% credible interval 73·8-91·8), while Bordier ELISA had the highest specificity (100%, 99·8-100). Bordier ELISA plus either PCR or Baermann had the best performance in terms of positive and negative predictive values. The procedures were well accepted by the target population. However, study staff found the Baermann method cumbersome and time-consuming and were concerned about the amount of plastic waste produced., Interpretation: The combination of Bordier ELISA with either faecal test performed best in this study. Practical aspects (including costs, logistics, and local expertise) should, however, also be taken into consideration when selecting tests in different contexts. Acceptability might differ in other settings., Funding: Italian Ministry of Health., Translation: For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)