Ivermectin versus albendazole or thiabendazole for Strongyloides stercoralis infection
Abstract
Background
Strongyloidiasis is a gut infection with Strongyloides stercoralis which is common world wide. Chronic infection usually causes a skin rash, vomiting, diarrhoea or constipation, and respiratory problems, and it can be fatal in people with immune deficiency. It may be treated with ivermectin or albendazole or thiabendazole.
Objectives
To assess the effects of ivermectin versus benzimidazoles (albendazole and thiabendazole) for treating chronic strongyloides infection.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (24 August 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2015); EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2015); LILACS (August 2015); and reference lists of articles. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) using 'strongyloid*' as a search term, reference lists, and conference abstracts.
Selection criteria
Randomized controlled trials of ivermectin versus albendazole or thiabendazole for treating chronic strongyloides infection.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included trials. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and fixed‐ or random‐effects models. We pooled adverse event data if the trials were sufficiently similar in their adverse event definitions.
Main results
We included seven trials, enrolling 1147 participants, conducted between 1994 and 2011 in different locations (Africa, Southeast Asia, America and Europe).
In trials comparing ivermectin with albendazole, parasitological cure was higher with ivermectin (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.08; 478 participants, four trials, moderate quality evidence). There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09; 518 participants, four trials, low quality evidence).
In trials comparing ivermectin with thiabendazole, there was little or no difference in parasitological cure (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.20; 467 participants, three trials, low quality evidence). However, adverse events were less common with ivermectin (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.50; 507 participants; three trials, moderate quality evidence).
In trials comparing different dosages of ivermectin, taking a second dose of 200 μg/kg of ivermectin was not associated with higher cure in a small subgroup of participants (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 94 participants, two trials).
Dizziness, nausea, and disorientation were commonly reported in all drug groups. There were no reports of serious adverse events or death.
Authors' conclusions
Ivermectin results in more people cured than albendazole, and is at least as well tolerated. In trials of ivermectin with thiabendazole, parasitological cure is similar but there are more adverse events with thiabendazole.
PICOs
Plain language summary
Ivermectin versus benzimidazoles for treating Strongyloides stercoralis infection
What is strongyloides infection and how might ivermectin work
Strongyloides stercoralis is a parasite that lives in the gut of infected people. The infection is not serious for most people, but it can be fatal in people with immune deficiency. People become infected when they come in contact with soil or water contaminated with infectious worms. The chronic infection usually causes skin rash, vomiting, diarrhoea, and constipation, and respiratory problems, such as asthma‐like illness. This disease may be treated with ivermectin or albendazole or thiabendazole. We wanted to know if ivermectin was better or worse than the other alternative therapies.
What the research says
We reviewed the evidence about the effect of ivermectin compared with albendazole and thiabendazole. After searching for relevant trials up to August 2015, we included seven randomized controlled trials, enrolling 1147 adults with chronic strongyloides infection, conducted between 1994 and 2011 in different locations (Africa, Southeast Asia, America, and Europe). Four trials assessed the effectiveness of ivermectin compared with albendazole and three trials assessed the effectiveness of ivermectin compared with thiabendazole.
Comparison ivermectin versus albendazole
Treatment with ivermectin probably cures more people than albendazole (moderate quality evidence), and may be equally or better tolerated (low quality evidence). The included trials did not report serious adverse events or death.
Comparison ivermectin versus thiabendazole
Treatment with ivermectin and thiabendazole may cure similar numbers of people with strongyloides infection (low quality evidence), but ivermectin is probably better tolerated (moderate quality evidence). The included trials did not report serious adverse events or death.
Authors' conclusions
Summary of findings
| Ivermectin versus albendazole for treating strongyloides infection | |||||
| Patient or population: patients with treating strongyloides infection | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | No of participants | Quality of the evidence | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Albendazole | Ivermectin | ||||
| Cure overall | 48 per 100 | 84 per 100 | RR 1.79 | 478 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ |
| Adverse events | 26 per 100 | 21 per 100 | RR 0.80 | 518 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (eg the median control group risk across trials) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | |||||
| 1Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: two trials did not conceal allocation, and no method of allocation is described. | |||||
| Ivermectin versus thiabendazole for treating strongyloides infection | |||||
| Patient or population: patients with treating strongyloides infection | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | No of participants | Quality of the evidence | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Thiabendazole | Ivermectin | ||||
| Cure overall | 69 per 100 | 74 per 100 | RR 1.07 | 467 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ |
| Adverse events | 73 per 100 | 23 per 100 | RR 0.31 | 507 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (eg the median control group risk across trials) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | |||||
| 1Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 2 trials did not conceal allocation, and no method of allocation is described in one trial. | |||||
Background
Description of the condition
Healthcare problem
Strongyloidiasis is an infection caused by the intestinal parasitic worm Strongyloides stercoralis. This parasite is tropical and subtropical regions (Olsen 2009). Most infected people are asymptomatic, allowing the infection to remain undiagnosed and untreated for years (Bisoffi 2013). However, the infection can cause a serious and sometimes fatal illness in immunosuppressed people (Keiser 2004; Olsen 2009).
Geographic distribution
S. stercoralis is a common intestinal nematode that is more prevalent over 70 subtropical and tropical countries distributed across sub‐Saharan Africa, South‐East Asia, and Central and South America (Olsen 2009). The global prevalence was estimated at 39 million cases in 1947 and 100 million cases in 1996 (Bethony 2006). The highest prevalence in the world is in rural and remote aboriginal communities, and is a public health problem due to delayed presentation and reduced access to clinical and tertiary care. Strongyloidiasis can be found in non‐endemic areas owing to increases in travel and migration from endemic to non‐endemic countries (Montes 2010).
Route of infection
The parasite has a complex life cycle including a direct, an autoinfective and a non‐parasitic free‐living cycle. Infected people pass first stage larvae in the faeces; these develop on the soil to infective larvae which penetrate the skin of the next host. After a blood‐lung migration, females larvae moult and develop into adult female worms embedded in the submucosa of the duodenum and parthenogenetically produce dozens of embryonated eggs a day. Eggs hatch and produce first stage larvae in the intestinal lumen. Most of these pass out in the faeces and either develop into infective third‐stage larvae or into free‐living adult males and females. Alternatively, larvae may develop to the third stage within the intestinal lumen and penetrate the intestinal mucosa or perianal skin, restarting a new infection cycle without ever leaving their host. The occurrence of the autoinfective larvae is the main reason strongyloidiasis is such a serious disease (Streit 2008; Olsen 2009).
Population at risk
The following populations are considered to be at risk of strongyloidiasis (Walzer 1982; Berk 1987; Buonfrate 2012):
-
People living in endemic regions.
-
People with chronic malnutrition.
-
Alcoholics.
-
Travellers.
-
Immigrants.
-
People with malignancies, organ transplantation.
-
People affected by diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic renal failure.
-
Breast milk from an infected mother.
-
Occupation involving soil.
People who use corticosteroids or other immunosuppressant drugs, have immune deficiency disorders (HTLV‐I or HIV) or who are malnourished are at increased risk of hyperinfection syndrome (Nucci 1995; Courouble 2004; Schär 2013). Interestingly, although strongyloidiasis is common among acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients in endemic areas, hyperinfection syndrome is rarely noted (Montes 2010).
Clinical effects
Three clinical presentations of strongyloidiasis are acute infection, chronic intestinal infection and hyperinfection with dissemination.
-
Acute infection is rarely reported. It may cause local inflammation at the area of larval penetration, appearing as pruritic skin reaction (acute urticaria and itching) of the buttocks, groin and trunk. Pulmonary migration causes respiratory symptoms as the worms travel through the lungs, specifically cough, shortness of breath, and transient wheezing. Diffuse nodular interstitial infiltrates may be seen on chest radiograph or computed tomography (Loeffler´s syndrome). Gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhoea, constipation, anorexia, and abdominal pain) begin about two weeks after infection and are common in patients with severe strongyloidiasis (Freedman 1991). Symptomatic or occult gastrointestinal bleeding is a frequent sign at presentation (Fardet 2007). Skin reaction and persistent diarrhoea has been described in international travellers (Nuesch 2005; Angheben 2011).
-
In chronic infection, the worms maintain a low level of reproduction. Most often it is asymptomatic, but gastrointestinal symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation and borborygmus have been reported. Chronic infection is commonly seen in endemic regions and occasionally seen in international travellers and refugees (Keiser 2004).
-
Hyperinfection/disseminated syndrome describes an accelerated autoinfection (Miller 2008), and the diagnosis implies the presence of signs and symptoms attributable to increased larval migration to organs beyond the range of the pulmonary autoinfective cycle (dissemination). The invasion of helminths into the mucosa is often associated with Gram‐negative bacterial infections. Mortality, even with treatment, is estimated at 83% to 87% (Maguire 2005; Mejia 2012). Diseminated infection is seen in patients with steroid therapy (Fardet 2007), in HTLV‐1 carriers (Hirata 2006), alcoholics (Zago‐Gomes 2002), diabetics (Coovadia 1993), people with hematologic malignancies and organ transplant recipients (Patel 2008).
Diagnosis
Conventional diagnostic methods, such as the direct smear, formalin ether concentration and filter paper culture methods, cannot produce sufficient sensitivity. Several specimens should be collected on different days to improve detection rate. However, the sensitivity of microscopic‐based techniques might not be good enough, especially in chronic infections where larval output is very low (Requena‐Méndez 2013). However the most sensitive techniques, the Baermann and agar plate methods, are too labour‐intensive to be used in an extensive population (Zaha 2000; Yori 2006). Enzyme‐Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Immunofluorescence Antibody Test or Indirect Immune Fluorescent Antibody Technique (IFAT), and Western blot have good negative predictive value but cross‐reactivity is observed with filaria (van Doorn 2007; Mejia 2012; Bisoffi 2014). Strongyloides DNA detection in human stool samples by real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is highly specific with improved sensitivity compared to microscopy (Ten Hove 2009). Luciferase immunoprecipitation system (LIPS) assays are newer immunologic techniques with high sensitivity (Ramanathan 2008).
Description of the intervention
The benzimidazoles (albendazole and thiabendazole) and ivermectin are the drugs most commonly used to treat strongyloidiasis. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommend ivermectin as the drug of choice. Thiabendazole or albendazole are considered as alternative therapies (CDC 2013; The Medical Letter 2013). A combination therapy with albendazole and ivermectin is recommended in some endemic areas with presence of soil‐transmitted helminthiasis, onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis (WHO 2006).
Benzimidazoles
The benzimidazole drugs available for the treatment of strongyloidiasis in humans include thiabendazole and albendazole. Mebendazole is not used for strongyloidiasis for lack of activity. For each of these drugs, the pregnancy risk factor is C, that is, human trials are lacking and animal trials are either positive for foetal risk or lacking as well; however, potential benefits may justify the potential risk (Cook 1992).
Thiabendazole (International Nonproprietary Name: tiabendazole) was the first benzimidazole developed and licensed for human use in 1962 (Horton 2000). Thiabendazole was approved in the USA in 1967 but has subsequently been withdrawn because better tolerated antihelmintic agents are available, such as ivermectin or albendazole. However, thiabendazole is still available in many countries and it is used in veterinary medicine in the USA. Although thiabendazole is active against a variety of intestinal parasites it produces frequent adverse events (nausea, malaise or dizziness (Grove 1982; Gann 1994). Recommended schedule of thiabendazole for parasitic infection is: 50 mg/kg/day divided every 12 hours (maximum 3 g/day) for two days. Many other schedules are used (longer time of treatment or other route of administration than oral). Rectal administration has been reported as successful for treating a patient with hyperinfection and bowel obstruction (Boken 1993).
Albendazole has been used widely since 1982 to treat intestinal parasites. The recommended schedule is an oral dose of 400 mg every 12 hours for seven days. The adverse events have been reported as minor (Nahmias 1994); severe adverse events are uncommon, although caution is indicated (Liu 1996).
Ivermectin
Ivermectin is an extremely potent, broad‐spectrum, anthelmintic drug that was first introduced for animal use around 1981 and approved for human use in 1988 (Campbell 1991). It is a semi‐synthetic macrocyclic lactone (molecular name) derived from avermectin (lactones) of the soil mould, Streptomyces avermitilis, causing paralysis in many intestinal parasites through its effect on ion‐channels in cell membranes (Campbell 1991). The recommended schedule is 200 µg/kg/day for two days. Many other schedules are used (single dose or a second dose one week later than first one). Ivermectin has been given per rectum as an enema with some success (Tarr 2003). Subcutaneous doses of 200 µg/kg every 48 hours has been used with success (Marty 2005; Pacanowski 2005; Salluh 2005). Many adverse reactions have been reported, but they usually do not require discontinuation of the drug (Ottesen 1994). The pregnancy risk factor is C, that is, human trials are lacking and animal trials are either positive for fetal risk or lacking as well (Merck 2007); however, potential benefits may justify the potential risk (Merck 2007).
Ivermectin is being increasingly used worldwide to combat human tropical diseases, such as onchocerciasis (18 million people infected), strongyloidiasis (100 million people infected), scabies (300 million cases annually), pediculosis, gnathostomiasis and myiasis (dos Santos 2009). Safety trials have shown no serious adverse events in patients treated with ivermectin (Crump 2011). Ivermectin, as well as albendazole and diethylcarbamazine, is also massively used to eliminate lymphatic filariasis through the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (Ottesen 2008).
How the intervention might work
By binding to free β‐tubulin, benzimidazoles inhibit the polymerization of tubulin and the uptake of glucose causing disruption of microtubule formation in the parasite (Lacey 1990).
Ivermectin has potent activity at Gaba‐amino‐butyric‐acid (GABA)‐gated Cl and K channels and glutamate‐gated Cl and K channels, interfering with neural transmission causing paralysis in invertebrates (Campbell 1991; Geary 2005).
Why it is important to do this review
The control of strongyloidiasis as a public health problem is not a priority for governments (Olsen 2009). Moreover, the treatment is not universally available, although drugs are listed in the essential medicines of the WHO (WHO 2015). The introduction of treatment with ivermectin as annually mass treatment in endemic communities of onchocerciasis has shown a reduction in transmission in endemic communities and reduce the expected number of new infections (Traore 2012). Ivermectin is currently employed by the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) and the Onchocerciasis Elimination Programme for the Americas (OEPA) for mass treatment in endemic communities. Trials of long‐term treatment with ivermectin to control lymphatic filariasis have shown that use of the drug is additionally associated with significant reduction in the prevalence of infection with any soil‐transmitted helminth parasites, most or all of which are deemed to be major causes of the morbidity arising from poor childhood nutrition and growth (Moncayo 2008). Mass treatment with ivermectin have been effective to eliminate both infections and seems to be the ideal drug for such interventions (Heukelbach 2004).
This Cochrane Review aimed to summarise systematically all the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to the effectiveness of ivermectin in chronic strongyloidiasis in order to provide current best evidence on which to base decisions for practice and further research.
Objectives
To assess the effects of ivermectin versus benzimidazoles (albendazole and thiabendazole) for treating chronic strongyloides infection.
Methods
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Types of studies
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Types of participants
Participants were people (all ages) who were immunocompetent or immunocompromised, and with chronic infection by S. stercoralis confirmed by parasitological examination (at least one positive specimen) or serology tests (IFAT).
We defined immunocompromised people as those affected by haematological malignancies, bone marrow and kidney transplants, hypogammaglobulinaemia (low gamma globulin in blood), malnutrition, HTLV‐1/HIV infection or co‐infection, or who are using corticosteroids.
Types of interventions
Ivermectin versus albendazole or thiabendazole.
Types of outcome measures
Primary outcomes
Elimination of infection or parasitological cure: defined as any parasitological exam negative during follow‐up period (more than two stool samples negative).
Secondary outcomes
-
Death;
-
Adverse events as reported in trials:
-
Serious adverse events (requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; or is life threatening).
-
Adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment.
-
Other adverse events.
-
Search methods for identification of studies
We attempted to identify all relevant trials regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press and in progress).
Electronic searches
We searched the following databases using the search terms detailed in Appendix 1: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) Specialized Register (24 August 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2015); EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2015); and LILACS (August 2015). We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) using 'strongyloid*' as a search term.
Searching other resources
We searched the reference lists of identified trials to find additional trials. We searched the following conference proceedings for relevant abstracts: the Annual Congress of the American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (2005 to 2015); and the European Congress on Tropical Medicine and International Health (2009 to 2015). To help identify unpublished and ongoing trials, we contacted relevant organizations including tropical medicine and infectious disease institutes in Japan, and Peru, and pharmaceutical companies including Merck & Co., Inc. However, our attempts to contact trial authors were unsuccessful.
Data collection and analysis
Selection of studies
Cesar Henriquez‐Camacho (CHC) with assistance from Vittoria Lutje, the CIDG Information Retrieval Specialist, searched the literature and retrieved trials. Juan Echevarria (JE) and Frine Samalvides (FS) retrieved the full reports of potentially relevant trials and then applied the inclusion criteria to the full reports using an eligibility form. If eligibility was unclear, we tried to contact the trial authors for clarification. Eduardo Gotuzzo (EG) resolved any disagreements. We scrutinized the eligible trials to ensure that each trial was included only once. We listed the trials that were not eligible for inclusion and explain the reasons for exclusion.
Data extraction and management
One review author (CHC) extracted the data, and JE and Maria N Plana (MNP) crossed‐check the data with the original paper for accuracy. We used a data extraction form, which was piloted previously. CHC entered the data into Review Manager (RevMan). We resolved discrepancies by discussion.
We extracted data for dichotomous variables as the number of events and the number of participants in each group for all outcomes. We calculated the percentage lost to follow‐up in each group. Also, we extracted and recorded data on the following: characteristics of participants, characteristics of interventions, characteristics of outcome measures, date of trial, trial authors, location of trial, sponsor of trial (specified, known or unknown), design (described as randomized or not), participants (strongyloidiasis confirmed), interventions (treatment, days, doses), outcomes (treatment failure, parasite clearance, adverse events) and data known to have been collected by trialists but not included in the report (where possible).
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
Two review authors (CHC and MNP) independently assessed the risk of bias of each included trial using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool (Higgins 2011). A third review author (EG) resolved any disagreements. We considered the following domains: random sequence generation (selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding for participants and personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective outcome reporting (reporting bias) and other sources of bias. We classified each domain as being at 'low', 'high' or 'unclear' risk of bias. We included a 'Risk of bias' graph (Figure 1) and a 'Risk of bias' summary (Figure 2).
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included trials.
Methodological quality summary: review authors’ judgements about each methodological quality item for each included trial.
Measures of treatment effect
We used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and fixed‐effect models to analyse the efficacy data.
Assessment of heterogeneity
We assessed statistical heterogeneity by examining the forest plots and using the I² statistic and Chi² test values. We regarded heterogeneity as substantial if the I² statistic was > 50% or there was a low P value (< 0.10) in the Chi² test for heterogeneity.
Assessment of reporting biases
We planned to construct funnel plots to look for evidence of publication bias, provided there were a sufficient number of trials included to make this analysis informative.
Data synthesis
We computed pooled estimates of effect separately for each comparison we had data for (ivermectin versus albendazole; and ivermectin versus thiabendazole).
We used Review Manager (RevMan) for data analysis.
For the analysis of adverse events, we needed to ascertain the number of participants who experienced the adverse events. We used the rate ratio to pool adverse event data if the trials were sufficiently similar in their adverse event definitions. We excluded data from trials that only reported the number of adverse events as it is possible that an individual could have more than one adverse event reported. If these adverse events were reported by randomized groups, we included the data in the analysis.
We used a fixed‐effect model for combining data where it was reasonable to assume that trials were estimating the same treatment effect. If there was clinical heterogeneity sufficient to expect that the underlying treatment effects differed between trials, or if we detected substantial statistical heterogeneity, we used a random‐effects model. If we used random‐effects analysis, we presented the results as the average treatment effect with its 95% CIs, and the estimates of the I² statistic.
Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity
We attempted to explain any heterogeneity through subgroup analyses. We planned to conduct the following subgroup analyses of primary outcome in both comparisons (ivermectin versus albendazole & ivermectin versus thiabendazole): type of population (endemic and non‐endemic areas) and doses of ivermectin (single versus double doses).
Sensitivity analysis
We planned sensitivity analyses to explore whether trials at high risk of bias overestimated the effect of treatment.
Results
Description of studies
See Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded studies; Characteristics of ongoing studies sections.
Results of the search
The electronic search generated 50 citations and abstracts, and three conference reports. We screened these articles and only seven trials including 1147 participants met the inclusion criteria (Figure 3). None were cluster‐randomized. Communication with Merck & Co., Inc, the manufacturers of Mectizan and with experts in the field did not yield information on any further trials. Only two trial authors provided further information about included trials (Marti 1996; Bisoffi 2011).
Trial flow diagram.
Included studies
See Characteristics of included studies.
Setting and participants
Four trials took place in endemic communities in Zanzibar (Marti 1996), Nigeria (Adenusi 2003) and Thailand (Suputtamongkol 2008; Suputtamongkol 2011). Three trials recruited participants from endemic areas living in non‐endemic countries in the USA (Gann 1994), France (Datry 1994), and travellers or immigrants residing in Italy (Bisoffi 2011). Two trials included only adults (Suputtamongkol 2008; Suputtamongkol 2011), and five trials included adults and children (Datry 1994; Gann 1994; Marti 1996; Adenusi 2003; Bisoffi 2011). Only two trials included immunocompromised participants (Suputtamongkol 2008; Suputtamongkol 2011), although the number of immunocompromised and immunocompetent participants was unclear. The authors of two trials were contacted and responded (Marti 1996; Bisoffi 2011).
Interventions
In all included trials ivermectin was compared with a benzimidazole (two trials specified MECTIZAN®, one specified IVOMEC® from Merck Sharp Dome, and one VERMECTIN® from Atlantic Laboratories Co. Ltd.). Three trials compared ivermectin versus thiabendazole (one specified MINTEZOL® from Merck Sharp Dome) (Gann 1994; Adenusi 2003; Bisoffi 2011) and four trials compared ivermectin versus albendazole (one specified ALBATEL® from TO Chemicals and one specified ZENTEL® from SmithKline Beecham) (Datry 1994; Marti 1996; Suputtamongkol 2008; Suputtamongkol 2011). The usual dose of ivermectin was 200 μg/kg body weight; however, Gann 1994, and Suputtamongkol 2011 had two treatment groups of one single dose and two doses. The dose of albendazole was 400 mg twice daily for seven days in two trials (Suputtamongkol 2008; Suputtamongkol 2011) and 400 mg twice daily for three days in two trials (Datry 1994; Marti 1996).
Outcome measures
Assessment of outcome measures was by parasitological examination. This included direct stool examination, Kato‐Katz technique, Baermann test, Agar plate culture, formol‐ether concentration and IFAT. The included trials did not define who undertook the outcome assessments. Trials assessed and reported outcome measures differently, depending on the technique used.
Two trials used the Baermann technique as the only diagnostic method (Gann 1994; Adenusi 2003). The rest of the included trials used two or more diagnostic methods. Four trials used stool examination, according to Baermann, as the assessment method. Only one trial, Bisoffi 2011, used a serological test (IFAT) with agar plate.
The number of stool samples varied between two to nine, but the results of each sample were not always reported. There was lack of uniformity in follow‐up (mean of follow‐up: 7.5 weeks (range: two to 24 weeks)).
Only one trial evaluated clinical improvement through medical interview (Gann 1994). There were several adverse events reported, but there were no deaths after administration of drugs or by the disease itself. For more detailed information on individual trials see Characteristics of included studies.
Excluded studies
We excluded 36 trials from the review (see Characteristics of excluded studies).
Risk of bias in included studies
We have listed summary details in the Characteristics of included studies section. Figure 1 and Figure 2 summarise the 'Risk of bias' assessment in the included trials.
Allocation
Two trials were the only trials that reported adequate methods of allocation concealment (Bisoffi 2011; Suputtamongkol 2011). Five trials reported adequate methods of random sequence generation (Gann 1994; Marti 1996; Adenusi 2003; Bisoffi 2011; Suputtamongkol 2011). Only two trials had low risk of bias both for random sequence generation and allocation concealment (Bisoffi 2011; Suputtamongkol 2011).
Blinding
All the trials were unblinded, but the lack of blinding could not have affected the results because the primary outcome (parasitological cure) was objectively measured.
Incomplete outcome data
One trial was considered at high risk of bias because of the high number of losses to follow‐up (Marti 1996). Four of the seven included trials did not provide enough information to assess attrition bias and were classified as having an unclear risk of bias.
Selective reporting
Only one trial protocol was available and could be assessed for selective reporting bias (Bisoffi 2011). However, all trials have been classified as low risk of reporting bias. The principal outcomes (parasitological cure and adverse events) were communicated in all reports.
Other potential sources of bias
Only one trial stopped recruitment early (Bisoffi 2011). There were not explicitly defined criteria for the early conclusion of the trial (see Characteristics of included studies).
Effects of interventions
See: Summary of findings for the main comparison Summary of findings table 1; Summary of findings 2 Summary of findings table 2
All seven included trials measured parasitological cure at different follow‐up periods (from two to 24 weeks) (Datry 1994; Gann 1994; Marti 1996; Adenusi 2003; Suputtamongkol 2008; Bisoffi 2011; Suputtamongkol 2011). Four trials compared ivermectin versus albendazole (Datry 1994; Marti 1996; Suputtamongkol 2008; Suputtamongkol 2011) and three trials compared ivermectin versus thiabendazole (Gann 1994; Adenusi 2003; Bisoffi 2011).
Comparison 1: Ivermectin versus albendazole
Parasitological cure
See summary of findings Table for the main comparison.
Parasitological cure was higher with ivermectin (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.08; 478 participants; four trials; Analysis 1.1; Figure 4). This effect was consistent despite the geographical origin of the population (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.04; 425 participants; three trials in endemic areas; and RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.80; 53 participants; one trial in non‐endemic areas; Analysis 1.2). The subgroup analysis performed by dosage of ivermectin included four trials assessing single doses (200 μg/kg) (Datry 1994; Marti 1996; Suputtamongkol 2008; Suputtamongkol 2011) and one trial assessing double doses (200 μg/kg for two consecutive days; Suputtamongkol 2011). There were no differences when ivermectin single or double dose was compared to albendazole (P = 0.18), low quality evidence;Analysis 1.3).
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Ivermectin versus albendazole, outcome: 1.1 Parasitological cure.
Only two trials included immunocompromised patients, although the number of patients was unclear (Suputtamongkol 2008; Suputtamongkol 2011). These trials showed higher cure with ivermectin (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.98 and RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.98, respectively). These trials did not provide any subgroup analyses for immunocompromised patients.
Sensitivity analysis excluding trials with unclear number of immunocompromised patients (Suputtamongkol 2008; Suputtamongkol 2011) had no impact on the estimated efficacy of ivermectin (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.27; 354 participants; two trials; Analysis 1.4).
One trial, Bisoffi 2011, excluded participants with immunodeficiencies and the remaining trials reported the exclusion of hematologic abnormalities. However it was unclear whether participants were assessed for immunocompetence.
Death
There was no mortality reported as related to treatment. Suputtamongkol 2011 reported 15 deaths related to underlying diseases as solid tumours, haematological malignancies, diabetes, lupus, myocardial infarction and sepsis.
Adverse events
There were no reports of serious adverse events. Ivermectin was at least as well tolerated as albendazole (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09; 518 participants, four trials, very low quality evidence; Analysis 1.5; Figure 5). Table 1 summarises further the information related to adverse events of the primary trials.
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Ivermectin versus albendazole, outcome: 1.5 Clinical adverse events.
| Trial | Assessment method | Timing | Ivermectin | Albendazole |
| "Tolerance were evaluated at each visit by a thorough questionnaire and physical examination. Hepatic, renal and haematological functions were investigated before treatment and on day 7" | "Tolerance of drugs were evaluated on days 7, 30 and 90" | Evaluted for AEs 29 patients: fatigue, nausea, tremor: 1 (3%); elevation of transaminases: 1 (3%); anaemia and leukopenia: 1 (3%) | Evaluted for AEs 24 patients: abdominal pain, nausea and dizziness: 2 (8%); elevation of transaminases: 1 (4%) | |
| Standardized questionnaire | "The assessment for side effects of the drug regimen was performed three days after start of treatment...and three weeks after the end of treatment" | Evaluated for AEs 163 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 170 patients:
| |
| Biochemical and haematological tests | "one week after enrolment" | Evaluated for AEs 18 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 16 patients:
| |
| "Adverse events were defined as symptoms or signs that developed after the trial drug administration and had not been reported prior to the administration of the first dose of the antihelmintic" | Not described | Evaluated for AEs 60 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 30 patients:
|
Abbreviations: AEs: adverse events.
In ivermectin group, the adverse events most frequently reported were loose stools (10%), cough (7%), headache (9%) and fever (6%) (Marti 1996); fatigue, nausea and tremor (3%) (Datry 1994). In Suputtamongkol 2008, one patient had acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis of moderate severity probably drug‐related.
In albendazole group, the adverse events most frequently reported were headache (11%), loose stools (10%), dizziness (6%) and cough (5%) (Marti 1996); nausea and dizziness (8%) (Datry 1994). None of them caused discontinuation of participants' normal daily activities. Severe nausea and vomiting were reported in one patient in the albendazole group (Suputtamongkol 2011).
Adverse analytical changes
Three trials (Datry 1994; Suputtamongkol 2008; Suputtamongkol 2011) reported a modest elevation of transaminases suggesting hepatotoxicity in both the ivermectin and albendazole treatment arms. Other abnormalities included anaemia and leucopenia in ivermectin group (Datry 1994; see Table 1). Transaminase levels returned to normality within a month (three to four weeks) and the haematological abnormalities disappeared within two months after treatment discontinuation.
Comparison 2: Ivermectin versus thiabendazole
Parasitological cure
See summary of findings Table 2.
Parasitological cure was not different between ivermectin and thiabendazole (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.20; 467 participants, three trials; Analysis 2.1; Figure 6). The geographical origin did not modified the effect of either treatments (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.22; 216 participants, one trial in endemic areas; and RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 251 participants, two trials in non‐endemic areas; Analysis 2.2). The subgroup analysis performed by dosage of ivermectin included two trials assessing single doses (200 μg/kg) (Adenusi 2003; Bisoffi 2011) and one trial assessing double doses (200 μg/kg for two consecutive days) (Gann 1994). There were no differences when ivermectin single or double dose was compared to thiabendazole (P = 0.92),low quality evidence; Analysis 2.3).
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Ivermectin versus thiabendazole, outcome: 2.1 Parasitological cure.
Death
There was no mortality reported as related to treatment.
Adverse events
Severe drug reaction was not reported. The incidence of adverse events was higher in the thiabendazole group than in the ivermectin group (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.50; 507 participants; three trials; Analysis 2.4; Figure 7). Table 2 summarises further the information related to adverse events of the primary trials.
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Ivermectin versus thiabendazole, outcome: 2.4 Clinical adverse events.
| Trial | Assessment method | Timing | Ivermectin | Thiabendazole |
| "Voluntary spontaneous complaints by subjects and also by interviews conducted using a standard questionnaire based on the common adverse effects of either drug reported in the literature" | 7 days post‐treatment | Evaluated for AEs 122 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 109 patients:
| |
| "reported by patients" | Days 1 and 2 of treatment and during scheduled and unscheduled visits | Evaluated for AEs 115 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 108 patients:
| |
| "To assess drug safety, we took patient histories, did physical examination and ran complete blood cell counts and serum chemistries (including liver function test)" | Before and on day 7 after treatment | Evaluated for AEs 34 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 19 patients:
|
Abbreviations: AEs: adverse events.
In ivermectin group, adverse events frequently described were fatigue (13%) and headache (9%) (Adenusi 2003); dizziness and drowsiness (10%) (Bisoffi 2011); and itching (12%) and lightheadedness (9%) (Gann 1994).
In thiabendazole group, adverse events frequently described were fatigue (50%), nausea (45%), anorexia (36%) and dizziness (26%) (Adenusi 2003); dizziness (53%), nausea and vomiting (Bisoffi 2011); disorientation (89%), fatigue (79%) and nausea (68%) (Gann 1994).
Adverse analytical changes
In Gann 1994, a modest elevation of transaminases was reported to cause hepatotoxicity (Table 2).
Comparison 3: Single dose versus double dose ivermectin
Two trials assessed single (200 μg/kg) versus double doses (200 μg/kg for two consecutive days) of ivermectin (Gann 1994; Suputtamongkol 2011). Taking double doses of ivermectin was not associated with higher cure (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 94 participants; two trials; Analysis 3.1).
Discussion
Summary of main results
We undertook this Cochrane Review to assess the effectiveness of ivermectin compared with albendazole and thiabendazole in the parasitological cure of chronic strongyloidiasis.
The results suggest that there is evidence of low to moderate quality that ivermectin is superior in terms of efficacy than albendazole but, given the low overall incidence of adverse effects, meta‐analyses may be underpowered to confidently detect differences in the incidence of adverse events between both treatments (see summary of findings Table for the main comparison). There is evidence of low to moderate quality that ivermectin appears to be as effective as thiabendazole, and presents less adverse events (see summary of findings Table 2).
Subgroup analyses showed no differences in the efficacy of ivermectin according to type of population (endemic versus non endemic) neither for the comparison with albendazole nor thiabendazole.
We found no difference in the parasitological cure according to dosage (single dose or double doses) of ivermectin, although this result is based on only two trials with few patients.
Dizziness, nausea and disorientation were the most frequent adverse events reported in the included trials. Although albendazole and thiabendazole belong to the same drug family (benzimidazoles), they have different effects and different adverse events. In the current review, adverse events were generally poorly assessed. The most frequent abnormal laboratory test in patients that received benzimidazoles was hepatotoxicity (increase in transaminase levels). However, the clinical significance of this effect was no serious and all patients recover the normal levels in approximately three weeks.
Overall completeness and applicability of evidence
These findings are of importance for clinical perspectives. The results of this Cochrane Review don't allow formulation of clear public health conclusions, due to the low quality of evidence on the efficacy of treatment for strongyloides and the scarce data on safety. To date, no public health strategy has been developed to control strongyloidiasis. However since 1989, the WHO Onchocerciasis Control Programme has fought against onchocerciasis by means of mass administration of ivermectin and vector control initiatives. Similarly, since 2000, albendazole either with ivermectin or diethylcarbamazine citrate has been the cornerstone of the WHO Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis. In those areas where mass treatment with ivermectin has been used to control onchocerciasis or lymphatic filariasis, the prevalence of infection with soil‐transmitted helminth parasites, has been reduced, most or all of which are deemed to be a major cause of the morbidity arising from childhood nutrition and growth. This could have impact on the incidence of strongyloidiasis in endemic areas, but there is no clear data on this.
There is no report on resistance to ivermectin which is a favourable factor to be used in mass community treatment. The WHO recommends double therapy with ivermectin and albendazole in endemic areas with coinfection of soil‐transmitted helminthiasis and lymphatic filariasis; and triple therapy with ivermectin, albendazole and praziquantel in schistosomiasis‐endemic areas. Thiabendazol seems to be as effective as ivermectin but is not produced in a lot of countries. Being albendazole less effective than ivermectin, it is considered a better alternative treatment for strongyloidiasis than thiabendazole.
All trials included patient with chronic strongyloidiasis. We have no evidence about the impact of ivermectin on other clinical stages (acute strongyloidiasis or hyperinfection syndrome). The more effective dose of ivermectin (single or double) is a question that remains unanswered and deserves further rigorous research. Five out of seven trials included only immunocompetent patients and only two trials included an unknown proportion of immunocompromised patients. It is known that immunocompromised people are the most vulnerable population at risk for developing fatal illness. Unfortunately the review provides little information about the treatment effects on this vulnerable population.
This Cochrane Review does not provide information about the ideal doses for different ages. We cannot answer the question as to the benefit of ivermectin in very young or very old people as most of the trials did not include information about effectiveness and age.
The effect of ivermectin in preventing new infections is not assessed. The trials included in this systematic review were not primarily designed to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin in preventing new infections of strongyloidiasis and this outcome was not commonly reported.
Quality of the evidence
Many trials did not adequately report the trial characteristics that are important to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Most trials did not explain if, or how, the sample size was predetermined and many had small sample sizes. Almost none of the trials used an adequate method of allocation concealment nor blindness. However we have considered that lack of blindness has a low risk of bias because the measurement of the outcome (parasitological cure) was done objectively. Also, there was insufficient information to assess the attrition bias of the trials included; we classified four of the seven included trials as having an unclear risk of bias.
Potential biases in the review process
Publication bias is a major threat to the validity of systematic reviews. To minimize the risk of publication bias, we conducted a comprehensive search across numerous clinical trial databases. Nonetheless, as for any systematic review, we cannot rule out the influence of publication bias. Unfortunately given the small number of included trials we were impeded to reliably assess the presence of publication bias.
Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews
We have not identified any trials similar to this Cochrane Review. A systematic review was published on 2009 (Santiago 2009) about prophylaxis for strongyloidiasis hyperinfection which objective was to determine patterns of prophylaxis in hyperinfection syndrome in immunosuppressed rheumatology patients. Another systematic review was published on 2013 about case reports and short cases of hyperinfection syndrome (HS) and disseminated strongyloidiasis (DS) described 244 cases treated with different drugs, administration route and duration. Similar fatality rate was observed between patients with DS (68.5%) and HS (60%) (Buonfrate 2013).
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included trials.
Methodological quality summary: review authors’ judgements about each methodological quality item for each included trial.
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Ivermectin versus albendazole, outcome: 1.1 Parasitological cure.
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Ivermectin versus albendazole, outcome: 1.5 Clinical adverse events.
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Ivermectin versus thiabendazole, outcome: 2.1 Parasitological cure.
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Ivermectin versus thiabendazole, outcome: 2.4 Clinical adverse events.
Comparison 1 Ivermectin versus albendazole, Outcome 1 Parasitological cure.
Comparison 1 Ivermectin versus albendazole, Outcome 2 Parasitological cure (type of population).
Comparison 1 Ivermectin versus albendazole, Outcome 3 Parasitological cure (doses of ivermectin).
Comparison 1 Ivermectin versus albendazole, Outcome 4 Parasitological cure (sensitivity analysis).
Comparison 1 Ivermectin versus albendazole, Outcome 5 Clinical adverse events.
Comparison 2 Ivermectin versus thiabendazole, Outcome 1 Parasitological cure.
Comparison 2 Ivermectin versus thiabendazole, Outcome 2 Parasitological cure (type of population).
Comparison 2 Ivermectin versus thiabendazole, Outcome 3 Parasitological cure (doses of ivermectin).
Comparison 2 Ivermectin versus thiabendazole, Outcome 4 Clinical adverse events.
Comparison 3 Ivermectin (single dose) vs ivermectin (double dose), Outcome 1 Parasitological cure.
| Ivermectin versus albendazole for treating strongyloides infection | |||||
| Patient or population: patients with treating strongyloides infection | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | No of participants | Quality of the evidence | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Albendazole | Ivermectin | ||||
| Cure overall | 48 per 100 | 84 per 100 | RR 1.79 | 478 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ |
| Adverse events | 26 per 100 | 21 per 100 | RR 0.80 | 518 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (eg the median control group risk across trials) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | |||||
| 1Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: two trials did not conceal allocation, and no method of allocation is described. | |||||
| Ivermectin versus thiabendazole for treating strongyloides infection | |||||
| Patient or population: patients with treating strongyloides infection | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | No of participants | Quality of the evidence | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Thiabendazole | Ivermectin | ||||
| Cure overall | 69 per 100 | 74 per 100 | RR 1.07 | 467 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ |
| Adverse events | 73 per 100 | 23 per 100 | RR 0.31 | 507 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (eg the median control group risk across trials) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | |||||
| 1Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 2 trials did not conceal allocation, and no method of allocation is described in one trial. | |||||
| Trial | Assessment method | Timing | Ivermectin | Albendazole |
| "Tolerance were evaluated at each visit by a thorough questionnaire and physical examination. Hepatic, renal and haematological functions were investigated before treatment and on day 7" | "Tolerance of drugs were evaluated on days 7, 30 and 90" | Evaluted for AEs 29 patients: fatigue, nausea, tremor: 1 (3%); elevation of transaminases: 1 (3%); anaemia and leukopenia: 1 (3%) | Evaluted for AEs 24 patients: abdominal pain, nausea and dizziness: 2 (8%); elevation of transaminases: 1 (4%) | |
| Standardized questionnaire | "The assessment for side effects of the drug regimen was performed three days after start of treatment...and three weeks after the end of treatment" | Evaluated for AEs 163 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 170 patients:
| |
| Biochemical and haematological tests | "one week after enrolment" | Evaluated for AEs 18 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 16 patients:
| |
| "Adverse events were defined as symptoms or signs that developed after the trial drug administration and had not been reported prior to the administration of the first dose of the antihelmintic" | Not described | Evaluated for AEs 60 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 30 patients:
| |
| Abbreviations: AEs: adverse events. | ||||
| Trial | Assessment method | Timing | Ivermectin | Thiabendazole |
| "Voluntary spontaneous complaints by subjects and also by interviews conducted using a standard questionnaire based on the common adverse effects of either drug reported in the literature" | 7 days post‐treatment | Evaluated for AEs 122 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 109 patients:
| |
| "reported by patients" | Days 1 and 2 of treatment and during scheduled and unscheduled visits | Evaluated for AEs 115 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 108 patients:
| |
| "To assess drug safety, we took patient histories, did physical examination and ran complete blood cell counts and serum chemistries (including liver function test)" | Before and on day 7 after treatment | Evaluated for AEs 34 patients:
| Evaluated for AEs 19 patients:
| |
| Abbreviations: AEs: adverse events. | ||||
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 Parasitological cure Show forest plot | 4 | 478 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.79 [1.55, 2.08] |
| 2 Parasitological cure (type of population) Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 2.1 Endemic | 3 | 425 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.75 [1.50, 2.04] |
| 2.2 Non‐endemic | 1 | 53 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 2.21 [1.28, 3.80] |
| 3 Parasitological cure (doses of ivermectin) Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Ivermectin (single dose) versus albendazole | 4 | 434 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.85 [1.57, 2.16] |
| 3.2 Ivermectin (double doses) versus albendazole | 1 | 44 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.40 [0.96, 2.02] |
| 4 Parasitological cure (sensitivity analysis) Show forest plot | 2 | 354 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.89 [1.58, 2.27] |
| 5 Clinical adverse events Show forest plot | 4 | 518 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.80 [0.59, 1.09] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 Parasitological cure Show forest plot | 3 | 467 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.07 [0.96, 1.20] |
| 2 Parasitological cure (type of population) Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 2.1 Endemic | 1 | 216 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.07 [0.94, 1.22] |
| 2.2 Non‐endemic | 2 | 251 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.08 [0.90, 1.29] |
| 3 Parasitological cure (doses of ivermectin) Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Ivermectin (single dose) versus thiabendazole | 2 | 414 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.08 [0.95, 1.22] |
| 3.2 Ivermectin (double doses) versus thiabendazole | 1 | 53 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.07 [0.93, 1.21] |
| 4 Clinical adverse events Show forest plot | 3 | 507 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.31 [0.20, 0.50] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 Parasitological cure Show forest plot | 2 | 94 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.02 [0.94, 1.11] |
