Albendazole for lymphatic filariasis

David Addiss; Carrol L Gamble; Paul Garner; Hellen Gelband; Henry OD Ejere; Julia A Critchley; International Filariasis Review Group

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003753.pub3

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Albendazole versus placebo, Outcome 1 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Albendazole versus placebo, Outcome 2 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: only participants mf positive at baseline.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Albendazole versus placebo, Outcome 3 Antigen prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Albendazole versus placebo, Outcome 4 New clinical disease.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Albendazole versus placebo, Outcome 5 Pre‐existing clinical disease.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Albendazole versus placebo, Outcome 6 Adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Albendazole versus ivermectin, Outcome 1 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Albendazole versus ivermectin, Outcome 2 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: only participants mf positive at baseline.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Albendazole versus ivermectin, Outcome 3 Antigen prevalence: all participants (antigen positive or negative at baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Albendazole versus ivermectin, Outcome 4 New clinical disease.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Albendazole versus ivermectin, Outcome 5 Pre‐existing clinical disease.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Albendazole versus ivermectin, Outcome 6 Adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Albendazole plus ivermectin versus ivermectin, Outcome 1 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Albendazole plus ivermectin versus ivermectin, Outcome 2 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: only participants mf positive at baseline.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Albendazole plus ivermectin versus ivermectin, Outcome 3 Antigen prevalence: all participants (antigen positive or negative) at baseline.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Albendazole plus ivermectin versus ivermectin, Outcome 4 Antigen prevalence: only participants antigen positive at baseline.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Albendazole plus ivermectin versus ivermectin, Outcome 5 New clinical disease.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Albendazole plus ivermectin versus ivermectin, Outcome 6 Pre‐existing clinical disease.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Albendazole plus ivermectin versus ivermectin, Outcome 7 Adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Albendazole versus diethylcarbamazine (DEC), Outcome 1 Microfiliariae (mf) prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Albendazole versus diethylcarbamazine (DEC), Outcome 2 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: only participants mf positive at baseline.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Albendazole versus diethylcarbamazine (DEC), Outcome 3 Antigen prevalence: all participants (both antigen positive or negative at baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Albendazole versus diethylcarbamazine (DEC), Outcome 4 Antigen prevalence: only participants antigen positive at baseline.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Albendazole versus diethylcarbamazine (DEC), Outcome 5 Adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Albendazole versus diethylcarbamazine (DEC), Outcome 6 Adverse events: scrotal syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Albendazole plus diethylcarbamazine (DEC) versus DEC, Outcome 1 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Albendazole plus diethylcarbamazine (DEC) versus DEC, Outcome 2 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: only participants mf positive at baseline.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Albendazole plus diethylcarbamazine (DEC) versus DEC, Outcome 3 Antigen prevalence: all participants (both antigen positive and negative at baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Albendazole plus diethylcarbamazine (DEC) versus DEC, Outcome 4 Antigen prevalence: only participants antigen positive at baseline.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Albendazole plus diethylcarbamazine (DEC) versus DEC, Outcome 5 Adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1. Albendazole versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline) Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 At 3 to 4 months	2	783	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.66, 1.37]
1.2 At 6 months	1	499	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.66, 1.53]
2 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: only participants mf positive at baseline Show forest plot	2	195	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.87, 1.09]

3 Antigen prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline) Show forest plot	2	1090	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.81, 1.12]

4 New clinical disease Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4.1 Hydrocoele	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 Pre‐existing clinical disease Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5.1 Improvement in lymphoedema	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.2 Improvement in hydrocoele	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
6 Adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

6.1 Systemic	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 1. Albendazole versus placebo

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. Albendazole versus ivermectin

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: only participants mf positive at baseline Show forest plot	2	198	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.84 [0.72, 0.98]

3 Antigen prevalence: all participants (antigen positive or negative at baseline) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4 New clinical disease Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4.1 Hydrocoele	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 Pre‐existing clinical disease Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5.1 Improvement in lymphoedema	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.2 Improvement in hydrocoele	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
6 Adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

6.1 Systemic	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 2. Albendazole versus ivermectin

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. Albendazole plus ivermectin versus ivermectin

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: only participants mf positive at baseline Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 At 4 to 6 months	2	255	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.49 [0.18, 1.39]
2.2 At 12 months	2	348	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.88, 1.13]
3 Antigen prevalence: all participants (antigen positive or negative) at baseline Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4 Antigen prevalence: only participants antigen positive at baseline Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4.1 Data at 6 months	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.2 Data at 12 months	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 New clinical disease Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5.1 Hydrocoele	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
6 Pre‐existing clinical disease Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

6.1 Improvement in lymphoedema	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
6.2 Improvement in hydrocoele	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
7 Adverse events Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

7.1 Total	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
7.2 Systemic	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 3. Albendazole plus ivermectin versus ivermectin

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. Albendazole versus diethylcarbamazine (DEC)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Microfiliariae (mf) prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 At 3 months	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 At 6 months	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: only participants mf positive at baseline Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 After 3 months	1	36	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.82, 1.10]
2.2 After 1 year	2	56	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.19 [0.57, 2.49]
2.3 After 2 years	1	36	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.58 [0.44, 28.97]
3 Antigen prevalence: all participants (both antigen positive or negative at baseline) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4 Antigen prevalence: only participants antigen positive at baseline Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4.1 ICT test	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 Adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

6 Adverse events: scrotal syndrome Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 4. Albendazole versus diethylcarbamazine (DEC)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 5. Albendazole plus diethylcarbamazine (DEC) versus DEC

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: all participants (both mf positive or negative at baseline) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 At 3 months	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 At 6 months	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Microfilariae (mf) prevalence: only participants mf positive at baseline Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 At 3 months	2	73	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.83, 1.36]
2.2 At 6 months	1	42	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.0 [0.62, 1.61]
2.3 At 12 months	2	78	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.69, 1.44]
2.4 At 2 years	1	35	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.06, 13.93]
3 Antigen prevalence: all participants (both antigen positive and negative at baseline) Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 Data at 6 months	2	592	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.82, 1.24]
3.2 Data at 12 months	1	103	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.69, 1.31]
4 Antigen prevalence: only participants antigen positive at baseline Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5 Adverse events Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5.1 Any	2	1430	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.71, 1.08]
5.2 Interfered with daily activities	1	1395	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.64, 1.73]

Comparison 5. Albendazole plus diethylcarbamazine (DEC) versus DEC

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet