Clinical interventions for tungiasis (sand flea disease): a systematic review.

Autor:	Abrha S; Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, ACT, Australia; Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia., Heukelbach J; Postgraduate Program of Public Health, School of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil., Peterson GM; Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, ACT, Australia; College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia., Christenson JK; Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, ACT, Australia., Carroll S; Global School Partners, Deakin, ACT, Australia., Kosari S; Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, ACT, Australia., Bartholomeus A; Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, ACT, Australia; Daimantina Institute, University of Queensland, Wolloongabba, QLD, Australia., Feldmeier H; Institute of Microbiology and Infection Immunology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany., Thomas J; Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, ACT, Australia. Electronic address: jackson.thomas@canberra.edu.au.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The Lancet. Infectious diseases [Lancet Infect Dis] 2021 Aug; Vol. 21 (8), pp. e234-e245. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Jul 05.
DOI:	10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30853-7
Abstrakt:	Tungiasis (sand flea disease) is an epidermal parasitic skin disease occurring in resource-limited communities. There is no standard treatment for tungiasis, and available treatment options are scarce. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review aimed to assess randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating interventions for tungiasis. We systematically searched databases including MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, SciELO, LILACS and Embase (Scopus) for RCTs in any language, from inception of the databases until June 12, 2021. RCTs exploring preventive and therapeutic interventions for tungiasis were eligible. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias and Jadad scale to quantify the methodological quality of the RCTs. Of the 1839 identified records, only eight RCTs involving 808 participants were included, and several methodological deficiencies were identified in most of the trials. Trial interventions included: oral drugs niridazole and ivermectin and topical interventions of ivermectin lotion, metrifonate lotion, thiabendazole lotion, thiabendazole ointment, dimeticones (NYDA), and a neem seed and coconut oils-based mixture for treatment and coconut oil-based lotion (Zanzarin) for prevention. The coconut oil-based lotion for prevention and dimeticones for treatment of tungiasis have displayed the most promise. Most of the RCTs included in this study had low methodological quality. There is a clear unmet need for high-quality RCTs examining safe and effective prevention and treatment alternatives of tungiasis in endemic settings. Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests. (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu