Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 4;19(3):e0298332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298332

Efficacy and safety of prazequantel for the treatment of Schistosoma mansoni infection across different transmission settings in Amhara Regional State, northwest Ethiopia

Getaneh Alemu 1,*, Arancha Amor 2, Endalkachew Nibret 3,4, Abaineh Munshea 3,4, Melaku Anegagrie 2
Editor: Clement Ameh Yaro5
PMCID: PMC10911589  PMID: 38437215

Abstract

Background

Schistosoma mansoni and S. haematobium infections have been public health problems in Ethiopia, S. mansoni being more prevalent. To reduce the burden of schistosomiasis, a national school-based prazequantel (PZQ) mass drug administration (MDA) program has been implemented since November 2015. Nevertheless, S. mansoni infection is still a major public health problem throughout the country. Reduced efficacy of PZQ is reported by a few studies in Ethiopia, but adequate data in different geographical settings is lacking. Hence, this study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of PZQ for the treatment of S. mansoni infection across different transmission settings in Amhara Regional State, northwest Ethiopia.

Methods

A school-based single-arm prospective cohort study was conducted from February to June, 2023 among 130 S. mansoni-infected school-aged children (SAC). Forty-two, 37, and 51 S. mansoni-infected SAC were recruited from purposely selected schools located in low, moderate, and high transmission districts, respectively. School-aged children who were tested positive both by Kato Katz (KK) using stool samples and by the point of care circulating cathodic antigen (POC-CCA) test using urine samples at baseline were treated with a standard dose of PZQ and followed for 21 days for the occurrence of adverse events. After three weeks post-treatment, stool and urine samples were re-tested using KK and POC-CCA. Then the cure rate (CR), egg reduction rate (ERR), and treatment-associated adverse events were determined. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 21.

Results

Out of the total 130 study participants, 110 completed the follow-up. The CR and ERR of PZQ treatment were 88.2% (95%CI: 82.7–93.6) and 93.5% (95%CI: 85.4–98.5), respectively, by KK. The CR of PZQ based on the POC-CCA test was 70.9% (95%CI: 62.7–79.1) and 75.5% (95%CI: 67.3–83.6) depending on whether the interpretation of ‘trace’ results was made as positive or negative, respectively. After treatment on the 21st day, 78 and 83 participants tested negative both by KK and POC-CCA, with respective interpretations of ‘trace’ POC-CCA test results as positive or negative. The CR in low, moderate and high transmission settings was 91.7%, 91.2% and 82.5%, respectively (p = 0.377) when evaluated by KK. The CR among SAC with a light infection at baseline (95.7%) by KK was higher than that of moderate (81.5%) and heavy (64.3%) infections (χ2 = 12.53, p = 0.002). Twenty-six (23.6%) participants manifested at least one adverse event. Eleven (10.0%), eight (7.3%), six (5.5%), and three (2.7%) participants complained about abdominal pain, nausea, headache, and anorexia, respectively. All adverse events were mild, needing no intervention. Occurrence of adverse events was slightly higher in high endemic areas (32.5%) than moderate (23.5%) and low endemic areas (p = 0.279).

Conclusions

A single dose of 40 mg/kg PZQ was efficacious and safe for the treatment of S. mansoni infection when it was evaluated by the KK test, but a lower efficacy was recorded when it was evaluated by the POC-CCA test. However, the POC-CCA test’s specificity, clearance time of CCA from urine after treatment, and interpretation of weakly reactive (trace) test results need further research.

Background

Schistosomiasis (SCH) is a water-borne disease caused by blood-dwelling flukes of the genus Schistosoma [1]. It is endemic in 70 developing countries where 700 million people are at risk of infection. More than 200 million people are infected globally, with more than 90% of the infections occurring in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [13]. It causes a loss of about 3.3 million disability-adjusted life years [3] and up to 280,000 deaths annually in the SSA [4]. Schistosoma mansoni and S. haematobium are the predominant species affecting humans globally, while S. japonicum is restricted to the Asian continent [5, 6]. Other human-infecting species: S. intercalatum, S. mekongi, S. guineensis, and S. malayensis, have limited and focal geographical distributions [7, 8].

Schistosomiasis is a major public health problem in Ethiopia, where about 53.3 million people are at risk of infection [9]. Schistosoma mansoni and S. haematobium are found in Ethiopia. Schistosoma mansoni is widespread throughout the country, whereas S. haematobium is restricted to the lowland borders of the country [10, 11]. The snail intermediate host of S. mansoni, Biomphalaria spp., adapts best to altitudes ranging from 1300 to 2000 meters above sea level, which covers a large landmass of Ethiopia. The presence of a suitable snail intermediate host as well as a conducive physical environment made S. mansoni prevalent throughout the country [12, 13]. Despite the patchy distribution of SCH in Amhara Regional State, the regional prevalence of S. mansoni infection ranges from 17.5% to 41.1% based on recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses data [1417].

The Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) of Ethiopia has been implementing a national SCH control program to halt the transmission by the year 2025 [9] so as to achieve the WHO’s 2030 target of eliminating SCH in all endemic countries [18]. The FMoH has identified and implemented five strategies to accomplish this goal: mass drug administration (MDA) using prazequantel (PZQ); facility-based case diagnosis and treatment; snail vector control; water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH); and social and behavioral change communication [9]. In Ethiopia and other endemic countries, MDA has been the cornerstone of control programs because it is relatively easily applied and is supported by drug donors [19].

Despite the implementation of the MDA program for many years, the prevalence of SCH did not drop to an acceptable level in Ethiopia [9]. The first report of reduced PZQ efficacy (egg reduction rate (ERR) <80%) in Ethiopia was published in 2012 by Erko and his colleagues based on a study from Wondo genet, southern Ethiopia [20]. Recently, one study reporting reduced PZQ efficacy [21] and another study reporting doubtful PZQ efficacy (ERR of 80%—<90%) [22] were published in 2020 and 2022, respectively, from Amhara region. This is alarming and demands continuous monitoring of PZQ efficacy in order to inform policymakers of control programs about the effectiveness of the ongoing MDA in reducing disease transmission. In this way, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends monitoring anti-helminthic drug efficacy if the drug is used for MDA for four or more years, or if the disease prevalence did not drop to an acceptable level despite the implementation of MDA [23]. Soil-transmitted helminthes (STHs), especially Ascaris lumbricoides and hookworms, are co-endemic with S. mansoni in Ethiopia, and hence PZQ and albendazole/mebendazole are co-administered to school-aged children during MDA campaigns [9]. However, PZQ efficacy in schistosoma mono-infection and STH- co-infected children is not well addressed in Ethiopia. Moreover, the KK method that is being used for the assessment of PZQ efficacy is not sensitive enough for detecting light infections [17, 24, 25], and as a result, overestimation of CR is highly likely. In light of this fact, WHO suggested the use of urine point of care circulating cathodic antigen (POC-CCA) test along with KK in endemic countries for monitoring and evaluation of SCH control programs [26]. Circulating cathodic antigen (CCA) is one of the major schistosomal gut-associated glycoproteins regurgitated by the live adult parasites, and majority is secreted in urine. Hence, the detection of CCA in urine is suggestive for the presence of live worms. Despite the fact that all Schistosoma species produce CCA, the highest concentrations of the antigen are detected in S. mansoni infections, and therefore the POC-CCA test is particularly useful to diagnose S. mansoni infections. As shown in the Schisto POC-CCA® test kit manufacturer information sheet, CCA rapidly declines after successful treatment, and a positive test result usually becomes negative within 2 to 3 weeks after treatment [27, 28]. However, there is no adequate data about the performance of POC-CCA in assessing cure after PZQ treatment. Hence, the present study aimed to assess PZQ efficacy and safety for the treatment of S. mansoni infection and to compare the capacity of POC-CCA and KK for assessing cure in different transmission settings.

Methods and materials

Study design, area, and period

From February to June 2023, a school-based single-arm prospective cohort study was conducted among School-aged children (SAC) attending selected primary schools in different transmission settings of intestinal schistosomiasis in the Amhara Regional State, northwest Ethiopia. Data collection areas were stratified into three based on low (1% to <10%), moderate (>10% to <50%), and high (>50%) Schistosoma transmission settings [9]. The majority of the population in the region lives in rural areas, where agriculture accounts for 39% of domestic products. Only 20% and 69% of households have access to improved latrine and drinking water sources, respectively. Moreover, large natural and artificial open water sources, including Lake Tana, the Blue Nile River, Koga Dam, and Tana Beles sugar cane irrigation, are found in and around the present study area, making the area suitable for SCH. Amhara Regional Health Bureau (ARHB), in collaboration with FMoH, conducted a regional SCH mapping in 2015, updated in 2020 [9]. Among 81 districts mapped in northwest Ethiopia, 49, 17, 11, and 4 districts were found to be non-endemic (<1% prevalence), low (1%-<10%), moderate (10%-<50%), and high (≥50%) endemic for S. mansoni infections, respectively (ARHB, unpublished report).

Sample size calculation

The WHO protocol recommends a minimum of 50 S. mansoni-positive participants be enrolled in a PZQ efficacy study [23]. Hence, we calculated the sample size to be screened to get 50 positive children from each of the low, moderate, and high transmission settings using S. mansoni prevalence of 29.9% [29], 44.8% [30], and 89.9% [31] from previous studies conducted using KK in low, moderate, and high endemic settings, respectively. Just to avoid confusion about having 29.9% in low-endemic area, the schistosomiasis endemicity level in Ethiopia is declared at a district level. However, due to its focal distribution nature, some localities within a low-endemic district might have higher than the upper limit of low transmission (1%—< 10%). Assuming an 80% compliance rate, the sample size to be screened was calculated by the formula: sample size = 50/(0.8*prevalence). Replacing prevalences of 29.9%, 44.8%, and 89.9%, the sample sizes for low, moderate, and high transmission districts were 209, 140, and 70, respectively.

Sampling technique

The study participants were SAC aged 6–14 who attended selected primary schools. Schools were selected purposively to represent low, moderate, and high transmissions of SCH in districts based on the SCH endemicity map [9]. Accordingly, two schools from a low transmission setting (Andasa Primary School from Bahir Dar Zuria District, and Tach Qorata Primary School from Dera District), two schools from a moderate transmission setting (Chagni 01 Primary School and Chagni 03 Primary School from Chagni town), and one school from a high transmission setting (Ewqet Amba Primary School from Tach Armachiho District) were selected. The sample size for each endemicity level was proportionally allocated to each school and to each grade level based on the number of children attending each selected school and grade. Finally, participants for initial screening were selected from each class by a systematic random sampling technique using class rosters as a sampling frame. The first participant was enrolled on 16 February 2023 and the data collection end date was 27 June 2023.

Data collection and laboratory diagnosis methods

Questionnaire data collection

Data on socio-demographic characteristics and clinical signs and symptoms were collected by trained nurses using structured questionnaires. Questionnaires were administered to SC through a face-to-face interview. The questionnaires were translated from English to Amharic (the local language) before administration.

Sample collection and processing

Stool and urine samples were collected from each SAC to detect S. mansoni infection. After teaching about the collection process, two wide-mouthed cups (one for stool and the other for urine) were given to children to collect about 5g of stool and 3ml of random midstream urine samples at school. Urine samples were used for the detection of CCA using the POC-CCA test strip. Stool samples were transported in a triple package at room temperature to nearby health centers and processed by KK on the day of collection. The KK and POC-CCA tests were conducted by trained medical laboratory technologists.

Urine POC-CCA test

A Schisto POC-CCA® test (Rapid Medical Diagnostics; Cape Town, South Africa; Batch Number: 220902098; Expire date: 2024/09) was performed from a urine sample at schools immediately after collection following the manufacturer’s procedures. In brief, two drops of urine (100 µl) were added to the sample port well of the test cassette placed in a horizontal position. After applying the urine, the CCA antigen that may be present in the sample binds to the labeled monoclonal antibody immobilized in the sample membrane. The solution then runs over the strip, where the antigen-antibody complex attaches to the monoclonal antibody immobilized at the test line to develop a pink line. Results were read just after 20 minutes and interpreted as positive if a pink line developed at the test line and negative if a pink line did not develop. The presence of a pink control line was used to make sure the test worked correctly.

Stool KK test

A fresh stool sample was processed by the KK technique at nearby health center laboratories. Approximately 2–3 gram of fresh stool was sieved through a fine wire mesh of size 200 μm and the stool filtered off over the mesh was scraped using a plastic spatula. A template with a hole, which is assumed to sample 41.7 mg of feces, was placed at the center of a microscope slide, and the hole was filled with the sieved fecal material. The template was then gently removed. A cellophane cover slip, pre-soaked in glycerol-malachite green solution for 24 hours, was placed over the fecal material and pressed to have a uniform smear. Slides were examined for the detection of S. mansoni ova. The number of eggs per gram of stool (EPG) was calculated by multiplying the number of eggs per slide by 24. The EPG was calculated from duplicate KK slide readings separately, and the average was taken as the final EPG [32, 33]. The KK smear was also used to detect the ova of STHs [33].

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Schoolchildren aged 6–14 who were positive for S. mansoni infection both by KK and POC-CCA, regardless of their STH infection status, were enrolled for assessment of PZQ efficacy. Schoolchildren who lived in the study area at least for six months and attended a regular primary school to participate in the study were included. Moreover, participants were included in the study after obtaining assent from the children and consent from their parents or caregivers. Schoolchildren who had diarrhea and took any anti-helminthic drugs within six months prior to data collection were excluded from the study. Children who were co-infected with intestinal helminthes other than S. mansoni and STHs were also excluded.

Evaluation of prazequantel efficacy

Evaluation of PZQ efficacy was conducted following the WHO protocol [23]. Children were instructed to eat breakfast before taking PZQ treatment. A single dose of 40 mg/Kg PZQ (brand name: biltricide, expired date: 24/11/2023, manufacturer: Bayer pharmaceuticals) purchased from a private pharmacy in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, was administered to each eligible child directly observed during drug uptake and were followed for four hours for vomiting, if any. Children who vomited within four hours after drug administration were withdrawn from the follow-up. Trained health extension workers regularly followed students from day 1 to day 7 on a daily basis to record any adverse events. The severity of adverse events was graded based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 [34]. After three weeks, stool and urine samples were collected from each participant and examined by KK and POC-CCA.

Study outcomes and definitions

The primary study outcome in the present study was PZQ efficacy (cure rate (CR) and ERR at three weeks post-treatment). Cure rate was calculated from the results of the KK and POC-CCA tests separately, while ERR was calculated based on EPG reported by the KK pre- and post-treatment. The CR by KK was defined as the proportion of treated children who were egg-positive at baseline but became egg-negative at week three after treatment. The CR by POC-CCA was defined as the proportion of treated children who were POC-CCA test positive at baseline but became POC-CCA test negative at week three after treatment. Cure rate and ERR were calculated based on the WHO protocol as follows [23].

CR%=(Numberofnegativeparticipantswhotestedpositiveatbaseline)Numberofpositiveparticipantsatbaselinex100
ERR%=1(Arithmeticmeaneggcountsatfollow-up)Arithmeticmeaneggcountsatbaselinex100

A point estimate of ERR of ≥90% was considered satisfactory; between 80% and 90%, and <80% were considered doubtful and reduced efficacy, respectively [23].

The secondary outcome of the present study was incidence and type of adverse events that occurred after PZQ treatment. An adverse event was defined as any sign or symptom that was not reported before PZQ treatment but occurred during the follow-up period. For this purpose, study participants were interviewed for any signs and symptoms (nausea, anorexia, headache, cough, fever, vomiting, stomach pain, rash, dizziness, confusion, difficulty to breath, diarrhea, itching, and any other symptoms). Treated children were prospectively monitored for seven days on a daily basis for the occurrence of any adverse events.

Data quality assurance

Training was given to data collectors (medical laboratory technologists, health extension workers, nurses, and teachers). In KK and POC-CCA test procedures, standard operating procedures and the manufacturer’s instructions were strictly followed. The expireation date of all KK reagents (glycerol and malachite green) and POC-CCA test kits was checked before use. All KK smears and POC-CCA tests were independently read by two medical laboratory technologists, and discordant readings were read by a third senior medical laboratory technologist. The presence of the control line was checked in all POC-CCA tests. The PZQ package was inspected for any physical damage, and its expiration date was double-checked during purchasing and just before treatment. The KK set, POC-CCA test kits, and PZQ were stored appropriately as per the manufacturer’s instructions until use.

Data analysis

Data were entered and analyzed in SPSS software version 21 (IBM SPSS Corp. Chicago, USA). A descriptive statistic was used to analyze the socio-demographic characteristics, clinical history, and side effects. Pearson’s Chi-square test was run to assess an association between potential risk factors with CR and adverse events. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the mean EPG among males vs. females, aged 6–9 vs. 10–14, STH-infected vs. non-infected, while the Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to compare the mean EPG among participants with light, moderate, and heavy intensity of infections.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Bahir Dar University, Science College (Ref: PRCSVD/514/2015). A support letter was obtained from the Amhara Public Health Institute. Permission letter was obtained from selected districts health and education offices and selected primary schools. Informed written consent was obtained from parents/caregivers of participating children, and assent was obtained from children. All participants tested positive for S. mansoni and STHs were treated with the standard doses of PZQ and Albendazole, respectively. Participants with other intestinal parasite infections were linked to nearby health institutions for treatment. Participants who were not cured (positive at follow-up) were re-treated with a single dose of 40mg/kg PZQ.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants

A total of 167, 112, and 64 participants were screened in low, moderate, and high transmission settings. The response rate in the low and moderate transmission settings was low, probably due to low awareness about the public health importance of S. mansoni infection. Among the total participants screened, 130 were positive for S. mansoni by both diagnostic methods and hence enrolled in the PZQ efficacy study. Of the 130 participants, twenty were excluded from the data analysis because eight students were absent on the treatment date; four refused to take the drug; one vomited within four hours after taking the drug; and seven were absent on the follow-up dates. Hence, 110 participants were included in the final analysis. The majority (88.2%) of participants were aged 10–14 and 56.4% were male participants (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics and STH co-infection among school-aged children participated in prazequantel efficacy testing in northwest Ethiopia, February to June 2023 (N = 110).

Variable Catagory Number (%) STH co-infection
Hookworms N(%) Ascaris lumbricoides N(%)
Age group (in years) 6–9 13(11.8) 0 0
10–14 97(88.2) 11(11.3) 2(2.1)
Sex Male 62(56.4) 7(11.3) 1(1.6)
Female 48(43.6) 4(8.3) 1(2.1)
School Grade 1–4 72(65.5) 6(8.3) 2(2.8)
5–8 38(34.5) 5(13.2) 0
District Bahir Dar Zuria 17(15.5) 0 0
Chagni town 34(30.9) 0 1(2.9)
Dera 19(17.3) 10(52.6) 1(5.3)
Tach Armachiho 40(36.4) 1(2.5) 0
School Andasa Primary School 17(15.5) 0 0
Chagni 01 Primary School 16(14.5) 0 0
Chagni 03 Primary School 18(16.4) 0 1(5.6)
Tach Qorata Primary School 19(17.3) 10(52.6) 1(5.3)
Euket Amba Primary School 40(36.4) 1(2.5) 0

Cure rate

Study participants recruitment and flow chart with CR stratified by diagnostic methods is presented in Fig 1. Among 110 participants who completed the follow-up, 97 were tested negative by stool KK three weeks post-treatment, giving a CR of 88.2% (95%CI: 82.7–93.6). When ‘trace’ results were considered positive in POC-CCA test, the CR was found to be 70.9% (95%CI: 62.7–79.1) which was lower than the CR evaluated by KK (χ2 = 35.93, p < 0.001). When ‘trace’ results were considered negative, the CR was 75.5% (95%CI: 67.3–83.6). This was significantly lower compared to the CR that was calculated based on KK results (χ2 = 45.32, p < 0.001) (Table 2).

Fig 1. Study flow chart and observed cure rates stratified by diagnostic methods.

Fig 1

Table 2. Comparison of cure rate of PZQ as diagnosed by KK and POC-CCA methods among school-aged children in northwest Ethiopia, February to June 2023 (N = 110).

Cured (POC-CCA test; trace result as positive) χ2 P-value
Yes No Total 35.934 <0.001
Cured (KK test) Yes 78 19 97 (88.2%)
No 0 13 13
Total 78 (70.9%) 32 110
Cured (POC-CCA test; trace result as negative) 45.319 <0.001
Yes No Total
Cured (KK test) Yes 83 14 97 (88.2)
No 0 13 13
Total 83 (75.5%) 27 110

A total of 69 (62.7%), 27 (24.5%), and 14 (12.7%) participants had light, moderate and heavy S. mansoni infections, respectively, at baseline. Light, moderate and heavy infections were reported from all the three (low, moderate and high) transmission settings but the majority of heavy infections (11 out of 14) were from a high transmission setting as data presented in S1 File. There was a significant association between the baseline intensity of infection and CR (χ2 = 12.53, p = 0.002). Children with a light infection at baseline had the highest CR (95.7%), followed by moderate (81.5%), and heavy (64.3%) infections. However, CR was not associated with SCH endemicity of data collection districts (p > 0.05). There was no significant association between age, sex, data collection district, STH co-infections and CR (Table 3).

Table 3. Prazequantel cure rate and associated risk factors among school-aged children in northwest Ethiopia, February to June 2023 (N = 110).

Variable Category By KK By POC-CCA (trace as negative) By POC-CCA (trace as positive)
Cured(%) Not cured (%) χ 2 p-value Cured (%) Not cured(%) χ2 p-value Cured (%) Not cured(%) χ2 p-value
Age group (in years) 6–9 11(84.6) 2(15.4) 0.18 0.671 9(69.2) 4(30.8) 0.31 0.579 8(61.5) 5(38.5) 0.63 0.428
10–14 86(88.7) 11(11.3) 74(76.3) 23(23.7) 70(72.2) 27(27.8)
Sex Male 54(87.1) 8(12.9) 0.16 0.689 45(72.6) 17(27.4) 0.63 0.426 42(67.7) 20(32.3) 0.69 0.406
Female 43(89.6) 5(10.4) 38(79.2) 10(20.8) 36(75) 12(25)
Grade level 1–4 65(90.3) 7(9.7) 0.88 0.349 57(79.2) 15(20.8) 1.55 0.213 52(72.2) 20(27.8) 0.17 0.676
5–8 32(84.2) 6(15.8) 26(68.4) 12(31.6) 26(68.4) 12(31.6)
District Bahir Dar Zuria 16(94.1) 1(5.9) 2.14 0.544 14(82.4) 3(17.6) 0.54 0.910 14(82.4) 3(17.6) 2.58 0.461
Chagni town 31(91.2) 3(8.8) 25(73.5) 9(26.5) 21(61.8) 13(38.2)
Dera 17(89.5) 2(10.5) 14(73.7) 5(26.3) 14(73.7) 5(26.3)
Tach Armachiho 33(82.5) 7(17.5) 30(75) 10(25) 29(72.5) 11(27.5)
School Andasa 16(94.1) 1(5.9) 2.53 0.639 14(82.4) 3(17.6) 2.53 0.640 14(82.4) 3(17.6) 4.61 0.330
Chagni 01 14(87.5) 2(12.5) 10(62.5) 6(37.5) 8(50) 8(50)
Chagni 03 17(94.4) 1(5.6) 15(83.3) 3(16.7) 13(72.2) 5(27.8)
Tach Qorata 17(89.5) 2(10.5) 30(75) 10(25) 29(72.5) 11(27.5)
Euket Amba 33(82.5) 7(17.5) 14(73.7) 5(26.3) 14(73.7) 5(26.3)
SCH endemicity* Low 33 (91.7) 3 (8.3) 1.95 0.377 28(77.8) 8(22.2) 0.18 0.915 28(77.8) 8(22.2) 2.25 0.325
Moderate 31(91.2) 3 (8.8) 25(73.5) 9(26.5) 21(61.8) 13(38.2)
High 33(82.5) 7 (17.5)
30(75) 10(25) 29(72.5) 11(27.5)
Intensity of infection Light 66(95.7) 3(4.3) 12.53 0.002 55(79.7) 14(20.3) 3.24 0.198 54(78.3) 15(21.7) 4.87 0.088
Moderate 22(81.5) 5(18.5) 20(74.1) 7(25.9) 16(59.3) 11(40.7)
Heavy 8(57.1) 6(42.9) 8(57.1) 6(42.9)
9(64.3) 5(35.7)
STH co-infection Yes 12(92.3) 1(7.7) 0.24 0.624 10(76.9) 3(23.1) 0.02 0.896 10(76.9) 3(23.1) 0.26 0.611
No 85(87.6) 12(12.4) 73(75.3) 24(24.5) 68(70.1) 29(29.9)
Overall 97(88.2) 13(11.8) 83(75.5) 27(24.5) 78(70.9) 32(29.1)

*endemicity of data collection districts based on the Ethiopian FMoH national SCH mapping result [9]

Egg reduction rate

The mean baseline EPG among study participants was 163.9 ± 205.3 (mean ± standard deviation, SD). The minimum and maximum EPG at baseline were 12 and 1104, giving a range of 1092. This large range makes the standard deviation from the mean EPG large. The median EPG was 72 while the most frequent EPG was 24 at baseline. The mean, median, mode, minimum, maximum, and range of EPG both at baseline and follow-up are presented in S1 File. The mean EPG varied by age group and sex, but the difference was not significant (p > 0.05). The mean EPG among STH-co-infected children (42.5 + 24.3) significantly differed (p = 0.002) from the mean EPG among STH-negative children (180.1 ± 213.4). The mean EPG at follow-up was 7.2 ± 23.8, providing an overall ERR of 93.5% (95%CI: 85.4–98.5), as presented in S2 File.

Adverse events after prazequantel treatment

Out of 110 study participants, 27 adverse events occurred in 26 participants. The adverse events reported were abdominal pain (11/110, 10.0%), nausea (8/110, 7.3%), headache (6/110, 5.5%), and anorexia (3/110, 2.7%). Only one adverse event occurred in each of the 26 participants, while two adverse events occurred in one participant. The majority of adverse events (26/27, 96.3%) occurred on the first day of treatment and were resolved by day 2. One adverse event (headache) occurred two days after treatment and stayed for a half day before resolving. All adverse events were mild. Adverse events were more common among children with no co-infection with STHs as compared to those with STH co-infection (p = 0.029). Participants’ age, sex, and baseline S. mansoni infection intensity were not significantly associated with the occurrence of adverse events (Table 4).

Table 4. Adverse events observed among school-aged children after prazequantel treatment across associated risk factors in northwest Ethiopia, February to June 2023 (N = 110).

Variable Category Number of children assessed n Adverse event n(%) χ2 P-value
Age group (in years) 6–9 13 6(46.2) 3.72 0.054
10–14 97 21(21.6)
Sex Male 62 11(17.7) 3.55 0.060
Female 48 16(33.3)
Transmission setting of data collection sites Low 36 6(16.7) 2.59 0.274
Moderate 34 8(23.5)
Heavy 40 13(32.5)
Intensity of infection Light 69 14(20.3) 5.29 0.071
Moderate 27 11(40.7)
Heavy 14 2(14.3))
STH co-infection Yes 13 0(0.0) 4.80 0.029
No 97 27(27.8)
Number of PZQ tablets taken <3 tablets 96 23(24.0) 0.14 0.743
≥3 tablets 14 4(28.6)
Overall 110 27(24.5)

Discussion

The CR of PZQ as evaluated by the KK method (88.2%, 95%CI: 81.8–93.6) was high, revealing that a single dose of 40 mg/kg PZQ is effective in treating S. mansoni infections. The CR was nearly equal to the upper limit of the standard CR of 60%-90% set by the WHO for single-dose PZQ treatment [35]. The present finding is in line with earlier results [22, 3642]. The CR in the present study was higher than previous reports from Ethiopia [43] and other SSA countries [20, 4446]. On the contrary, the CR in the present study was lower than previous reports from Ethiopia [47] and Tanzania [24]. Variations in the study population, baseline infection intensity, and diagnostic methods as well as parasite, host, and drug associated factors might contribute for the difference in CR [48].

The lower CR using the POC-CCA test as compared to the CR measured by KK (p<0.001) implies that PZQ is not as efficacious as it was thought before. The present PZQ CR using POC-CCA is similar to previous reports [25, 26] but higher than the findings of other studies [24, 44, 49]. The previous studies measured CRs six weeks and above after treatment, possibly leading to re-infections and thereby contributing to the lower CR. The POC-CCA test could be an important alternative for assessment of cure. This is in line with the WHO’s suggestion to use POC-CCA along with KK for mapping and monitoring the success of MDA in S. mansoni transmission settings [26]. However, until the specificity of the technique is well determined, we should be cautious in the interpretation of POC-CCA test results, as we do not know how long it takes for schistotoma antigens to clear from the urine, and we can face false positive results. Urinary tract infections and haematuria are also thought to cause false-positive results. Therefore, the specificity, actual CCA clearance time after treatment, correlation of test results with infection intensity, PZQ mechanism of action to the adult female worms (whether reducing fecundity or killing), and doubt whether juvenile worms are releasing detectable amounts of CCA or not should be known before recommending POC-CCA alone for the assessment of cure [24].

As measured by the KK method, participants with light infection at baseline had the highest CR, while the lowest CR was reported among participants with heavy infection (95.7% vs. 64.3%; p = 0.002). Similar findings were reported from southern Ethiopia [36]. In cases of moderate and heavy infections, few adults might escape from the action of PZQ, contributing to a reduced CR as compared to light infections. Moreover, the insensitivity of KK, especially to detect light infections, might contribute to false-negative results and hence a higher CR among participants with light infection at baseline. However, CR was not associated with the endemicity level of data collection districts. The actual baseline intensity of infection for each participant determines the CR better than the SCH endemicity of study areas.

Recent studies reported that lower age groups had lower CR, probably due to a lower dose of PZQ they took as the treatment was based on height [40, 50]. Similarly, in our study, we found that participants aged 6–9 had a lower CR as compared to those aged 10–14, but the difference was not significant (84.6% vs. 88.7%, p = 0.671). In the present study, a small number of participants (only 13) were enrolled within the lower age group, which made it difficult to provide strong justification.

As presented in S2 File, STH co-infection was significantly associated with baseline S. mansoni infection intensity (p = 0.002) and all STH co-infected children had a light S. mansoni infection. The majority of STH infections were caused by hookworms (11 out of 13), which feed on blood similar to S. mansoni. Competition for nutrients might reduce the fecundity of S. mansoni and hence lower the EPG among hookworm-co-infected participants compared to S. mansoni mono-infections. However, STH co-infection was not associated with CR (p > 0.05) which was in line with a previous study in southern Ethiopia [36]. The number of co-infected participants in the present study was small, which makes it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion.

In the present study, the ERR (93.5%) as measured by duplicate KK three weeks post-treatment was above the WHO minimum threshold (90%), indicating that PZQ is still satisfactory for the treatment of S. mansoni infection [23]. This result is in line with previous reports in Ethiopia [36, 37, 41, 43, 47] and elsewhere in Africa [24, 46]. Doubtful [22, 45] and reduced [20, 39, 44] ERR were reported by other previous studies. The difference might be due to variations in the baseline infection intensity, diagnostic methods used, and length of the follow-up period [20, 22, 39, 45, 46]. The prolonged follow-up time in previous studies might affect the actual ERR due to re-infection and maturation of parasites that were juvinile at the time of treatment. Moderate and heavily infected children had a higher ERR as compared to children with light-intensity infections. This result is similar to previous findings [36]. It has been known that single-dose PZQ reduces female worm fecundity, thereby decreasing egg output after treatment [51].

In the present study, occurrence of treatment-associated adverse events (27/110, 24.5%) was higher as compared to a previous report of 17% [30], but it was lower than the incidence of adverse events from other studies [20, 38, 50]. Abdominal pain and nausea were the most common adverse events, which was in line with previous reports [36, 52]. In our study, all adverse events were mild and transient, needing no intervention. Rigorous assessment of pre-existing baseline clinical data, ensuring whether children have eaten breakfast just before treatment, accurate drug dosage, counseling about the drug intake procedure, and the nature of the drug might contribute to the low incidence of adverse events observed among SC in the present study. Despite only mild and transient adverse events were reported in the present study, integrating safety surveillance with the ongoing MDA enables early detection of any emerging adverse events and associated factors. Participants without STH co-infection were more likely to develop adverse events (p = 0.029). It is difficult to justify this because STH-co-infected children were small in number (13) and all co-infected participants had only a light S. mansoni infection. Since adverse events are believed to occur because of worm-drug interaction, light infections might cause decreased or no adverse events.

The present study has the following limitations: the sample size was small, which makes it difficult to compare PZQ efficacy across low, moderate, and high endemicity settings. The small sample size decreases the strength of our conclusions too. Whether the reported adverse events were due to drug therapy or any other cause was not assessed.

Conclusions

Prazequantel was efficacious for the treatment of S. mansoni infection when it was evaluated by the KK test. A single dose of 40 mg/kg PZQ caused mild adverse events, so it is safe for the treatment of S. mansoni infection. Therefore, we recommend continual use of a single dose 40 mg/kg PZQ as a first-line treatment for S. mansoni infection. However, the efficacy was recorded as low when it was evaluated by a more sensitive POC-CCA test, which is an indication of KK overestimating PZQ efficacy. The urine POC-CCA test could be a potential alternative. However, POC-CCA test specificity, clearance time of CCA from urine after treatment, and interpretation of ‘trace’ results need further research before recommending this test alone for diagnosis and assessment of cure. Continuous, large-scale country-wide studies are recommended to early detect reduced efficacy and to draw a strong conclusion about the effect of transmission setting on PZQ efficacy.

Supporting information

S1 File. Mean, median, mode, minimum, maximum and range of S. mansoni fecal egg counts among schoolchildren in northwest Ethiopia, February to June 2023 (N = 110).

(DOCX)

pone.0298332.s001.docx (21.4KB, docx)
S2 File. Mean fecal egg count and egg reduction rate among schoolchildren in northwest Ethiopia, February to June 2023 (N = 110).

(DOCX)

pone.0298332.s002.docx (15.7KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We thank the Mundo Sano Foundation and Institute of Health Carlos III for providing POC-CCA test kits; Bahir Dar University Science College for ethical approval of the study; Amhara Regional Health Bureau for providing support letter; and study participants for their volunteer participation in the study; Tadesse Hailu for reviewing the manuscript.

Abbreviations

ARHB

Amhara Regional Health Bureau

CCA

Circulating Cathodic Antigen

CR

Cure Rate

EPG

Eggs Per Gram of stool

ERR

Egg Reduction Rate

FMoH

Federal Ministry of Health

KK

Kato Katz

MDA

Mass Drug Administration

POC-CCA

Point of Care Circulating Cathodic Antigen

PZQ

Prazequantel

SAC

School-aged children

SCH

Schistosomiasis

SSA

sub-Saharan Africa

STHs

Soil Transmitted Helminths

WASH

Water Sanitation and Hygiene

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.WHO. Schistosomiasis. 2022. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/schistosomiasis (Accessed: 20Jul2022).
  • 2.Molehin AJ. Current Understanding of Immunity Against Schistosomiasis: Impact on Vaccine and Drug Development. Res Rep Trop Med. 2020; 11: 119–128. doi: 10.2147/RRTM.S274518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Global atlas of helminth infections. https://www.thiswormyworld.org/worms/global-burden (accessed 15 December 2023).
  • 4.Hotez PJ, Kamath A. Neglected Tropical Diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa: Review of Their Prevalence, Distribution, and Disease Burden. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009; 3(8): e412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Merrifield M, Hotez PJ, Beaumier CM, Gillespie P, Strych U, Hayward T, et al. Advancing a vaccine to prevent human schistosomiasis. Vaccine. 2016;34(26):2988–2991. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.03.079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gordon CA, Kurscheid J, Williams GM, Clements ACA, Li Y, Zhou XN, et al. Asian Schistosomiasis: Current Status and Prospects for Control Leading to Elimination. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2019; 4(1):40. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed4010040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.WHO. Schistosomiasis: progress report 2001–2011, strategic plan 2012–2020. 2013a. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/78074 (Accessed: 04Jan2022).
  • 8.McManus DP, Dunne DW, Sacko M, Utzinger J, Vennervald BJ, Zhou XN. Schistosomiasis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018; 4(1): 13. doi: 10.1038/s41572-018-0013-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. The Third National Neglected Tropical Diseases Strategic Plan 2021–2025. 2021. https://espen.afro.who.int/system/files/content/resources/ThirdNTDnationalStrategicPlan202021-2025.pdf (Accessed: 08Feb2022).
  • 10.Mekonnen A, Legesse M, Belay M, Tadesse K, Torben W, Teklemariam Z, et al. Efficacy of Praziquantel against Schistosoma haematobium in Dulshatalo village, western Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2013; 6(392): doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-392 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Degarege A, Mekonnen Z, Levecke B, Legesse M, Negash Y, Vercruysse J, et al. Prevalence of Schistosoma haematobium Infection among School-Age Children in Afar Area, Northeastern Ethiopia. PLoS ONE. 2015. 10(8). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kloos H, Birrie H, Ayele T, Tedla S, Tsegay F. Schistosomiasis in Ethiopia. Soc Sci Med. 1988; 26(8):803–27. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90174-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ali A, Erko B, Woldemichael T, Kloos H. Schistosomiasis. 1st edition. In: Berhane Y, Hailemariam D, Kloos H, editors. Epidemiology and Ecology of Health and Diseases in Ethiopia. 2006. Addis Ababa: Shama Books, 660–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bisetegn H, Eshetu T, Erkihun Y. Prevalence of Schistosoma mansoni infection among children in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trop Dis Travel Med Vaccines. 2021; 7(1): 30. doi: 10.1186/S40794-021-00156-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hussen S, Assegu D, Tadesse BT, Shimelis T. Prevalence of Schistosoma mansoni infection in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trop Dis Travel Med Vaccines. 2021; 7(1): 4. doi: 10.1186/S40794-020-00127-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ponpetch K, Erko B, Bekana T, Richards L, Liang S. Biogeographical characteristics of Schistosoma mansoni endemic areas in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta analysis. Infect Dis Poverty. 2021; 10(1): 83. doi: 10.1186/S40249-021-00864-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hailegebriel T, Nibret E, Munshea A. Prevalence of Schistosoma mansoni and Associated Risk Factors in Human and Biomphalaria Snails in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Acta parasitol. 2021; 67(1): 31–48. doi: 10.1007/s11686-021-00449-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.WHO. Ending the neglect to attain the sustainable development goals: a road map for neglected tropical diseases 2021–2030. 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/332094 (Accessed: 24Aug2022).
  • 19.Humphries D, Nguyen S, Boakye D, Wilson M, Cappello M. 2012. The promise and pitfalls of mass drug administration to control intestinal helminth infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2012; 25(5): 584–589. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e328357e4cf [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Erko B, Degarege A, Tadesse K, Mathiwos A, Legesse M. Efficacy and side effects of praziquantel in the treatment of Schistosomiasis mansoni in schoolchildren in Shesha Kekele Elementary School, Wondo Genet, Southern Ethiopia. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2012; 2(3): 235–239. doi: 10.1016/S2221-1691(12)60049-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zeleke AJ, Addisu A, Bayih AG, Tweya H, Timire C, Techilo W, et al. Does mass drug administration affect Schistosoma mansoni infection trends in West Dembia district, Northwest Ethiopia? J Infect Dev Ctries. 2020; 14(6.1)725–775. doi: 10.3855/jidc.11727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Berhanu MS, Atnafie SA, Ali TE, Chekol AA, Kebede HB. Efficacy of Praziquantel Treatment and Schistosoma mansoni Infection among Primary School Children in Kemisse Town, Northeast Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2022; 32(3): 631–640. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v32i3.20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.WHO. Assessing the Efficacy of Anthelminthic Drugs against Schistosomiasis and Soil-Transmitted Helminthiases. 2013b. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/79019 (Accessed: 13Jul2022).
  • 24.Mazigo HD, Fuss A, Mueller A. ‘High Egg Reduction Rate but poor clearance of Circulating Cathodic Antigen three weeks after Praziquantel treatment among school children on Ijinga Island, north-western Tanzania’. ActaTropica. 2021; 218. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2021.105871 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Elbasheir MM, Karti IA, Elamin EM. Evaluation of a rapid diagnostic test for schistosoma mansoni infection based on the detection of circulating cathodic antigen in urine in central Sudan. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020; 14(6): e0008313. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sousa SRM, Nogueira JFC, Dias IHL, Fonseca ÁLS, Favero V, Geiger SM, et al. The use of the circulating cathodic antigen (CCA) urine cassette assay for the diagnosis and assessment of cure of Schistosoma mansoni infections in an endemic area of the Amazon region. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2020; 53: e20190562. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0562-2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Coulibaly JT, N’Gbesso YK, Knopp S, N’Guessan NA, Silué KD, van Dam GJ, et al. Accuracy of urine circulating cathodic antigen test for the diagnosis of Schistosoma mansoni in preschool-aged children before and after treatment. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013; 7(3):e2109. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.van Lieshout L, de Jonge N, el-Masry N, Mansour MM, Bassily S, Krijger FW, et al. Monitoring the efficacy of different doses of praziquantel by quantification of circulating antigens in serum and urine of schistosomiasis patients. Parasitology.1994; 108: 519–526. doi: 10.1017/s0031182000077386 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Abdi M, Nibret E, Munshea A. Prevalence of intestinal helminthic infections and malnutrition among schoolchildren of the Zegie Peninsula, northwestern Ethiopia. J Infect Public Health. 2017; 10(1):84–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2016.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Jejaw A, Zemene E, Alemu Y, Mengistie Z. High prevalence of Schistosoma mansoni and other intestinal parasites among elementary school children in Southwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15(1):600. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1952-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Worku L, Damte D, Endris M, Tesfa H, Aemero M. Schistosoma mansoni infection and associated determinant factors among school children in Sanja town, Northwest Ethiopia. J Parasitol Res. 2014; 2014:1–7. doi: 10.1155/2014/792536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Katz N, Chaves A, Pellegrino J. A simple device for quantitative stool thick-smear technique in schistosomiasis mansoni. Rev Inst Med Trop São Paulo. 1972; 14:397–400. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.WHO. Basic laboratory methods in medical parasitology. 1991. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/40793 (Accessed on 13June2022).
  • 34.National cancer institute. Common Terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) | protocol development | CTEP. 2017. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm (Accessed: 12September2022).
  • 35.WHO Expert Committee on the Control of Schistosomiasis (2001: Geneva, Switzerland) & World Health Organization. Prevention and control of schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis: report of a WHO expert committee. 2002. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42588 (Accessed: 15May2022). [PubMed]
  • 36.Gebreyesus TD, Makonnen E, Tadele T, Mekete K, Gashaw H, Gerba H, et al. Efficacy and safety of praziquantel preventive chemotherapy in Schistosoma mansoni infected school children in Southern Ethiopia: A prospective cohort study. Front. Pharmacol. 2023; 14: 968106. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.968106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ejigu K, Hailu T, Alemu M. Efficacy of Mebendazole and Praziquantel against Soil-Transmitted Helminths and Schistosoma mansoni Infections among Schoolchildren in Northwest Ethiopia. Biomed Res Int. 2021; doi: 10.1155/2021/6682418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Muthoni E, Kigondu E, Kiboi D, Mwangi IN. Efficacy and Safety of Up-scaled Dosage of 60 mg/kg Praziquantel in Control of Schistosoma mansoni in School Going Children in Kirinyaga County, Kenya. Int J TROP DIS & Health. 2018; 33(4): 1–12. doi: 10.9734/ijtdh/2018/44929 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tesfie A, Getnet G, Abere A, Yihenew G, Belete Y, Kassa M, et al. Praziquantel is an effective drug for the treatment of Schistosoma mansoni infection among school-aged children in Northwest Ethiopia. Trop Med Health. 2020; 48:28. doi: 10.1186/s41182-020-00204-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dejene T, Asmelash T, Abdelkadir M. Efficacy of Praziquantel in Treating Schistosoma mansoni Infected School Children in Tumuga and Waja, North Ethiopia. Momona Ethiopian Journal of Science. 2020; 2: 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Eden W, Abebe G, Yalewayker T, Mulugeta A, Ayalew J. “Prevalence and Reinfection Rates of Schistosoma mansoni and Praziquantel Efficacy against the Parasite among Primary School Children in Sanja Town, Northwest Ethiopia". Journal of Parasitology Research. 2019: doi: 10.1155/2019/3697216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tchuem Tchuenté LA, Kueté Fouodo CJ, Kamwa Ngassam RI, Sumo L, Dongmo Noumedem C, Kenfack CM, et al. Evaluation of Circulating Cathodic Antigen (CCA) Urine-Tests for Diagnosis of Schistosoma mansoni Infection in Cameroon. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012; 6(7): e1758. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Samuel H, Lemu G, Zeleke M. Prevalence of Schistosoma mansoni and effectiveness of Praziquantel in school children in Finchaa valley, Ethiopia. J. Parasitol. Vector Biol. 2012; 4(3): 25–30. Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/jpvb 10.5897/jpvb12.013. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hoekstra PT, Casacuberta-Partal M, van Lieshout L, Corstjens PLAM, Tsonaka R, Assaré RK, et al. Efficacy of single versus four repeated doses of praziquantel against Schistosomamansoni infection in school-aged children from Côte d’Ivoire based on Kato-Katz and POC-CCA: An open-label, randomised controlled trial (RePST). PLoSNegl Trop Dis. 2020; 14(3):e0008189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Munisi DZ, Buza J, Mpolya ET, Kinung’hi SM. The efficacy of single-dose versus double-dose praziquantel treatments on Schistosoma mansoni infections: its implication on undernutrition and anaemia among primary schoolchildren in two on-shore communities, northwestern Tanzania. BioMed Res Int. 2017. doi: 10.1155/2017/7035025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mnkugwe RH, Minzi OS, Kinung’hi SM, Kamuhabwa AA, Aklillu E. Efficacy and Safety of Praziquantel for Treatment of Schistosoma mansoni Infection among School Children in Tanzania. Pathogens. 2019; 9(1): 28. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9010028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kemal M, Tadesse G, Esmael A, Abay SM, Kebede T. Schistosoma mansoni infection among preschool age children attending Erer Health Center, Ethiopia and the response rate to praziquantel. BMC Res Notes. 2019; 12(1):211. doi: 10.1186/s13104-019-4246-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Summers S, Bhattacharyya T, Allan F, Stothard JR, Edielu A, Webster BL, et al. A review of the genetic determinants of praziquantel resistance in Schistosoma mansoni: Is praziquantel and intestinal schistosomiasis a perfect match? Front. Trop. Dis. 2022; 3:933097. doi: 10.3389/fitd.2022.933097 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Legesse M, Erko B. Field-based evaluation of a reagent strip test for diagnosis of Schistosoma mansoni by detecting circulating cathodic antigen in urine before and after chemotherapy. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2007; 101(7): 668–73. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2006.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Lamberton PHL, Faust CL, Webster JP. Praziquantel decreases fecundity in schistosoma mansoni adult worms that survive treatment: Evidence from a laboratory life-history trade-offs selection study. Infect Dis Poverty. 2017; 6: 110. doi: 10.1186/s40249-017-0324-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zwang J, Olliaro P. Efficacy and safety of praziquantel 40 mg/kg in preschool-aged and school-aged children: A meta-analysis. Parasites Vectors. 2017; 10, 47. doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1958-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Jaoko WG, Muchemi G, Oguya FO. Praziquantel side effects during treatment of Schistosoma mansoni infected pupils in Kibwezi, Kenya. East Afr Med J. 1996;73(8):499–501. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Clement Ameh Yaro

7 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-33684Efficacy and safety of praziquantel for the treatment of Schistosoma mansoni infection across different transmission settings in Amhara Regional State, northwest EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abebe,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Clement Ameh Yaro, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "NO authors have competing interests".

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

     1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

     2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present a very interesting study in which they investigated the efficacy and safety of praziquantel for S. mansoni in an endemic setting in Ethiopia. The authors indicate the objective of the study which is to investigate the efficacy of praziquantel in different transmission settings. This sounds very interesting and I was looking forward to reading the results. However, I was surprised that the results do not mention anything about the efficacy of treatment in the different transmission settings - as stated in the objective of the study. Instead, results are reported according to different (demographic) variables. In my opinion, table 3 and table 4 should show the CR by KK and POC-CCA specified according to transmission setting (low/moderate/high) as this was the main objective. Table 3 and 4 in their current state are rather complex and do not provide the evidence to answer the main question. Suggestion to include them as a supplement.

The discussion is very elaborate, and includes various statements not directly relevant for this study. For example, comparison of cure rates with other studies (lines 271-294) - this is often not possible due to various factors, i.e. the diagnostic methods used as well as the time frame after treatment used to measure efficacy, but also the setting in which the other studies were performed (different countries, low/moderate/high endemic, study population). Since the authors find a relative high CR based on KK, I do not see the need to mention in detail other studies finding lower cure rates. Of course, it is good to put the data of this study in perspective, but then more focused and leaving out unnecessary details.

Also, the discussion of resistance (lines 278-284) is more informative and does not contribute to the interpretation of study findings, ie can resistance be the explanation that the CR is different between KK and POC-CCA?

In the conclusion the authors state that the POC-CCA test specificity, clearance time of CCA and interpretation of traces need further research BEFORE recommending this test for diagnosis and treatment monitoring. Even though I fully agree that in some specific settings (ie. urinary tract infections, pregnancy, young children) there are issues with specificity, and that the interpretation of traces can be a challenge, I find the conclusion the authors make - that these issues need to be investigated before the test can be used - quite strong. In particular since the POC-CCA test is already being recommended by WHO to be used in addition to or as an alternative for KK in S. mansoni settings. Perhaps the authors can reflect on this in their discussion/conclusion, in particular since they mention it briefly in the introduction (see also comment below)

Overall, I miss any conclusion about the efficacy of treatment in different transmission settings and my suggestion would be to re-analyse the data according to this objective and re-write the results and discussion accordingly. I think this makes the study unique and would be very interesting to report. The current manuscript does not report anything new, it is generally known that PZQ is safe and efficacious (depending on the diagnostic method used).

Specific comments / questions

1. Please have a native English speaker read the manuscript and check for grammatical errors.

2. Please use references appropriately:

line 96: ref 17 is not correct, this paper does not mention anything about efficacy of PZQ - please check and include the correct reference

line 98: ref 25 incorrect, this report does not mention anything about POC-CCA - please check and include the correct reference

lines 100-105: please add references for POC-CCA statements. There are many publications describing studies using the POC-CCA.

2. Methods - Urine POC-CCA test: please add batch number and expiration date, this is important so the study can be compared to other studies that have used the same batch of POC-CCA.

3. Methods - Efficacy of PZQ: treated children were counseled to avoid activities related to infection. How did you monitor this? Especially since follow-up is 3 weeks after treatment. How to determine what chidlren did in the mean time?

4. Methods - Data analysis: here STH infection is mentioned as a variable. Nothing is mentioned about this in the diagnostics section. How did you determine the presence of STH? Which STHs? Are they common in the study area? Did you also treat in case a person was infected with any STH?

5. Methods - Ethics: What happened to those individuals who remained Schistosoma positive at follow-up? Did they receive another treatment?

6. Results: Suggestion to include a flow chart as a first figure to better explain / visualize the study flow and to have a clear picture of how many individuals were included in the study and analysis.

7. Results: Since you indicate you also measured STH infections, I would like to see the details of what you have found in terms of STH infections. For example in Table 1 or as a supplement.

Reviewer #2: Comment to the author

Dear the author, congratulations on the work. It has valuable and sound scientific relevance regardless of current programs for the prevention of transmission and elimination of the disease. Therefore, some comments should be understood and questions should be briefly answered.

1.The introduction part is good if there is any decreased efficacy in the study country in the previous study when and where was the first result reported?

2.The methodology needs to explore inclusion and exclusion criteria further.

3.What was your measurement for screening stunted children and nutritional status?

4.What were the criteria for recruiting STH co-infected participants and how were they managed?

5.The sample size seems too small, what sample size is needed to screen for low, moderate, and high transmission settings?

6.What would you do if the intended sample size on screen resulted in more negative results?

7.Before administrating the drug to the study participant, was it inspected for quality after being purchased from a private drug store?

8.The drug lacks information regarding its expiration date.

9.Regardless of the drug’s safety assessment, how did you distinguish between adverse events and side effects, clinical signs and symptoms of other co-infections?

10.What are the standard terminology criteria for adverse events of the study drug?

11.Can teachers and health extension workers determine adverse events?

12.What was your management of those participants who had vomiting during drug administration?

13.During the laboratory examination, how did you control personal visual effects during the POC-CCA test reading?

14.Quality control of laboratory results?

15.Lab professionals and laboratory are still not clear.

Result

16.Create a flowchart that screened, excluded for various reasons, lost to follow-up, and completed participants for better understanding for the reader.

17.What were your primary and secondary outcomes regarding the cure rate and safety assessment of the drug?

18.The results did not adequately describe adverse events, nor discuss when they happened and the duration of recovery.

19.What is your suggestion about the association between STH co-infection and the absence of adverse events?

20.Is the result of the POC-CCA test acceptable after 21 days post-administration of the drug as a cure rate if the drug fails to kill the antigen produced by juvenile parasites?

21.Insert if any limitation

22.The conclusion might be okay if you recommend continuous study at a large area and the country level.

Reviewer #3: Author : Tukwarlba et al.

Title : Efficacy and safety of praziquantel for the treatment of Schistosoma mansoni infection

across different transmission settings in Amhara Regional State, northwest Ethiopia

Journal : PLoS Negl Trop Dis

Reference: PONE-D-23-33684

General comment

The authors of the current study are working on a well-known issue. The data could be useful for Ethiopia. Here I have some comments and suggestion for improvement.

Title

= “Efficacy and safety of praziquantel for the treatment of Schistosoma mansoni infection across different transmission settings in Amhara Regional State, northwest Ethiopia” This title should be revised to consider the content of the MS. Note sure if this study was implemented in several transmission settings. What is clear is that the study was targeting SAC with different level of infection intensity (low, moderate and heavy)

Abstract

= “Factors such as reduced PZQ efficacy after … contributing to persistent transmission of the disease.” Regarding the context in Ethiopia, this could not the rationale behind this study. The authors should find good rationale supporting the current work

Introduction

= “More than 240 million people are infected globally” This statement is not anymore true

= “Reduced PZQ efficacy following multiple rounds of MDA might have contributed for the continued incidence and this has been evidenced by recent studies.” As mention above the rationale behind this study must be reconsidered.

Materials and methods

= “From February to June 2023, a school-based single-arm ….. different transmission settings of intestinal schistosomiasis” Which are these different settings? How those settings have been selected?

= “the calculated sample size was 635. For the PZQ efficacy study, we selected the above mentioned five schools to which a total of 283 participants were allocated.” What is the precise sample size of this work? How precisely this sample size has been estimated? Please, generate a new section entitled “Sample size calculation” and describe clearly how the sample size has been assessed.

= Please, define clearly your primary outcome and secondary outcome and show us how this has been considered in your sample size calculation.

= L151-L161 “Urine POC-CCA test” this part could be shorten avoiding speculation

= “Duplicate KK slides were prepared and examined from each sample and the average egg count was taken as the final EPG” This statement is not correct. Please, revise since 24 to get the EPG should multiply the average egg count from both slides.

=”Schoolchildren who lived in the study area at least for six months, attended a regular primary school, gave consent/assent to participate in the study were included.” SAC could not consent they are only assenting and their parents are consenting.

=”Evaluation of praziquantel efficacy” Please specify the brand of the praziquantel used in the current study

= L188 – L190 “Treated children were then counseled to avoid activities related to S. mansoni infection …. in a pot/jar for ≥24 hours before use).” Remove this part since praziquantel is not active against juvenile worms. So, whatever the precautions you are taking to avoid reinfection you could not clear the juvenile work in the children body. The follow up time set to three weeks has been set to limit the impact of reinfection on cure rate and ERR calculation.

= How many time the adverse events have been follow ?

= L214: “STH infected vs non-infected” This is the first time STH are mentioned. Nowhere, in the previous section something is said about STH.

= L214: “while Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to compare the mean EPG among participants with light, moderate and heavy intensity of infections” Why this comparison since the groups are already well defined as low, moderate and heavy infected participants?

= L234: Please write “Cure rate” instead of “Cure rate and associated risk factors”

Results

= Figure 1: should be revised to make it understandable including a figure caption

= Table 4: Please, could you provide confidence interval for the ERR

= Table 5 should be revised as follow:

Variable

CategoryNumber of children assessedAdverse event

n (%)

χ2

P-value

Discussion

= “The CR among SC with light infection (95.7%) by KK was higher than the CR among SC with moderate (81.5%) and heavy (64.3%) infections (χ2 = 12.53, p = 0.002)” One issue here is also the insensitivity of the KK in low infected people and need to be discussed.

= Please, make you discussion around your key findings by avoiding speculation

= Due to the limited sample size in the different study groups, the results of the current study should be interpreted with caution.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: P.T. Hoekstra

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Jean T. Coulibaly

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comment (6 12 2023).docx

pone.0298332.s003.docx (16.9KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 4;19(3):e0298332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298332.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Dec 2023

Responses to Reviewers’ Comments and Questions

Dear editor and reviewers, thank you for your constructive comments which all are important inputs for the betterment of the manuscript. Below we tried to respond to all the comments/questions one by one; we also have incorporated all the corrections in the revised manuscript (shown as highlighted).

Editor

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: we have revised the manuscript to meet the PLOS ONE’s style requirements

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar.

Response: we have made language editing thoroughly by ourselves and using Quillbot online editor available at; https://quillbot.com/grammar-check

3. Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests.

Response: we have completed the form

4. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

Response: because we were unable to get permission from the original copyright holder, we have removed the figure from the revised submission.

Reviewer #1

General comments

The authors present a very interesting study in which they investigated the efficacy and safety of praziquantel for S. mansoni in an endemic setting in Ethiopia. The authors indicate the objective of the study which is to investigate the efficacy of praziquantel in different transmission settings. This sounds very interesting and I was looking forward to reading the results. However, I was surprised that the results do not mention anything about the efficacy of treatment in the different transmission settings - as stated in the objective of the study. Instead, results are reported according to different (demographic) variables. In my opinion, table 3 and table 4 should show the CR by KK and POC-CCA specified according to transmission setting (low/moderate/high) as this was the main objective. Table 3 and 4 in their current state are rather complex and do not provide the evidence to answer the main question. Suggestion to include them as a supplement.

Response: we accepted this comment. We re-analyzed the CR by KK and POC-CCA according to transmission settings or endemicity of data collection districts and we incorporated the results in Table 3. We have also added in the ‘discussion’ section about CR across low, moderate and high transmission settings. We attached table 4 as supporting information, as you suggested.

The discussion is very elaborate, and includes various statements not directly relevant for this study. For example, comparison of cure rates with other studies (lines 271-294) - this is often not possible due to various factors, i.e. the diagnostic methods used as well as the time frame after treatment used to measure efficacy, but also the setting in which the other studies were performed (different countries, low/moderate/high endemic, study population). Since the authors find a relative high CR based on KK, I do not see the need to mention in detail other studies finding lower cure rates. Of course, it is good to put the data of this study in perspective, but then more focused and leaving out unnecessary details.

Also, the discussion of resistance (lines 278-284) is more informative and does not contribute to the interpretation of study findings, ie can resistance be the explanation that the CR is different between KK and POC-CCA?

Response: we accepted the comment and we have made revisions. We have removed sentences explaining about drug resistance. We have also removed unnecessary comparisons with previous studies (please see the first paragraph of the discussion).

In the conclusion the authors state that the POC-CCA test specificity, clearance time of CCA and interpretation of traces need further research BEFORE recommending this test for diagnosis and treatment monitoring. Even though I fully agree that in some specific settings (ie. urinary tract infections, pregnancy, young children) there are issues with specificity, and that the interpretation of traces can be a challenge, I find the conclusion the authors make - that these issues need to be investigated before the test can be used - quite strong. In particular since the POC-CCA test is already being recommended by WHO to be used in addition to or as an alternative for KK in S. mansoni settings. Perhaps the authors can reflect on this in their discussion/conclusion, in particular since they mention it briefly in the introduction (see also comment below)

Response: we have added our reflections in the ‘discussion’ section of the revised manuscript

Overall, I miss any conclusion about the efficacy of treatment in different transmission settings and my suggestion would be to re-analyse the data according to this objective and re-write the results and discussion accordingly. I think this makes the study unique and would be very interesting to report. The current manuscript does not report anything new, it is generally known that PZQ is safe and efficacious (depending on the diagnostic method used).

Response: we have re-analyzed the data by transmission settings. However, the efficacy doesn’t show significant difference (shown in the revised Table 3) by transmission setting or endemicity level of data collection districts. Rather base line infection intensity of each participant determines the PZQ efficacy. We have presented this in the results, discussion and conclusion sections of the revised manuscript.

Specific comments / questions

1. Please have a native English speaker read the manuscript and check for grammatical errors.

Response: we have made a language editing

2. Please use references appropriately:

line 96: ref 17 is not correct, this paper does not mention anything about efficacy of PZQ - please check and include the correct reference

Response: here we want to explain about the poor sensitivity of the KK method in general and we believe the reference is correct. Anyways, in the revised manuscript, we have cited two more references which provide information about the insensitivity of KK in monitoring PZQ efficacy.

line 98: ref 25 incorrect, this report does not mention anything about POC-CCA - please check and include the correct reference

Response: sorry for this mistake. We have cited an appropriate reference in the revised manuscript

lines 100-105: please add references for POC-CCA statements. There are many publications describing studies using the POC-CCA.

Response: we have cited references in the revised manuscript.

2. Methods - Urine POC-CCA test: please add batch number and expiration date, this is important so the study can be compared to other studies that have used the same batch of POC-CCA.

Response: we have added the batch number and expiration date in the revised manuscript (Batch No. 220902098, expire date 2024/09)

3. Methods - Efficacy of PZQ: treated children were counseled to avoid activities related to infection. How did you monitor this? Especially since follow-up is 3 weeks after treatment. How to determine what chidlren did in the mean time?

Response: Trained health extension workers visited children every day while they attend school. They interviewed children about any health complain for the last 24hrs.Parents of participating children were informed to call to the health extension worker immediately if there was any health problem while children are at home. Health extension workers living in the same locality with study participants were employed for the follow up. Trained school teachers were also supporting the health extension workers.

4. Methods - Data analysis: here STH infection is mentioned as a variable. Nothing is mentioned about this in the diagnostics section. How did you determine the presence of STH? Which STHs? Are they common in the study area? Did you also treat in case a person was infected with any STH?

Response: We have added explanations about STHs in the ‘background’ and ‘methods (KK test)’ sections.

STHs (especially A. lumbricoides and hookworms) are co-endemic with S. mansoni in Ethiopia and hence PZQ and albendazole/mebendazole are co-administered to school-aged children during MDA campaigns. Hence we were interested to assess if there is a difference in CR and ERR among groups who were infected with S. mansoni alone (treated with PZQ) and groups who were co-infected (treated with PZQ plus Albendazole). We have treated STH infected participants with a standard dose of Albendazole.

5. Methods - Ethics: What happened to those individuals who remained Schistosoma positive at follow-up? Did they receive another treatment?

Response: we re-treated them with a similar dose (single dose of 40mg/kg)

6. Results: Suggestion to include a flow chart as a first figure to better explain / visualize the study flow and to have a clear picture of how many individuals were included in the study and analysis.

Response: we have added a figure showing the participants recruitment and study flow in the revised manuscript

7. Results: Since you indicate you also measured STH infections, I would like to see the details of what you have found in terms of STH infections. For example in Table 1 or as a supplement.

Response: we accept the comment and we have incorporated STH findings in Table 1 of the revised manuscript

Reviewer #2

Dear the author, congratulations on the work. It has valuable and sound scientific relevance regardless of current programs for the prevention of transmission and elimination of the disease. Therefore, some comments should be understood and questions should be briefly answered.

1.The introduction part is good if there is any decreased efficacy in the study country in the previous study when and where was the first result reported?

Response: we accept the comment and we have made revisions based on your comment (highlighted in the ‘Background’ section)

2.The methodology needs to explore inclusion and exclusion criteria further.

Response: we have revised the ‘inclusion and exclusion criteria’ section to exhaustively mention the eligibility criteria we have considered.

3. What was your measurement for screening stunted children and nutritional status?

Response: we have screened for nutritional status using body-mass-index (BMI) calculated from their height and weight. We didn’t assess stunting among participants.

4. What were the criteria for recruiting STH co-infected participants and how were they managed?

Response: STHs (especially A. lumbricoides and hookworms) are co-endemic with S. mansoni in Ethiopia and hence PZQ and albendazole/mebendazole are co-administered to school-aged children during MDA campaigns. Hence we were interested to assess if there is a difference in CR and ERR among groups who were infected with S. mansoni alone (treated with PZQ) and groups who were co-infected (treated with PZQ plus albendazole). We have added explanations about STHs and inclusion criteria in the ‘background’, ‘methods’ and ‘results’ sections.

5. The sample size seems too small, what sample size is needed to screen for low, moderate, and high transmission settings?

Response: we agree that if the sample size was larger, a more representative data would be generated but due to logistic issues and following the WHO (2013) protocol, we calculated the sample size to be screened to get 50 S. mansoni positive participants in each of low, moderate and high transmission settings considering a compliance rate of 80% (sample size calculation presented in more detail in the revised manuscript). But there was high refusal to give consent, loss to follow up, and withdrawal after enrolment that only 110 participants have complete data for analysis. We have mentioned the small sample size as a limitation in the revised manuscript.

6. What would you do if the intended sample size on screen resulted in more negative results?

Response: we would have screened more children from selected or nearbye schools.

7. Before administrating the drug to the study participant, was it inspected for quality after being purchased from a private drug store?

Response: we only checked the expiry date, and inspected that the drug package and tablets were dry and had no physical damage.

8. The drug lacks information regarding its expiration date.

Response: expire date mentioned in the revised manuscript.

9. Regardless of the drug’s safety assessment, how did you distinguish between adverse events and side effects, clinical signs and symptoms of other co-infections?

Response: this was very challenging. We have added a sub-topic ‘study outcomes and definitions’ under the ‘Methods’ section to define the study variables and assumptions we considered. We carefully registered any clinical sign and symptoms (of any cause) before administering the drug. Then any new sign and symptoms developed after PZQ therapy (which was not observed before treatment) was considered as ‘adverse event’.

We understood that the adverse events may or may not be related to the drug therapy. We mentioned as a limitation in the ‘discussion’ section of the revised manuscript.

10.What are the standard terminology criteria for adverse events of the study drug?

Response: it is a descriptive terminology which can be utilized for Adverse Event (AE) reporting. It is available at: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcae_v5_quick_reference_5x7.pdf

11.Can teachers and health extension workers determine adverse events?

Response: Health extension workers can determine adverse events after getting training. Teachers were trained just to support health extension workers (corrected in the revised manuscript).

12.What was your management of those participants who had vomiting during drug administration?

Response: one child had vomited immediately after PZQ intake. We placed the child in a private ventilated area. She vomited only once and she didn’t loss significant amount of fluid. After evaluation by the nurse (one of the study team), the child was found needing no rehydration or any other treatment. She was taken to a near bye health center and stayed under follow up for one day. Then she was sent home.

13. During the laboratory examination, how did you control personal visual effects during the POC-CCA test reading?

Response: as stated in the ‘quality assurance’ section each POC-CCA test was read by two medical laboratory technologists independently. If there was discrepancy between the two, a third senior laboratory technologist (tie-breaker) read the result.

14. Quality control of laboratory results?

Response: we have explained more about the quality control of laboratory results (highlighted in the ‘data quality assurance’ section).

15.Lab professionals and laboratory are still not clear.

Response: we have replaced these terms with more appropriate ones in the revised manuscript (Lab professionals replaced by medical laboratory technologists, ‘laboratory’ replaced by KK and POC-CCA) as highlighted in the ‘sample collection and processing’ and ‘data quality assurance’ sections.

Result

16.Create a flowchart that screened, excluded for various reasons, lost to follow-up, and completed participants for better understanding for the reader.

Response: we have constructed a flow chart in the revised submission (please see Fig 2).

17.What were your primary and secondary outcomes regarding the cure rate and safety assessment of the drug?

Response: We have added a sub-topic ‘study outcomes and definitions’ under the ‘Methods’ section to define the primary (PZQ efficacy) and secondary (occurrence and type of adverse events) study variables and assumptions we considered.

18.The results did not adequately describe adverse events, nor discuss when they happened and the duration of recovery.

Response: we have made revision to present more about the adverse events (incidence, duration, severity) in the ‘results’ section. Revisions are also made in the ‘discussion’ section.

19. What is your suggestion about the association between STH co-infection and the absence of adverse events?

Response: we have added more explanations about association of STH-co-infections with cure rate and occurrence of adverse events in the revised manuscript. Participants without STH co-infection were more likely to develop adverse events (p=0.029). It is difficult to justify this because STH co-infected children were small in number (13) and all co-infected participants had only light S. mansoni infection. Since adverse events are believed to occur because of worm-drug interaction, light infections cause decreased or no adverse events.

20.Is the result of the POC-CCA test acceptable after 21 days post-administration of the drug as a cure rate if the drug fails to kill the antigen produced by juvenile parasites?

Response: this is one area of debate to use POC-CCA alone for assessment of cure and we have raised this issue in the ‘discussion’ section. What age of the parasite does CCA starts to be released at detectable concentration is yet to be exactly known. That is why we recommended intensive studies about specificity, clearance time… about CCA before using POC-CCA alone for assessment of cure.

21.Insert if any limitation

Response: we have put limitations of the study in the last paragraph of the ‘discussion’ section

22.The conclusion might be okay if you recommend continuous study at a large area and the country level.

Response: we accept the comment and revised the conclusion accordingly (last sentence of the ‘conclusion’ section).

Reviewer #3

General comment

The authors of the current study are working on a well-known issue. The data could be useful for Ethiopia. Here I have some comments and suggestion for improvement.

Title

= “Efficacy and safety of praziquantel for the treatment of Schistosoma mansoni infection across different transmission settings in Amhara Regional State, northwest Ethiopia” This title should be revised to consider the content of the MS. Note sure if this study was implemented in several transmission settings. What is clear is that the study was targeting SAC with different level of infection intensity (low, moderate and heavy)

Response: we have re-analyzed the efficacy based on endemicity level of data collection districts (low, moderate, high endemic) in the revised manuscript and we believe now the title is in line with the contents of the manuscript (please see revisions in the ‘study area’, ‘sampling technique’ and ‘discussion’ sections, and Table 3)

Abstract

= “Factors such as reduced PZQ efficacy after … contributing to persistent transmission of the disease.” Regarding the context in Ethiopia, this could not the rationale behind this study. The authors should find good rationale supporting the current work

Response: revised (please see the highlighted in the ‘background’ section of the abstract)

Introduction

= “More than 240 million people are infected globally” This statement is not anymore true

Response: we have got an updated data from global atlas of ‘helminth infections’ it to be more than 200 million. Here is the link of the reference https://www.thiswormyworld.org/worms/global-burden

= “Reduced PZQ efficacy following multiple rounds of MDA might have contributed for the continued incidence and this has been evidenced by recent studies.” As mention above the rationale behind this study must be reconsidered.

Response: we have made revisions (highlighted in the background section)

Materials and methods

= “From February to June 2023, a school-based single-arm …….different transmission settings of intestinal schistosomiasis” Which are these different settings? How those settings have been selected?

Response: transmission settings are defined in the revised manuscript and how data collection areas representing each setting were selected is also explained (please see the highlighted in the ‘study area’ and ‘sampling technique’ sections)

= “the calculated sample size was 635. For the PZQ efficacy study, we selected the above mentioned five schools to which a total of 283 participants were allocated.” What is the precise sample size of this work? How precisely this sample size has been estimated? Please, generate a new section entitled “Sample size calculation” and describe clearly how the sample size has been assessed.

Response: thank you for this critical comment. we have added a new section ‘sample size calculation and sampling technique’ and have shown in more detail about the sample size calculation and sampling techniques

= Please, define clearly your primary outcome and secondary outcome and show us how this has been considered in your sample size calculation.

Response: we have added a new sub-heading (study outcomes and definitions) under the ‘methods’ heading in the revised manuscript. As explained there, the primary outcome is PZQ efficacy (CR and ERR) while occurrence of adverse events is a secondary outcome. We calculated the sample size considering the primary outcome following the WHO protocol for assessing anti-helminthic drug efficacy.

= L151-L161 “Urine POC-CCA test” this part could be shorten avoiding speculation

Response: Revised based on the comment

= “Duplicate KK slides were prepared and examined from each sample and the average egg count was taken as the final EPG” This statement is not correct. Please, revise since 24 to get the EPG should multiply the average egg count from both slides.

Response: Revised based on the comment

=”Schoolchildren who lived in the study area at least for six months, attended a regular primary school, gave consent/assent to participate in the study were included.” SAC could not consent they are only assenting and their parents are consenting.

Response: revised based on the comment

=”Evaluation of praziquantel efficacy” Please specify the brand of the praziquantel used in the current study

Response: specified in the revised manuscript (brand name: biltricide, manufacturer: Bayer pharmaceuticals)

= L188 – L190 “Treated children were then counseled to avoid activities related to S. mansoni infection …. in a pot/jar for ≥24 hours before use).” Remove this part since praziquantel is not active against juvenile worms. So, whatever the precautions you are taking to avoid reinfection you could not clear the juvenile work in the children body. The follow up time set to three weeks has been set to limit the impact of reinfection on cure rate and ERR calculation.

Response: we have removed this part as per your recommendation

= How many time the adverse events have been follow?

Response: occurrence of adverse events was expected within one week after treatment and treated children were followed on a daily basis from day 1 to day 7. However, parents/caregivers were communicated to call on phone and communicate with the study team in case any health complaint was there until day 21 after treatment (revision highlighted).

= L214: “STH infected vs non-infected” This is the first time STH are mentioned. Nowhere, in the previous section something is said about STH.

Response: STHs (A. lumbricoides, hookworms and T. trichuria) are co-endemic with S. mansoni in Ethiopia and hence PZQ and albendazole/mebendazole are co-administered to school-aged children during MDA campaigns. Hence we were interested to assess if there is a difference in CR and ERR among groups who were infected with S. mansoni alone (treated with PZQ) and groups who were co-infected (treated with PZQ plus albendazole). We have added explanations about STHs in the ‘background’ and ‘methods’ sections.

= L214: “while Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to compare the mean EPG among participants with light, moderate and heavy intensity of infections” Why this comparison since the groups are already well defined as low, moderate and heavy infected participants?

Response: our main intension here was not to compare baseline EPG which was used to define participants as with light, moderate and heavy infections. But we were interested to compare the post-treatment EPG between participant groups who were with light, moderate and heavy infection at baseline. i.e. to check whether fecal egg count reduction is proportional to the baseline infection intensity or not.

= L234: Please write “Cure rate” instead of “Cure rate and associated risk factors”

Response: revised as per your comment

Results

= Figure 1: should be revised to make it understandable including a figure caption

Response: the handling editor has raised a copyright issue and recommended to remove this figure. Therefore, we have removed this figure from the revised manuscript submission

= Table 4: Please, could you provide confidence interval for the ERR

Response: we have added the 95%CI for the ERR in the table. However, due to a recommendation from reviewer 1, we have attached this table as a supplementary file (Supporting information S2) in the revised submission rather than including it in the body of the manuscript

= Table 5 should be revised as follow:

Variable

Category Number of children assessed Adverse event

n (%)

χ2

P-value

Response: revised based on your suggestion (highlighted in the revised manuscript)

Discussion

= “The CR among SC with light infection (95.7%) by KK was higher than the CR among SC with moderate (81.5%) and heavy (64.3%) infections (χ2 = 12.53, p = 0.002)” One issue here is also the insensitivity of the KK in low infected people and need to be discussed.

Response: we accept the comment and we have added in the revised manuscript about the role of KK’s low sensitivity in falsely raising CR among lightly infected participants.

= Please, make you discussion around your key findings by avoiding speculation

Response: we have made an intense revision of the ‘discussion’ section and have removed speculations and explanations which are not directly related to our study objective and findings.

= Due to the limited sample size in the different study groups, the results of the current study should be interpreted with caution.

Response: we agree and we have explained this in the ‘discussion’ and ‘conclusions’ section in the revised manuscript

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

pone.0298332.s004.docx (39.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Clement Ameh Yaro

16 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-33684R1Efficacy and safety of praziquantel for the treatment of Schistosoma mansoni infection across different transmission settings in Amhara Regional State, northwest EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abebe,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 01 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Clement Ameh Yaro, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been greatly improved after revision. Some minor comments and questions from my side.

Abstract: nothing mentioned about efficacy/safety in different transmission settings. Since this is something that makes this manuscript unique, I think it would be good to give it some attention in the abstract.

Line 114-116: here ‘in different transmission settings’ should be added to the objective of the study. ‘Hence, the present study aimed to assess PZQ efficacy and safety for the treatment of S. mansoni infection and to compare the capacity of POC-CCA and KK for assessing cure in different transmission settings’.

Sample size calculation:

Prevalences are based on microscopy I believe, this should be added to the text to be clear since you will be comparing microscopy with POC-CCA.

I do not understand the 29% prevalence in low endemic area, how can this be so ‘high’? I think the authors are trying to explain this, but it remains unclear to me.

I would suggest to make a new paragraph of ‘Sampling technique’

Table 4. Number of children assessed, the percentage should be of the subgroup, not of the total group. For example, now it looks like only 12% of the 6-9 year olds were examined for adverse events, while all of them were actually examined. Unless in some subgroups not all children were assessed, I do not see a reason why this column should be added to the table.

What was the distribution of low/moderate/heavy intensity infections among the 3 endemicity districts? I know the numbers might be small, but I would be interested to see this. For example, do all the heavy intensity infections come from the high endemic area? Or do you also find them in the low endemic area? It would be nice to add this information to the first table, or as supplementary material or even added in a few lines in the text. I think this is very informative.

Reviewer #2: This study has made appropriate corrections during the review process, therefore, I suggest that it be accepted.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Pytsje T Hoekstra

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 4;19(3):e0298332. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298332.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Jan 2024

Dear editor and reviewers, thank you for your constructive comments again which all are important inputs for the betterment of the manuscript. Below we tried to respond to all the comments/questions one by one; we also have incorporated all the corrections in the revised manuscript (shown as highlighted).

Editor

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.

Response: we have re-checked all the references and we have confirmed all references in the ‘references’ list are correctly cited in the body of the manuscript; and all cited references are included in the list. We have also ensured that the references and citations are made based on the journal guideline. We did not cite any paper that has been retracted.

Reviewer #1:

Abstract: nothing mentioned about efficacy/safety in different transmission settings. Since this is something that makes this manuscript unique, I think it would be good to give it some attention in the abstract.

Response: comment accepted and we have added results about CR and adverse events across the three transmission settings (highlighted). We have also added data about adverse events in different transmission settings in Table 4.

Line 114-116: here ‘in different transmission settings’ should be added to the objective of the study. ‘Hence, the present study aimed to assess PZQ efficacy and safety for the treatment of S. mansoni infection and to compare the capacity of POC-CCA and KK for assessing cure in different transmission settings’.

Response: we accept the comment and have amended the objective accordingly.

Sample size calculation:

Prevalences are based on microscopy I believe, this should be added to the text to be clear since you will be comparing microscopy with POC-CCA.

Response: we accept the comment and we have explained this in the revised manuscript.

I do not understand the 29% prevalence in low endemic area, how can this be so ‘high’? I think the authors are trying to explain this, but it remains unclear to me.

Response: we expect it will be confusing for readers (that is why we tried to explain in the manuscript). In Ethiopia, Schistosomiasis mapping was done at a district level. They took samples from schools a district and the endemicity level of the district was determined based on the mean prevalence from schools. However, there might be great variations across schools or villages within the same district. So, if researchers recruit participants from a school/village where there is high Schistosoma focal transmission, the prevalence might be higher than the respective district’s average prevalence.

I would suggest to make a new paragraph of ‘Sampling technique’

Response: comment accepted and we have revised the manuscript accordingly

Table 4. Number of children assessed, the percentage should be of the subgroup, not of the total group. For example, now it looks like only 12% of the 6-9 year olds were examined for adverse events, while all of them were actually examined. Unless in some subgroups not all children were assessed, I do not see a reason why this column should be added to the table.

Response: it was just to give information about the proportion of each group among the total. Now we ensured that such information is presented in Table 1 and we have removed the percentage in Table 4, to avoid confusions.

What was the distribution of low/moderate/heavy intensity infections among the 3 endemicity districts? I know the numbers might be small, but I would be interested to see this. For example, do all the heavy intensity infections come from the high endemic area? Or do you also find them in the low endemic area? It would be nice to add this information to the first table, or as supplementary material or even added in a few lines in the text. I think this is very informative.

Response: Thank you. We have presented this data as supporting information (second table in Supporting information S1) in the revised submission. We have also explained this in the ‘results’ section.

Reviewer #2:

This study has made appropriate corrections during the review process, therefore, I suggest that it be accepted.

Thank you

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers-2.docx

pone.0298332.s005.docx (22.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Clement Ameh Yaro

23 Jan 2024

Efficacy and safety of praziquantel for the treatment of Schistosoma mansoni infection across different transmission settings in Amhara Regional State, northwest Ethiopia

PONE-D-23-33684R2

Dear Dr. Abebe,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Clement Ameh Yaro, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: PT Hoekstra

**********

Acceptance letter

Clement Ameh Yaro

23 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-33684R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abebe,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Clement Ameh Yaro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Mean, median, mode, minimum, maximum and range of S. mansoni fecal egg counts among schoolchildren in northwest Ethiopia, February to June 2023 (N = 110).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298332.s001.docx (21.4KB, docx)
    S2 File. Mean fecal egg count and egg reduction rate among schoolchildren in northwest Ethiopia, February to June 2023 (N = 110).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298332.s002.docx (15.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer Comment (6 12 2023).docx

    pone.0298332.s003.docx (16.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

    pone.0298332.s004.docx (39.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers-2.docx

    pone.0298332.s005.docx (22.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES