Utility of repeated praziquantel dosing in the treatment of schistosomiasis in high-risk communities in Africa: a systematic review.
Tags
Data and Resources
To access the resources you must log in
This item has no data
Item URL
http://data.d4science.org/ctlg/RISIS2OpenData/dedup_wf_001--a5f26f73b49ec81443ad845105426c52 |
|
Identity
Access Modality
Field | Value |
---|---|
Access Right | Open Access |
Attribution
Field | Value |
---|---|
Author | Daniel Colley, 0000-0002-9381-8420 |
Author | Mendel Singer, 0000-0002-3331-3340 |
Author | Charles H. King, 0000-0001-8349-9270 |
Contributor | Keiser, Jennifer |
Publishing
Field | Value |
---|---|
Collected From | Europe PubMed Central; PubMed Central; ORCID; Datacite; UnpayWall; DOAJ-Articles; Crossref; Microsoft Academic Graph |
Hosted By | Europe PubMed Central; PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases |
Publication Date | 2011-09-20 |
Additional Info
Field | Value |
---|---|
Description | Author Summary Infection by Schistosoma worms causes serious disease among people who live in areas of Africa, South America, and Asia where these parasites are regularly transmitted. Although yearly treatment with the drug praziquantel is fairly effective in reducing or eliminating active infection, it does not cure everyone, and reinfection remains a continuing problem in high-risk communities. Studies have suggested that a repeat dose of praziquantel, given 2 to 8 weeks after the first dose, can improve cure rates and reduce remaining intensity of infections in population-based programs. Our systematic review of published research found that, on average, in Africa, such repeated dosing appears to offer particular advantages in the treatment of S. mansoni, the cause of intestinal schistosomiasis, but there was less consistent improvement after double-dosing for S. haematobium, the cause of urogenital schistosomiasis. Based on this evidence, we used a calibrated life-path model to predict the costs and benefits of a single-dose vs. a double-dose strategy in a typical high-risk community. Our projections suggest cost-effective incremental benefits from double dosing in terms of i) limiting a person's total years spent infected and ii) limiting the number of years they spend with heavy infection, with consequent improvements in quality of life. |
Language | Undetermined |
Resource Type | Other literature type; Article; UNKNOWN |
keyword | keywords.Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health |
system:type | publication |
Management Info
Field | Value |
---|---|
Source | https://science-innovation-policy.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=dedup_wf_001::a5f26f73b49ec81443ad845105426c52 |
Author | jsonws_user |
Last Updated | 26 December 2020, 16:50 (CET) |
Created | 26 December 2020, 16:50 (CET) |