Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2020 Jun 22;14(6):e0008277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008277

Efficacy and safety of single-dose 40 mg/kg oral praziquantel in the treatment of schistosomiasis in preschool-age versus school-age children: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Piero L Olliaro 1, Jean T Coulibaly 2,3,4,5, Amadou Garba 6, Christine Halleux 7, Jennifer Keiser 2,3, Charles H King 8,9, Francisca Mutapi 10,11, Eliézer K N’Goran 4,5, Giovanna Raso 2,3, Alexandra U Scherrer 12, José Carlos Sousa-Figueiredo 13,14, Katarina Stete 15, Jürg Utzinger 2,3, Michel T Vaillant 16,*
Editor: Antonio Montresor17
PMCID: PMC7360067  PMID: 32569275

Abstract

Background

Better knowledge of the efficacy and safety of single-dose 40 mg/kg oral praziquantel in preschool-age children is required, should preventive chemotherapy programs for schistosomiasis be expanded to include this age group.

Methodology

We analyzed individual participant-level data from 16 studies (13 single-arm or cohort studies and three randomized trials), amounting to 683 preschool-age children (aged <6 years) and 2,010 school-age children (aged 6–14 years). Children had a documented Schistosoma mansoni or S. haematobium infection, were treated with single 40 mg/kg oral praziquantel, and assessed between 21 and 60 days post-treatment. Efficacy was expressed as arithmetic mean and individual egg reduction rate (ERR) and meta-analyzed using general linear models and mixed models. Safety was summarized using reported adverse events (AEs).

Principal findings

Preschool-age children had significantly lower baseline Schistosoma egg counts and more losses to follow-up compared to school-age children. No difference in efficacy was found between preschool- and school-age children using a general linear model of individual-participant ERR with baseline log-transformed egg count as covariate and study, age, and sex as fixed variables, and a mixed model with a random effect on the study. Safety was reported in only four studies (n = 1,128 individuals); few AEs were reported in preschool-age children 4 and 24 hours post-treatment as well as at follow-up. Three severe but not serious AEs were recorded in school-age children during follow-up.

Conclusions/significance

There is no indication that single-dose 40 mg/kg oral praziquantel would be less efficacious and less safe in preschool-age children compared to school-age children, with the caveat that only few randomized comparisons exist between the two age groups. Preventive chemotherapy might therefore be extended to preschool-age children, with proper monitoring of its efficacy and safety.

Author summary

Schistosomiasis is a diseases caused by helminths (parasitic worms) which affects the intestinal and urogenital systems. In areas where schistosomiasis is endemic, the disease is controlled by the large scale distributing of praziquantel, primarily targeting school-age children. Younger children (preschool-age) too might be affected by schistosomiasis, but are currently not receiving praziquantel within treatment campaigns. Instead, preschool-age children are treated on a case-by-case basis because the current praziquantel formulation is not adapted to young children. Questions have also been raised as to whether the standard dose of 40 mg/kg given once is effective in preschool-age children. To answer this question, we collected individual-participant data from a series of studies in which 40 mg/kg of praziquantel had been given to children with intestinal or urinary schistosomiasis, and compared its efficacy and tolerability across age-groups. Since few direct comparisons had been made, we used statistical tools to make these comparisons. We found no evidence that treatment is less efficacious in preschool- than in school-age children and conclude that 40 mg/kg praziquantel may be given to preschool-age children in large-scale programs. When this happens, efficacy and tolerability will have to be closely monitored.

Introduction

The global schistosomiasis control strategy relies upon preventive chemotherapy with praziquantel, primarily targeting school-age children. In moderate- and high-risk communities, treatment is also extended to adults [1]. Of note, preschool-age children contribute a considerable fraction of the total burden of schistosomiasis [24]. The current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines are that preschool-age children should be treated on a case-by-case basis upon diagnosis of infection due to a lack of an age-appropriate formulation of praziquantel [5]. WHO is considering the inclusion of preschool-age children in preventive chemotherapy with praziquantel, should an appropriate formulation of praziquantel become available [57]. The reason is that the current formulation (large, bitter tasting 600 mg tablets), although often crushed and dissolved in practice, is unsuited for use in young children, and hence, efforts are underway to develop an orally dispersible tablet formulation for young children [8, 9]. Evidence of efficacy and safety of praziquantel in preschool-age children is limited [5], and it is unclear whether they should receive the same dose (i.e., oral administration at a single dose of 40 mg/kg body weight) as their school-age counterparts, adolescents, and adults [10].

To address this issue, we analyzed data from clinical trials and epidemiologic studies that enrolled preschool- and school-age children who were treated with praziquantel at a single 40 mg/kg oral dose, for which data were available at the individual participant level. This information is important both for treatment recommendations and for adapting the strength of praziquantel to be used in pediatric formulation.

Methods

Ethics statement

This is a secondary analysis of published work. Ethical approval and written (or oral) informed consent have been reported in the original papers [5, 1130].

Datasets

Based on a scoping paper [31], the WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) and the Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases at WHO contacted investigators for the availability of suitable patient datasets from studies that enrolled preschool-age children. The investigators of 23 clinical studies [5, 1130] agreed to share data with the specific purpose of pooled analyses aimed at answering the PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcome) question below. The datasets were curated in order to allow for the pooled analysis. One article [18] contained two different studies, which were analyzed separately. Subsequently, studies were further assessed as to their eligibility for inclusion in the analysis (whole study or subset of participants). In this dataset, studies are identified by the name of the main data contributor and the year the study was conducted.

PICO question

In preschool-age children, is praziquantel given at 40 mg/kg body weight in a single oral dose as efficacious as it is in school-age children in reducing Schistosoma infection (measured as egg counts in stool or urine)?

Study and patient inclusion criteria

The following inclusion criteria were employed: (i) treatment with praziquantel 40 mg/kg body weight; (ii) participant’s age 0–14 years; (iii) confirmed infection with Schistosoma mansoni, S. haematobium, or S. japonicum, as determined by the presence of eggs in stool or urine; and (iv) treatment outcome assessed at follow-up visit between 21 and 60 days post-treatment.

Assessment of methodological quality

Key characteristics of studies were extracted from the published articles. The methodologic quality was assessed through the Cochrane Collaboration’s [32] risk of bias table, including items such as random sequence generation (selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), and selective reporting (reporting bias). We also prepared funnel plots to check for publication bias, stratified by Schistosoma species.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We investigated heterogeneity by examining the forest plots, and carried out sensitivity analyses by calculating the pooled mean difference of individual egg reduction rate (ERR) between preschool- and school-age children.

Assessment of reporting bias

We compared studies included in this analysis with those identified by a prior scoping review [31]. However, only studies for which individual participant-level data were made available could be included in the present analysis.

Statistical methods

Summarizing infection intensity

The arithmetic mean (AM) eggs per gram of stool (EPG) was calculated at pre- and post-treatment for S. mansoni by multiplying the mean individual fecal egg counts (FECs) obtained by a single, duplicate, or quadruplicate Kato-Katz thick smears (41.7 mg) by a factor of 24 [33, 34]. For S. haematobium, egg counts were presented as eggs per 10 ml of urine [34].

Measuring efficacy

Drug efficacy was expressed as AM egg reduction rate (ERR) (the difference in AM egg counts between pre- and post-treatment assessments), cure rate (CR, proportion of cases with zero egg counts post-treatment), and mean of individual ERR, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Individual ERRs were calculated as the ratio of the difference between the pre- and post-treatment EPG or eggs per 10 ml urine, multiplied by 100. In this analysis, no change or increase in egg counts post-treatment indicates an ERR = 0 (no reduction). CIs were determined using a bootstrap resampling method (with replacement) over 1,000 replicates. This methodology has been described in greater detail elsewhere [35]. According to WHO guidelines, the reference target efficacy for AM-ERR is ≥95% [36].

The distribution of the individual ERRs was plotted by using histograms of the frequencies and scatterplot of the cumulative frequencies as ‘centiles plots’. Forest plots were utilized to visualize mean individual ERRs by age categories. Results are presented separately by Schistosoma species.

Statistical analyses

Modeling of baseline log-transformed egg counts was performed with age categories and country as fixed factors in a general linear model, and with country as a random factor in a mixed model. Modeling of the individual ERRs was carried out through a general linear model and mixed models. Separate models were fitted for S. mansoni and S. haematobium.

In the general linear model, the level of infection at baseline was included as covariate (log-transformed baseline EPG for S. mansoni and eggs per 10 ml of urine for S. haematobium). Fixed variables were country, participant’s sex, and three age categories: (i) 0 to <6 years; (ii) 6 to <10 years; and (iii) 10–14 years to more accurately reflect the age-range of the included studies (see below), or preschool-age (0 to <6 years) versus school-age children (6–14 years). Mixed models were further fitted with a random effect on the country. Sensitivity analyses were conducted with the same models by removing the baseline log-transformed egg counts.

Pairwise differences (with a Tukey adjustment) in least square means (LSM) were performed for each of the age groups. This post-hoc comparison was allowed by the implicit network of possible preschool- and school-age children comparisons across all studies (S1 Fig) [37, 38].

All tests were two-tailed and a p-value of 5% was deemed statistically significant. Calculations and analyses were performed by using Revman version 5.3.5 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre; Copenhagen, Denmark) (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) and SAS system version 9.3 (SAS Institute; Cary, United States of America).

Safety was assessed using reported adverse events (AEs), classified as mild, moderate, or severe. We extrapolated the number of patients exposed and assessed for safety at 4 and 24 hours post-treatment and at the end of follow-up and calculated the frequency of those with at least one AE. We also report the total number and type of AEs for each age-category and by severity.

The PRISMA guidelines were used and followed for reporting the current work. The PRISMA checklist is attached as supplementary material.

Results

Data were available from 23 studies with children treated either for S. mansoni, S. haematobium, or S. japonicum infection with single 40 mg/kg oral praziquantel (Table 1 and S1 Table, including diagnostic approach used). The study flowchart (overall and by age-group; preschool- versus school-age children) is presented in Fig 1. Details by study and age-group (preschool- versus school-age) are summarized in Table 2.

Table 1. Characteristics of available datasets and numbers of participants enrolled and included in the meta-analysis (0% analysed indicate excluded studies with 0% analysed).

Author, year of study [Ref.] Country Total enrolled Follow-up duration (days) Dose (mg/kg) Species Enrolled (age 0 to < 6 years) Enrolled
(age 6 to <10 years)
Enrolled
(age 10 to 14 years)
% analysed
of enrolled
Reason for exclusion
Coulibaly, 2011 [12] Côte d’Ivoire 53 21 40 S. mansoni
S. haematobium
53 100%
Coulibaly, 2017 [13] Côte d’Ivoire 84 21 20
40
60
S. mansoni 40 22 21 96% Dose = 20 & 60 mg/kg
and placebo excluded
Coulibaly, 2018 [14] Côte d’Ivoire 346 21 20
40
60
S. haematobium 170 112 56 98% Dose = 20 & 60 mg/kg and placebo excluded
Garba, 2007 [15] Niger 659 42 40 S. mansoni
S. haematobium
370 289 83%
Tohon, 2008 [39] Niger 877 21 40 S. haematobium 209 211 83%
Garba, 2013 [16] Niger 243 42 40 S. mansoni
S. haematobium
243 95%
N’Goran, 2000 [20] Côte d’Ivoire 354 52 80 S. haematobium 5 174 129 0% Dose = 80 mg/kg
Landouré, 2006 [18] Mali 415 365 40 S. mansoni
S. haematobium
413 553 0% Follow-up >60 days
Landouré, 2009 [18] Mali 415 182 40 S. mansoni
S. haematobium
409 0% Follow-up >60 days
Garba, 1996 [17] Niger 560 60 40 S. haematobium 77 86 76 63%
Mutapi, 2010 [19] Zimbabwe 535 42 40 S. mansoni
S. haematobium
132 351 83 30%
Campagne, 2008 [11] Niger 114 30 40 S. mansoni
S. haematobium
1 37 66 87%
Olds, 1999 [21] Kenya 415 45 40 S. haematobium 2 49 67 100%
Olliaro, 2007 [22] Brazil
Mauritania
Philippines
856 21 40
60
S. mansoni
S. haematobium
S.japonicum
534 36% S. japonicum (Philippines, no preschool-age children) and dose = 60 mg/kg excluded
Raso, 2004 [23] Mali 545 42 40 S. mansoni 4 12 22 100%
Sacko, 2009 [5] Mali 415 180 40 S. mansoni
S. haematobium
415 0% Follow-up >60 days
Scherrer, 2007 [24] Côte d’Ivoire 49 20 40 S. mansoni 6 22 21 100%
Sousa-Figueiredo, 2012 [25] Uganda 880 21 6040 S. mansoni 693 187 35%
Stete, 2010 [26] Côte d’Ivoire 545 21 40 S. haematobium 1 20 56 100%
Utzinger, 1997 [27] Côte d’Ivoire 209 28 40 S. mansoni 27 56 100%
Utzinger, 1998 [28] Côte d’Ivoire 253 28 60 S. mansoni 129 124 0% Dose = 60 mg/kg
Wami, 2014 [29] Zimbabwe 303 84 40 S. mansoni
S. haematobium
109 148 46 0% Follow-up >60 days
Xu, 2007 [30] China 880 90 40 S. japonicum 1 5 0% S. japonicum only one preschool-age child
TOTAL   10,005 2,361 2,368 2,415

Fig 1. Study flowchart (PSAC: preschool-age children; SAC: school-age children).

Fig 1

Table 2. Number of subjects in the 16 studies enrolled and analysed.

Author, year [Ref.] Enrolled PSAC Enrolled SAC Enrolled PSAC+SAC Evaluable
PSAC
Evaluable
SAC
Evaluable PSAC+SAC With follow-up PSAC With follow-up SAC With follow-up PSAC+SAC
Coulibaly 2011 [12] 53 0 53 53 53 53 53
Coulibaly 2017 [13] 40 43 83 38 42 80 38 42 80
Coulibaly 2018 [14] 170 168 338 37 37 74 37 37 74
Garba 2007 [15] 0 659 659 659 659   549 549
Garba 2009 [17] 0 420 420 360 360   347 347
Garba 2013 [16] 243 0 243 243 243 231 231
Garba 1996 [17] 77 162 239 114 228 342 61 160 221
Mutapi 2010 [19] 132 434 566 101 434 535 21 149 170
Campagne, 2008 [11] 1 103 104 100 100   90 90
Olds, 1999 [21] 2 116 118 2 116 118 2 116 118
Olliaro 2007 [22] 0 534 534 190 190   190 190
Raso 2004 [23] 4 34 38 4 34 38 4 34 38
Scherrer 2007 [24] 6 43 49 6 43 49 6 43 49
Sousa-Figueiredo 2012 [25] 693 187 880 395 128 523 211 94 305
Stete 2010 [26] 1 76 77 1 76 77 1 76 77
Utzinger 1997 [27] 0 83 83 83 83   83 83
TOTAL 1,422 3,062 4,484 994 2,530 3,524 665 2,010 2,675

Exclusions

A total of seven studies and four study arms were excluded for the following reasons. First, six studies were excluded as a whole, as they did not meet one or more of the inclusion criteria (two studies because the praziquantel dose was not 40 mg/kg [20, 28], and four studies because the duration of follow-up was >60 days) [5, 18, 29]. Second, we excluded study arms that were outside the set criteria, namely those who received a praziquantel dose higher or lower than 40 mg/kg [13, 14, 22], or were outside the 0–14 years age range [22]. Third, we excluded participants with S. japonicum infection because only one preschool-child was enrolled in Xu et al. [30] out of six participants, and none in Olliaro et al. [22] (Table 1).

The remaining 16 studies and study groups enrolled a total of 4,484 (63%) children who were treated with single 40 mg/kg oral praziquantel: preschool-age children (n = 1,422; 32%) and school-age children (n = 3,062; 68%). Of note, five studies [11, 15, 22, 27] did not enroll preschool-age children. Sousa-Figueiredo et al. [25] enrolled both preschool- and school-age children aged 6–10 years, and Olliaro et al. [22] included only school-age children aged 10–14 years (Table 1). Overall 75% of the treated children (n = 2,675) were followed up and had a measurable outcome 21–60 days post-treatment; 665 preschool-age children and 2,010 school-age children. More losses to follow-up occurred among the preschool-age children compared to their older counterparts (33% versus 21%, p <0.001).

Out of the 16 studies included in the analyses, three were randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 13 were single-arm intervention or cohort studies. The RCTs were at low risk of selection bias with computer-generated block randomization, adequate allocation concealment, and blinding of either participants, personnel, or outcome assessment. The single-arm intervention or cohort studies were at unclear risk of bias as there was no randomization, no allocation concealment, and no blinding. Furthermore, no study mentioned if sampling was stratified for preschool- and school-age children. Regarding incomplete outcome data and selective reporting items of the risk of bias tables, attrition rate was generally low (Figs 2 and 3). The funnel plots showed extensive publications bias (Figs 4 and 5). However, for both S. mansoni and S. haematobium, half of the studies could not be plotted because they were non-comparative, hence a mean difference and a standard error of the mean between preschool- and school-age children could not be calculated (see also Figs 2 and 3).

Fig 2. S. mansoni studies forest plot of mean egg counts and bias table.

Fig 2

Fig 3. S. haematobium studies forest plot of mean egg counts and bias table.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Studies funnel plot for S. mansoni.

Fig 4

Fig 5. Studies funnel plot for S. haematobium.

Fig 5

Of the 2,010 evaluable school-age children, 988 were aged 6 to <10 years (382 (56%) presenting with S. mansoni and 301 (44%) with S. haematobium infections), and 1,022 were aged 10–14 years (667 (33%) S. mansoni and 1,343 (67%) S. haematobium infections) (Table 3). Intensity of infection at baseline and treatment outcomes expressed as ERRs calculated as AM as well as CRs are presented in Table 4, stratified by Schistosoma species for the three age groups (details by study in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3, stratified by Schistosoma species). The baseline intensity of infection analyses adjusted on study and sex showed a significant difference between age groups with higher counts in the school- than the preschool-age children (Fig 6, S4 Table, S4 Table, S5 Table, and S6 Table). A significant difference in baseline egg counts between boys and girls was found for S. haematobium but not for S. mansoni (S6 Table). The age distribution of participants by Schistosoma species can be found in S2 Fig.

Table 3. Number of subjects analyzed (evaluable subjects with follow-up) by age category and Schistosoma species.

  S. mansoni S. haematobium All
Author, year [Ref.] 0 to <6 years 6 to <10 years 10 to 14 years 0 to <6 years 6 to <10 years 10 to 14 years 0 to <6 years 6 to <10 years 10 to 14 years
Coulibaly 2011 [12] 35 0 0 18 0 0 53 0 0
Coulibaly 2017 [13] 38 22 20 0 0 0 38 22 20
Coulibaly 2018 [14] 0 0 0 37 25 12 37 25 12
Garba 2007 [15] 0 99 82 0 211 157 0 310 239
Garba 2009 [15] 0 0 0 0 177 170 0 177 170
Garba 2013 [16] 88 0 0 161 0 0 231 0 0
Garba 1996 [17] 0 0 0 61 85 75 61 85 75
Mutapi 2010 [19] 0 0 0 21 115 34 21 115 34
Campagne, 2008 [11] 0 0 0 0 30 60 0 30 60
Olds, 1999 [21] 0 0 0 2 49 67 2 49 67
Olliaro 2007 [22] 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 190
Raso 2004 [23] 4 12 22 0 0 0 4 12 22
Scherrer 2007 [24] 6 22 21 0 0 0 6 22 21
Sousa-Figueiredo 2012 [25] 211 94 0 0 0 0 211 94 0
Stete 2010 [26] 0 0 0 1 20 56 1 20 56
Utzinger 1997 [27] 0 27 56 0 0 0 0 27 56
TOTAL 382 276 391 301 712 631 665 988 1,022
Preschool-age (0 to <6 years) 382 301 665
School-age (6 to 14 years) 667 1,343 2,010

Table 4. Intensity of infection at baseline and follow-up, and treatment outcomes expressed as arithmetic mean (AM) egg reduction rate (ERR), cure rate (CR), and mean individual egg reduction rate (all with 95% confidence intervals) by age category and by Schistosoma species.

Age category Follow-up duration (in days) N evaluable Mean EPG at baseline Mean EPG at follow-up ERR 95%CI CR 95%CI Mean individual ERR 95%CI
S. mansoni
0 to <6 years 21 290 244.4 51.2 79.1 (67.8; 88.6) 59.7% (54.0%; 65.3%) 48.8 (23.3; 74.3)
0 to <6 years 42 92 109.6 7.5 93.2 (89.5; 96.3) 76.1% (67.4%; 84.8%) 81.1 (70.5; 91.8)
6 to <10 years 21 138 226.4 23.7 89.5 (78.3; 96.3) 71.7% (64.2%; 79.3%) 78.2 (60.8; 95.7)
6 to <10 years 42 138 100.6 26.1 74.1 (65.3; 82.1) 59.4% (51.2%; 67.6%) 64.1 (43.1; 85.1)
10 to 14 years 21 231 21.8 0.8 96.3 (93.2; 98.8) 87.9% (83.7%; 92.1%) 91.6 (84.2; 99.0)
10 to 14 years 42 160 114.4 15.0 86.9 (79.1; 93.3) 66.3% (58.9%; 73.6%) 81.9 (72.3; 91.4)
6 to 14 years 21 369 98.3 9.4 90.5 (81.0; 96.3) 81.8% (77.9%; 85.8%) 93.5 (91.3; 95.7)
6 to 14 years 42 298 108.0 20.1 81.4 (75.4; 86.4) 63.1% (57.6%; 68.6%) 83.4 (79.9; 86.9)
S. haematobium
0 to <6 years 21 56 20.0 0.3 98.4 (96.7; 99.5) 82.1% (72.1%; 92.2%) 94.9 (89.6; 100.2)
0 to <6 years 42 184 37.0 5.2 85.9 (69.1; 98.8) 83.7% (78.4%; 89.0%) 93.9 (90.8; 96.9)
0 to <6 years 60 61 14.9 22.4 -50.4 (-147.3; 34.1) 54.1% (41.6%; 66.6%) 75.7 (65.5; 86.0)
6 to <10 years 21 222 95.0 1.9 98.1 (97.1; 98.8) 57.2% (50.7%; 63.7%) 95.6 (93.7; 97.5)
6 to <10 years 42 405 76.7 17.0 77.9 (67.0; 88.3) 72.1% (67.7%; 76.5%) 92.7 (90.5; 94.9)
6 to <10 years 60 85 79.1 66.5 15.9 (-37.2; 56.0) 22.4% (13.5%; 31.2%) 59.6 (50.0; 69.2)
10 to 14 years 21 238 97.2 5.6 94.2 (88.9; 98.0) 56.7% (50.4%; 63.0%) 93.4 (90.9; 95.8)
10 to 14 years 42 318 87.5 24.3 72.2 (58.1; 83.9) 67.9% (62.8%; 73.1%) 91.3 (88.8; 93.9)
10 to 14 years 60 75 81.4 35.1 57.0 (37.9; 73.1) 25.3% (15.5%; 35.2%) 61.5 (52.2; 70.9)
6 to 14 years 21 460 96.1 3.8 96.0 (93.1; 98.1) 57.0% (52.4%; 61.5%) 94.4 (92.9; 96.0)
6 to 14 years 42 723 81.5 20.2 75.2 (67.6; 82.8) 70.3% (66.9%; 73.6%) 92.1 (90.5; 93.7)
6 to 14 years 60 160 80.2 51.7 35.5 (9.1; 57.3) 23.8% (17.2%; 30.3%) 60.5 (53.8; 67.2)

Fig 6. Baseline intensity of infection analyses adjusted for study and age.

Fig 6

The AM-ERRs are also presented graphically as forest plots in Figs 7 and 8 for S. mansoni and S. haematobium, respectively against the ≥95% WHO threshold for efficacy [36]. Overall, 6/13 (2/6 for S. mansoni and 4/7 for S. haematobium) of the study groups with participants in the age-group under 6 years (preschool-age) met the WHO efficacy threshold, compared to 5/14 (1/6 for S. mansoni and 4/8 for S. haematobium) of the children aged 6 to <10 years and 2/14 (0/6 for S. mansoni and 2/8 for S. haematobium) of the children aged 10–14 years).

Fig 7. Forest plots of ERR for S. mansoni.

Fig 7

Fig 8. Forest plots of ERR for S. haematobium.

Fig 8

The centile distribution of the individual-patient ERRs is displayed in Figs 9 and 10 for S. mansoni and S. haematobium, respectively.

Fig 9. Centile distribution of the individual-patient ERRs for S. mansoni.

Fig 9

Fig 10. Centile distribution of the individual-patient ERRs for S. haematobium.

Fig 10

The percentage of patients with ERRs = 0 (no decrease), between >0 and <100%, and 100% (corresponding to the CR) in the different age categories is represented in the bar graphs for each study and in Table 5.

Table 5. Individual patient egg reduction rate (ERR) by Schistosoma species and age group.

S. mansoni S. haematobium
Age ERR n % n %
0 to <6 years 0% 39 10.2 19 6.3
0<ERR<100 100 26.2 49 16.3
100% 243 63.6 233 77.4
6 to <10 years 0% 20 7.3 44 6.2
0<ERR<100 75 27.2 230 32.3
100% 181 65.6 438 61.5
10 to 14 years 0% 14 3.6 34 5.4
0<ERR<100 68 17.4 227 36.0
100% 309 79.0 370 58.6
Χ2 p-value <0.001 <0.001
6 to 14 years 0% 34 5.1 78 5.8
0<ERR<100 143 21.4 457 34.0
100% 490 73.5 808 60.2
Χ2 p-value <0.001 <0.001

A majority of ERRs are in the 100% category (i.e. ‘cured' from the current infection). For preschool-age children as well as younger school-age children (aged 6 to 10 years) almost 80% of the subjects have an ERR above 70%, whereas the results per studies are highly hetegeneous in the 10–14 years old for both S. mansoni and S. haematobium as ascertained by the very different cumulative curves. There was a significant difference between age groups (p <0.001) for both species, though for different reasons: for S. mansoni the difference is driven by preschool-age children having about twice as many non-responders as school-age children (10.2% versus 5.1%), while for S. haematobium more preschool-age children were cured (100% ERR: 77.4% versus 60.2%). However, no age difference was seen in treatment outcomes after multivariable adjustment in statistical models. The general linear model of individual-participant ERR with baseline log-transformed egg count as covariate and study, age, and sex as fixed variables did not show any difference in efficacy between age categories in the post-hoc pairwise comparisons of marginal means (least squares means) for either S. mansoni or S. haematobium (Table 6). This was confirmed in a mixed model employing a random effect for each study (Table 7). Neither baseline egg counts nor duration of follow-up influenced treatment outcome (S7 Table and S8 Table). Sensitivity analyses with log-transformed baseline egg counts for both S. mansoni and S. haematobium provided similar results for studies accounted for either as fixed factor (general linear model, S4 Table) or as random effect (mixed model, S5 Table).

Table 6. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons between age categories, general linear model.

S. mansoni individual egg reduction rates S. haematobium individual egg reduction rates
Effect Category   Mean SD Adj P Mean SD Adj P
Age 10 to 14 years 0.937 0.0224 0.892 0.0134
6 to <10 years 0.925 0.0205 0.903 0.0130
0 to <6 years 0.884 0.0238 0.929 0.0203
Age 6 to 14 years 0.930 0.0162 0.898 0.0113
0 to <6 years 0.887 0.0223 0.928 0.0202
Pairwise comparisons
Age 10 to 14 years 6 to <10 years 0.0119 0.0280 0.906 -0.0106 0.0134 0.710
10 to 14 years 0 to <6 years 0.0533 0.0372 0.324 -0.0368 0.0273 0.368
6 to <10 years 0 to <6 year 0.0414 0.0288 0.322 -0.0262 0.0266 0.585
Age 6 to 14 years 0 to <6 years 0.0432 0.0285 0.130 -0.0304 0.0260 0.243

Table 7. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons between age categories, mixed model.

S. mansoni individual egg reduction rates S. haematobium individual egg reduction rates
Effect Category   Mean SD Adj P Mean SD Adj P
Age 10 to 14 years 0.931 0.03744   0.8902 0.04094  
  6 to <10 years 0.913 0.03679   0.9006 0.04083  
  0 to <6 yeras 0.875 0.03796   0.9292 0.04367  
Age 6 to 14 years 0.922 0.03501   0.8957 0.0403  
0 to <6 years 0.879 0.03779   0.9284 0.04363  
Pairwise comparisons                
Age 10 to 14 years 6 to <10 years 0.0172 0.0272 0.802 -0.0105 0.0134 0.715
10 to 14 years 0 to <6 years 0.0558 0.0344 0.236 -0.0390 0.0265 0.306
6 to <10 years 0 to <6 years 0.0386 0.0275 0.341 -0.0285 0.0259 0.512
Age 6 to 14 years 0 to <6 years 0.0423 0.0269 0.117 -0.0327 0.0253 0.170

Safety was reported in 7/16 studies with only four studies [13, 16, 19, 35] reporting on evaluable patients who had safety data corresponding to participants with follow-up <60 days, age ≤14 years, and praziquantel dose of 40 mg/kg (total number assessed on day 1 = 1,128; at follow-up = 1,065, 94%) (Table 8). Overall, 226 (20%) patients suffered from at least one AE 4 hours after drug intake, 88 (8%) after 24 hours, and 33 (3%) at the treatment follow-up, respectively. At least one AE was experienced at 4 hours post-treatment by 19% and 44% of under 6-year-old children and children aged 10–14 years, respectively. Only one child had an AE in the 6- to <10-year-old age group. The relative proportions at 24 hours were 5%, 21%, and 0%. At follow-up, 10% of the children aged 10–14 years reported at least one AE, and none in the other age-groups.

Table 8. Number of children treated with a single 40 mg/kg oral dose of praziquantel reporting adverse events (AEs) and number of AEs by age group.

0 to <6 years 6 to <10 years 10 to 14 years All
N % N % N % N %
Day 0 (4 hours post-treatment) Experienced ≥1 AE 81 19% 1 0% 144 44% 226 20%
Number of AEs 81 22% 1 0% 288 78% 370
Number evaluated 416 381 331 1,128
Day 1 (24 hours post-treatment) Experienced ≥1 AE 19 5% 69 21% 88 8%
Number of AEs 19 7% 253 93% 272
  Number evaluated 416 381 331 1128
Day 21 Experienced ≥1 AE 33 10% 33 3%
Number of AEs 134 1 134
  Number evaluated 372 376 317 1070

A total of 370, 272, and 134 AEs were reported on the day of treatment 4 hours after drug intake, at 24 hours post-treatment, and at the follow-up visit, respectively. At 4 hours, there were 81 AEs of mild intensity in children aged 0 to <6 years; one mild in the age group 6 to <10 years; and 228 mild, 159 moderate, and one severe AEs in children aged 10–14 years. At 24 hours, 19 mild AEs in the 0 to <6 year age group; none in the children aged 6 to <10 years; and 205 mild, 46 moderate, and two severe AEs in the oldest group of children 10–14 years. At treatment follow-up, a total of 88 mild and 46 moderate AEs were observed in the 10- to 14-year-old age group. The severe AEs were dizziness, anorexia, and diarrhea, but none of the AEs were judged as serious.

At 4 hours post-treatment, the most frequent AE was abdominal pain (39.7% of AEs), followed by diarrhea (14.3%), vomiting (9.5%), headache and dizziness (both 8.4%). At 24 hours, it was headache (23.2%) then abdominal pain (16.5%), dizziness (15.1%), and diarrhea (11%). At treatment follow-up, headache (27.6%), abdominal pain (19.4%), anorexia (14.2%), and dizziness (12.7%) were the most frequent AEs.

Discussion

This individual-participant data meta-analysis aimed to assess whether a single 40 mg/kg oral dose of 40 mg/kg of praziquantel administered to preschool-age children (aged <6 years) would be as efficacious and safe as in school-age children. This kind of evidence is important. Indeed, while the current emphasis of preventive chemotherapy is on school-age children [1, 34], preschool-age children are now also recognized to carry a significant burden of disease, and hence, they are becoming a target for preventive chemotherapy, especially if a pediatric formulation of praziquantel becomes available [6, 7]. Furthermore, efforts are under way to strategically move from morbidity control to elimination, which means preventive chemotherapy might need to be expanded to include all age-groups in order to remove all untreated reservoirs of infection that contribute to ongoing local transmission [40].

Taken together, our results point to no age-effect on treatment efficacy with the standard single-dose of 40 mg/kg praziquantel, whether administered to children under the age of 6 years (preschool-age), or to school-age children (aged 6–14 years), or whether the latter group is further broken down into 6 to less than 10, and 10 through 14 years (as some studies only included either age-group).

We analyzed data using two models: (i) a general linear model with or without baseline log-transformed Schistosoma egg counts as covariate and study, age, and sex as cofactors; and (ii) a mixed model with or without baseline log-transformed egg counts as covariate, age as a fixed factor, with a random effect for each study. None of these models detected a statistically significant difference in the individual ERRs between age categories. These analyses also show that the lower baseline egg counts found in preschool-age children did not have an effect on treatment outcome, nor did duration of follow-up within the 21–60 day time-frame.

Our conclusions are further supported by the observation that, when using the WHO-recommended AM-ERR, there is no indication that fewer groups composed of preschool-age children meet the WHO ≥95% efficacy threshold compared to school-age children. These results are in overall agreement with mixed-effect multivariate analysis of aggregated data that found no significant difference between preschool- and school-age children for CR or geometric mean ERR for either S. mansoni or S. haematobium after controlling for time of assessment, formulation, intensity of infection, and diagnostic approach [41]. While host factors, like age-related differences in drug metabolizing activity [42] might play a role in praziquantel metabolism and overall efficacy, increasing the dose to 60 mg/kg may not lead to better efficacy. Two of the studies conducted in Côte d’Ivoire contributing to this analysis, which also studied the response to placebo and doses ranging from 20 mg/kg to 60 mg/kg, showed a flat dose-response curve in both preschool- and school-age children infected with S. haematobium and preschool-children infected with S. mansoni [13, 14]. Another study [22] compared 40 mg/kg to 60 mg/kg in children aged 10–14 years, and did not find a difference either. Similarly, in an aggregated-data meta-analysis using a random-effect meta-analysis regression model, a dose-effect for CR was found up to 40 mg/kg for S. mansoni and 30 mg/kg for S. haematobium with no benefit in increasing the dose, in school-age children [43].

Treatment with a single 40 mg/kg oral dose of praziquantel was well tolerated, especially in preschool-age children who experienced fewer and generally only mild AEs when compared to school-age children. Previous systematic reviews pertaining to the efficacy and safety of praziquantel for schistosomiasis already showed that praziquantel is safe and AEs usually mild and self-limiting [41, 44, 45]. It is, however, conceivable that this is a result of underreporting by younger children, if AEs were not specifically and proactively elicited.

Our study has several limitations. First, out of 16 studies included in the analysis, 13 were single-arm thus with an unclear risk of bias concerning selection of participants. Second, the studies enrolled selectively different age groups, so we used the principles of network meta-analysis to compare participant outcomes in different groups, which were not necessarily enrolled at the same site and time, and might thus not be comparable. Third, safety and tolerability at large were also generally underreported. Fourth, no information is available for S. japonicum. A more general methodological issue is the limitations of counting eggs in excreta in young children, and the imperfect correlation between egg shedding and worm burden, which would be better reflected by antigen-detection methods. [46] However, the significance and comparability of results of efficacy studies based on antigen-detection methods vis-à-vis direct egg-detection remains unclear.

In conclusion, based on the data presented here, there is no indication that preventive chemotherapy with single-dose 40 mg/kg praziquantel would be less efficacious and tolerated in preschool-age children than it is in school-age children. However, these conclusions are drawn from an available, limited body of evidence, which is only a tiny fraction of the overall use of praziquantel, with only a few studies designed for direct comparisons between age groups. Whether and when preschool-age children will be exposed systematically to preventive chemotherapy, close monitoring of efficacy as well as safety will be required. This in particular considering preschool-age children have about twice as high rates of non-responders in the individual-patient ERR analysis than older children.

It should also be noted that the WHO-recommended 95% ERR threshold was not met in many studies, which calls for improved dosing and delivery strategies.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Species and diagnostic approach used (excluded studies shaded).

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Intensity of infection and treatment outcomes by study for Schistosoma mansoni.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Intensity of infection and treatment outcomes by study for Schistosoma haematobium.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Results of general linear model of individual ERR with baseline log transformed egg count as covariate and studies, age and sex as factors.

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Results of mixed model of individual ERR with baseline log transformed egg count as covariate, age and sex as factors, and with random effect for the study.

(DOCX)

S6 Table

Results of general linear model of individual a) S. mansoni and b) S. haematobium baseline log transformed egg count with study, age, and sex as factors.

(DOCX)

S7 Table

Results of general linear model of individual S. mansoni ERR without baseline log transformed egg count as covariate and studies and age as factors (a: 3 categories, b: 2 categories).

(DOCX)

S8 Table

Results of mixed model of individual S. haematobium ERR without baseline log transformed egg count as covariate and age as a fixed factor, with studies as a random factor (a: 3 categories, b: 2 categories).

(DOCX)

S9 Table. PRISMA checklist.

(DOCX)

S10 Table. PRISMA flow diagram.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Network of possible preschool- and school-age children comparisons across all studies.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Age distribution of participants by Schistosoma species.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their big thanks to the authors of the original publications used in this work for having kindly provided the individual participants data.

Disclaimer

AG and CH are staff members of the World Health Organization, FM is a staff member of NIHR and MV is a staff member of the Luxembourg Institute of Health; the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and it does not necessarily represent the decisions, policy, or views of their respective organizations.

Data Availability

Data were not produced by the current Meta-Analysis and only the original authors could make them available on an individual basis. These data are held in the repository of the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO.org). IDDO promotes data sharing and data re-use to generate new evidence that improves health and understanding of disease. Requests to access data can be submitted by email to dataccess@iddo.org via the Data Access Application Form available at IDDO.org/accessing-data. If eligible, requests will be reviewed by the IDDO Data Access Committee to ensure that use of data protects the interests of the participants and researchers according to the IDDO principles of data sharing (see https://www.iddo.org/data-sharing/accessing-data).

Funding Statement

The Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) supported this work and the clinical trial reported in Olliaro et al. (2013) with core funding. The Luxembourg Institute of Health supported the analyses with core funding. The data from Zimbabwe was collected during a research project funded by the World Health Organization (FM) and Thrasher Research Fund (FM). This research was commissioned in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research programme (16/136/33) using UK aid from the UK Government (FM). JK and JTC are grateful to the European Research Council for financial support (ERC-2013-CoG 614739-A_HERO). CHK is supported by the Schistosomiasis Consortium for Operational Research and Evaluation (SCORE), funded by the University of Georgia Research Foundation through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO. Preventive chemotherapy in human helminthiasis: coordinated use of anthelminthic drugs in control interventions: a manual for health professionals and programme managers. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Osakunor DNM, Woolhouse MEJ, Mutapi F. Paediatric schistosomiasis: What we know and what we need to know. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(2):e0006144 Epub 2018/02/09. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Stothard JR, Sousa-Figueiredo JC, Betson M, Bustinduy A, Reinhard-Rupp J. Schistosomiasis in African infants and preschool children: let them now be treated! Trends Parasitol. 2013;29(4):197–205. Epub 2013/03/08. 10.1016/j.pt.2013.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stothard JR, Sousa-Figueiredo JC, Betson M, Green HK, Seto EY, Garba A, et al. Closing the praziquantel treatment gap: new steps in epidemiological monitoring and control of schistosomiasis in African infants and preschool-aged children. Parasitology. 2011;138(12):1593–606. 10.1017/S0031182011001235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.WHO. Report of a meeting to review the results of studies on the treatment of Schistosomiasis in preschool-age chidren, WHO report. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bagchus WM, Bezuidenhout D, Harrison-Moench E, Kourany-Lefoll E, Wolna P, Yalkinoglu O. Relative Bioavailability of Orally Dispersible Tablet Formulations of Levo- and Racemic Praziquantel: Two Phase I Studies. Clin Transl Sci. 2019;12(1):66–76. Epub 2018/12/12. 10.1111/cts.12601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Reinhard-Rupp J, Klohe K. Developing a comprehensive response for treatment of children under 6 years of age with schistosomiasis: research and development of a pediatric formulation of praziquantel. Infect Dis Poverty. 2017;6(1):122 Epub 2017/08/05. 10.1186/s40249-017-0336-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Olliaro PL, Vaillant M, Hayes DJ, Montresor A, Chitsulo L. Practical dosing of praziquantel for schistosomiasis in preschool-aged children. Tropical medicine & international health: TM & IH. 2013;18(9):1085–9. Epub 2013/08/14. 10.1111/tmi.12152 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Woelfle M, Seerden JP, de Gooijer J, Pouwer K, Olliaro P, Todd MH. Resolution of praziquantel. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(9):e1260 Epub 2011/09/29. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bustinduy AL, Waterhouse D, de Sousa-Figueiredo JC, Roberts SA, Atuhaire A, Van Dam GJ, et al. Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Praziquantel in Ugandan Children with Intestinal Schistosomiasis: Higher Dosages Are Required for Maximal Efficacy. MBio. 2016;7(4). Epub 2016/08/11. 10.1128/mBio.00227-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Campagne G, Garba A, Barkire H, Vera C, Sidiki A, Chippaux JP. [Continued ultrasonic follow-up of children infected with Schistosoma haematobium after treatment with praziquantel]. Tropical medicine & international health: TM & IH. 2008;6(1):24–30. 10.1046/j.1365-3156.2001.00660.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Coulibaly JT, Fürst T, Silué KD, Knopp S, Hauri D, Ouattara M, et al. Intestinal parasitic infections in schoolchildren in different settings of Côte d'Ivoire: effect of diagnostic approach and implications for control. Parasit Vectors. 2012;5:135 Epub 2012/07/10. 10.1186/1756-3305-5-135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Coulibaly JT, Panic G, Silue KD, Kovac J, Hattendorf J, Keiser J. Efficacy and safety of praziquantel in preschool-aged and school-aged children infected with Schistosoma mansoni: a randomised controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(7):e688–e98. 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30187-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Coulibaly JT, Panic G, Yapi RB, Kovac J, Barda B, N'Gbesso YK, et al. Efficacy and safety of ascending doses of praziquantel against Schistosoma haematobium infection in preschool-aged and school-aged children: a single-blind randomised controlled trial. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):81 10.1186/s12916-018-1066-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Garba A, Lamine MS, Barkire N, Djibo A, Sofo B, Gouvras AN, et al. Efficacy and safety of two closely spaced doses of praziquantel against Schistosoma haematobium and S. mansoni and re-infection patterns in school-aged children in Niger. Acta Trop. 2013;128:334–44. Epub 2012/09/04. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2012.08.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Garba A, Lamine MS, Djibo A, Tahirou A, Aouami MA, Alfari A, et al. Safety and efficacy of praziquantel syrup (Epiquantel(R)) against Schistosoma haematobium and Schistosoma mansoni in preschool-aged children in Niger. Acta Trop. 2013;128(2):318–25. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2012.12.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Garba A, Pion S, Cournil A, Milet J, Schneider D, Campagne G, et al. Risk factors for Schistosoma haematobium infection and morbidity in two villages with different transmission patterns in Niger. Acta Trop. 2010;115(1–2):84–9. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2010.02.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Landouré A, Dembélé R, Goita S, Kané M, Tuinsma M, Sacko M, et al. Significantly reduced intensity of infection but persistent prevalence of schistosomiasis in a highly endemic region in Mali after repeated treatment. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(7):e1774 Epub 2012/08/04. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001774 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mutapi F, Rujeni N, Bourke C, Mitchell K, Appleby L, Nausch N, et al. Schistosoma haematobium treatment in 1–5 year old children: safety and efficacy of the antihelminthic drug praziquantel. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(5):e1143 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.N'Goran EK, Gnaka HN, Tanner M, Utzinger J. Efficacy and side-effects of two praziquantel treatments against Schistosoma haematobium infection, among schoolchildren from Côte d'Ivoire. Annals of tropical medicine and parasitology. 2003;97(1):37–51. Epub 2003/03/29. 10.1179/000349803125002553 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Olds GR, King C, Hewlett J, Olveda R, Wu G, Ouma J, et al. Double-blind placebo-controlled study of concurrent administration of albendazole and praziquantel in schoolchildren with schistosomiasis and geohelminths. J Infect Dis. 1999;179(4):996–1003. Epub 1999/03/09. 10.1086/314686 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Olliaro PL, Vaillant MT, Belizario VJ, Lwambo NJ, Ouldabdallahi M, Pieri OS, et al. A multicentre randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of single-dose praziquantel at 40 mg/kg vs. 60 mg/kg for treating intestinal schistosomiasis in the Philippines, Mauritania, Tanzania and Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(6):e1165 Epub 2011/06/23. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Raso G, N'Goran EK, Toty A, Luginbühl A, Adjoua CA, Tian-Bi NT, et al. Efficacy and side effects of praziquantel against Schistosoma mansoni in a community of western Côte d'Ivoire. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2004;98(1):18–27. Epub 2004/01/02. 10.1016/s0035-9203(03)00003-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Scherrer AU, Sjöberg MK, Allangba A, Traoré M, Lohourignon LK, Tschannen AB, et al. Sequential analysis of helminth egg output in human stool samples following albendazole and praziquantel administration. Acta Trop. 2009;109(3):226–31. Epub 2008/12/17. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2008.11.015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sousa-Figueiredo JC, Betson M, Atuhaire A, Arinaitwe M, Navaratnam AM, Kabatereine NB, et al. Performance and safety of praziquantel for treatment of intestinal schistosomiasis in infants and preschool children. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(10):e1864 Epub 2012/10/25. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Stete K, Krauth SJ, Coulibaly JT, Knopp S, Hattendorf J, Muller I, et al. Dynamics of Schistosoma haematobium egg output and associated infection parameters following treatment with praziquantel in school-aged children. Parasit Vectors. 2012;5:298 Epub 2012/12/25. 10.1186/1756-3305-5-298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Utzinger J, N'Goran EK, Esse Aya CM, Acka Adjoua C, Lohourignon KL, Tanner M, et al. Schistosoma mansoni, intestinal parasites and perceived morbidity indicators in schoolchildren in a rural endemic area of western Côte d'Ivoire. Tropical medicine & international health: TM & IH. 1998;3(9):711–20. Epub 1998/10/01. 10.1046/j.1365-3156.1998.00292.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Utzinger J, N'Goran EK, N'Dri A, Lengeler C, Tanner M. Efficacy of praziquantel against Schistosoma mansoni with particular consideration for intensity of infection. Tropical medicine & international health: TM & IH. 2000;5(11):771–8. Epub 2000/12/21. 10.1046/j.1365-3156.2000.00646.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wami WM, Nausch N, Bauer K, Midzi N, Gwisai R, Simmonds P, et al. Comparing parasitological vs serological determination of Schistosoma haematobium infection prevalence in preschool and primary school-aged children: implications for control programmes. Parasitology. 2014;141(14):1962–70. 10.1017/S0031182014000213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Xu J, Guo JG, Wu XH, Zeng XJ, Yang WP, Yang GB, et al. Efficacy and adverse effects of film coated praziquantel for treatment of schistosomiasis japonica. Zhonghua yu fang yi xue za zhi [Chinese journal of preventive medicine]. 2009;43(8):718–22 (in Chinese). Epub 2009/12/22. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jule AM, Vaillant M, Lang TA, Guerin PJ, Olliaro PL. The Schistosomiasis Clinical Trials Landscape: A Systematic Review of Antischistosomal Treatment Efficacy Studies and a Case for Sharing Individual Participant-Level Data (IPD). PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(6):e0004784 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004784 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies In: Higgins JPT, DG, editors. Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 500 [updated February 2008]. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Katz N, Chaves A, Pellegrino J. A simple device for quantitative stool thick-smear technique in Schistosomiasis mansoni. Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo. 1972;14(6):397–400. Epub 1972/11/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.WHO. Prevention and control of schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis. World Health Organization technical report series. 2002;912:i-vi, 1–57, back cover. Epub 2003/02/21. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Olliaro PL, Vaillant M, Diawara A, Coulibaly JT, Garba A, Keiser J, et al. Toward Measuring Schistosoma Response to Praziquantel Treatment with Appropriate Descriptors of Egg Excretion. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(6):e0003821 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.WHO. Assessing the efficacy of anthelmintic drug against schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiases. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Donegan S, Williamson P, D'Alessandro U, Garner P, Tudur-Smith C. Combining individual patient data and aggregate data in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: individual patient data may be beneficial if only for a subset of trials. Statistics in Medicine. 2013;32:914–30. 10.1002/sim.5584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Woods B, Hawkins N, Mealing S, Sutton A, Abraham WT, Beshai JF, et al. Individual patient data network meta-analysis of mortality effects of implantable cardiac devices. Heart. 2015;0:1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tohon ZB, Mainassara HB, Garba A, Mahamane AE, Bosque-Oliva E, Ibrahim ML, et al. Controlling schistosomiasis: significant decrease of anaemia prevalence one year after a single dose of praziquantel in Nigerian schoolchildren. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2(5):e241 Epub 2008/05/30. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lo NC, Addiss DG, Hotez PJ, King CH, Stothard JR, Evans DS, et al. A call to strengthen the global strategy against schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis: the time is now. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17(2):e64–e9. Epub 2016/12/05. 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30535-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zwang J, Olliaro P. Efficacy and safety of praziquantel 40 mg/kg in preschool-aged and school-aged children: a meta-analysis. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10(1):47 Epub 2017/01/28. 10.1186/s13071-016-1958-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sadler NC, Nandhikonda P, Webb-Robertson BJ, Ansong C, Anderson LN, Smith JN, et al. Hepatic Cytochrome P450 Activity, Abundance, and Expression Throughout Human Development. Drug Metab Dispos. 2016;44(7):984–91. Epub 2016/04/17. 10.1124/dmd.115.068593 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Zwang J, Olliaro PL. Clinical efficacy and tolerability of praziquantel for intestinal and urinary schistosomiasis-a meta-analysis of comparative and non-comparative clinical trials. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(11):e3286 Epub 2014/11/21. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003286 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Danso-Appiah A, Olliaro PL, Donegan S, Sinclair D, Utzinger J. Drugs for treating Schistosoma mansoni infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:Cd000528 Epub 2013/03/02. 10.1002/14651858.CD000528.pub2 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kramer CV, Zhang F, Sinclair D, Olliaro PL. Drugs for treating urinary schistosomiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(8):CD000053 Epub 2014/08/08. 10.1002/14651858.CD000053.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Stothard JR, Sousa-Figueiredo JC, Betson M, Adriko M, Arinaitwe M, Rowell C, et al. Schistosoma mansoni Infections in young children: when are schistosome antigens in urine, eggs in stool and antibodies to eggs first detectable? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(1):e938 Epub 2011/01/20. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008277.r001

Decision Letter 0

Timothy G Geary, Antonio Montresor

5 Mar 2020

Dear Vaillant,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Efficacy and safety of single 40 mg/kg oral praziquantel in the treatment of schistosomiasis in preschool-age versus school-age children: an individual participant data meta-analysis" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.  

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Antonio Montresor

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Timothy Geary

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Did all studies deliver praziquantel to the PSACs in the same way - whole tablet, crushed tablet in juice?

Were all treatments accompanied by food ? If not, did this have an impact on adverse events?

Was the praziquantel used in the studies all from the same source / manufacturer?

I see little value including S. japonicum due to the stated absence of data.

Reviewer #2: A very clear statistical analysis from a well-organised database of IPD.

Reviewer #3: General

1) Were PRISMA guidelines used for this Meta-analysis. Not referenced in methods. You provide the flow diagram but should reference in methods.

2) Regarding S. japonicum, there is only ONE PSAC subjects across all studies. One PSAC in China, none in Philippines. How is this useful for meta with focus on treatment safety and efficacy in PSAC??? At the very least references to S. japonicum should be removed from abstract and other places.

3) in many tables the close brackets [ ] is left open [ [ for many age groups

5) In methods, please clarify what was asked regarding AEs at follow up. Did you ask about current AE due to the (weeks preceding) treatment or recall of AE in day or so after?

6) Methods do not approach whether studies referenced repeating dose if vomiting occurred or rates of refusal among young children. Although some studies likely didn’t collect, one can still add to discussion regarding ways to improve overall ERR for all children. See point 6 above. Lines 153-55. It is not clear here whether you are referring to reporting bias (participant attribute) or publication bias. These lines seem to apply to the latter.

Specific

Line 164-spell out AM-ERR with first use

Line 233- as worded it is not clear how you are supporting lack of different types of bias:

“The RCTs were at low risk of selection bias with computer-generated block randomization, adequate allocation concealment, and blinding of either participants, personnel, or outcome assessment.”

Some of these procedures do not support “selection bias”

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: OK

Reviewer #2: Some excellent graphs showing novelty in visualization of complex data.

Reviewer #3: See general comments on S. japonicum

Lines 310-12

This sentence is not clear:

At least one AE was experienced at 4 hours post-treatment by 19% and 44% of under 6-year-old children and children aged 10-14 years, respectively.

Table 6

Please provide clearer title and column headings to denote what the “mean” represents

Figure 6 – need to clarify what different colors represent in the bar graph. Large number of low ERR in one study? As above, this also needs to be discussed. Neither the figure legend nor results text explain this figure at all adequately.

In many tables the close brackets [ ] is left open [ [ for many age groups

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: OK

Reviewer #2: Large true but I think the authors should elaborate a bit more on the following:

Egg count is not the 'best' measure of cure in young children (since there is an unusual dynamic across time of first infection and age towards patency (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21245910). I realize that egg-count is important in SAC dynamics but some awareness of this non-linear effect in PSAC is important.

By that same token a bit more should be made of antigen biomarkers (either CAA in sera/urine or CCA in urine).

Collectively I expect the use of biomarkers would show less efficacy, and note that the paediatric praziquantel consortium (on the basis of their trials) is adopting 50 mg/kg of the L-PZQ (given inferiority/superiority measures).

The future adoption of a mono-isomeric form in PSAC somewhat changes the present guidance that this current script offers. It does support however the WHO-stop gap of using crushed racemate in this age class. From the results presented here seems to be a sensible altrnative way forward more immediate to the L-PZQ (which might need testing in SAC?).

Reviewer #3: Lines 340-1- same issue on emphasis on formulation. Most of your included studies used crushed tablets

Lines 365-

Discussion focuses too heavily on lack of difference in other studies at 60 mg/kg. Though you show that the ERR not significantly different between age groups at 40 mg/kg, there is not discussion of the fact that most studies did not find ERR at or above WHO recommended 95% threshold. This must be discussed. There are other reasons besides dose provided that may explain including different dosing strategies (larger total dose over more time to improve tolerability, formulations that might improve drug delivery based on tolerability, absorption etc.

Also, at some point in the discussion, particularly when you reference issue of higher doses to 60 mg/kg, must state that much less is known about this in S. japonicum.

Here or elsewhere, must discuss the almost double rate of ERR less than 0% in S. mansoni among PSAC. This can be included in above regarding adequacy of ANY current does.

Lines379+ - must include in limitations that you cannot say anything about comparing efficacy of 40 mg/kg among PSAC and school age for S. japonicum. That gets lost entirely.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Apart from the comments above "Accept"

Reviewer #2: NA

Reviewer #3: Methods

Lines 153-55. It is not clear here whether you are referring to reporting bias (participant attribute) or publication bias. These lines seem to apply to the latter.

Line 164-spell out AM-ERR with first use

Line 233- as worded it is not clear how you are supporting lack of different types of bias:

“The RCTs were at low risk of selection bias with computer-generated block randomization, adequate allocation concealment, and blinding of either participants, personnel, or outcome assessment.”

Some of these procedures do not support “selection bias”

Results

Lines 310-12

This sentence is not clear:

At least one AE was experienced at 4 hours post-treatment by 19% and 44% of under 6-year-old children and children aged 10-14 years, respectively.

Discussion

Lines 340-1- same issue on emphasis on formulation. Most of your included studies used crushed tablets

Lines 365-

Discussion focuses too heavily on lack of difference in other studies at 60 mg/kg. Though you show that the ERR not significantly different between age groups at 40 mg/kg, there is not discussion of the fact that most studies did not find ERR at or above WHO recommended 95% threshold. This must be discussed. There are other reasons besides dose provided that may explain including different dosing strategies (larger total dose over more time to improve tolerability, formulations that might improve drug delivery based on tolerability, absorption etc.

Also, at some point in the discussion, particularly when you reference issue of higher doses to 60 mg/kg, must state that much less is known about this in S. japonicum.

Here or elsewhere, must discuss the almost double rate of ERR less than 0% in S. mansoni among PSAC. This can be included in above regarding adequacy of ANY current does.

Lines379+ - must include in limitations that you cannot say anything about comparing efficacy of 40 mg/kg among PSAC and school age for S. japonicum. That gets lost entirely.

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The limitations of the study have been addressed by the authors. This is a most useful analysis of data considered in previously published papers and highlights that treatment of PSACs with praziquantel has a similar benefits to treatment of older children.

Reviewer #2: A useful script - secondary analysis - competently done. For brevity I think it could be shortened a little will a few more specific pointers on 'grey' areas (mono-isomer v racemate) where future impact might be less than expected.

Reviewer #3: 1) Were PRISMA guidelines used for this Meta-analysis. Not referenced in methods. You provide the flow diagram but should reference in methods.

2) Regarding S. japonicum, there is only ONE PSAC subjects across all studies. One PSAC in China, none in Philippines. How is this useful for meta with focus on treatment safety and efficacy in PSAC??? At the very least references to S. japonicum should be removed from abstract and other places.

3) introduction Lines 97-101: Same issue on waiting for other formulation. You cite the WHO report of 2010 on this which actually states in the executive summary:

“Studies on the treatment of preschool-age children conducted in these five countries (n=3198) among children aged 1 month to 7 years showed that praziquantel in a tablet or suspension formulation was safe and effective against schistosomiasis, and acceptable…The two studies in Mali and Uganda that compared suspension and tablets found no difference in cure rates between the two formulations. In Uganda, there was also no difference in rates of egg reduction between the two formulations.”

This is not simply an issue of semantics; the way this manuscript reads strongly implies that we must await pediatric formulations which will do harm to young children who can take crushed tablets. Even your PICOS statement addresses efficacy of 40 mg/kg dose as the primary goal of the study, without reference to dosing form which dominates abstract and introduction.

4) Introduction Lines 99-101- at least one drug (Bayer) is “registered” (US FDA approved) down to age one so this should be modified accordingly.

4) In methods, please clarify what was asked regarding AEs at follow up. Did you ask about current AE due to the (weeks preceding) treatment or recall of AE in day or so after?

5) at some point in the discussion, particularly when you reference issue of higher doses to 60 mg/kg, must state that much less is known about this in S. japonicum.

6) Discussion focuses too heavily on lack of difference in other studies at 60 mg/kg. Though you show that the ERR not significantly different between age groups at 40 mg/kg, there is not discussion of the fact that most studies did not find ERR at or above WHO recommended 95% threshold. This must be discussed. There are other reasons besides dose provided that may explain including different dosing strategies (larger total dose over more time to improve tolerability, formulations that might improve drug delivery based on tolerability, absorption etc.

7) if any authors receive funding from pharmaceutical companies developing Pediatric formulations for Praziquantel, this should be disclosed.

8) for S. mansoni, there were double the number of children who had ERR 0%. This is never discussed and provides good topic for discussion under tolerability issues in this age group. Did they vomit the dose/refuse?

9) Methods do not approach whether studies referenced repeating dose if vomiting occurred or rates of refusal among young children. Although some studies likely didn’t collect, one can still add to discussion regarding ways to improve overall ERR for all children. See point 6 above.

--------------------

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008277.r003

Decision Letter 1

Timothy G Geary, Antonio Montresor

8 Apr 2020

Dear Vaillant,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Efficacy and safety of single 40 mg/kg oral praziquantel in the treatment of schistosomiasis in preschool-age versus school-age children: an individual participant data meta-analysis' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Antonio Montresor

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Timothy Geary

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

Thank you for addressing the points raised by the reviewers,

the manuscript is in my opinion suitable for publication

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008277.r004

Acceptance letter

Timothy G Geary, Antonio Montresor

12 Jun 2020

Dear Vaillant,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Efficacy and safety of single 40 mg/kg oral praziquantel in the treatment of schistosomiasis in preschool-age versus school-age children: an individual participant data meta-analysis," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Species and diagnostic approach used (excluded studies shaded).

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Intensity of infection and treatment outcomes by study for Schistosoma mansoni.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Intensity of infection and treatment outcomes by study for Schistosoma haematobium.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Results of general linear model of individual ERR with baseline log transformed egg count as covariate and studies, age and sex as factors.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Results of mixed model of individual ERR with baseline log transformed egg count as covariate, age and sex as factors, and with random effect for the study.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Table

    Results of general linear model of individual a) S. mansoni and b) S. haematobium baseline log transformed egg count with study, age, and sex as factors.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Table

    Results of general linear model of individual S. mansoni ERR without baseline log transformed egg count as covariate and studies and age as factors (a: 3 categories, b: 2 categories).

    (DOCX)

    S8 Table

    Results of mixed model of individual S. haematobium ERR without baseline log transformed egg count as covariate and age as a fixed factor, with studies as a random factor (a: 3 categories, b: 2 categories).

    (DOCX)

    S9 Table. PRISMA checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S10 Table. PRISMA flow diagram.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. Network of possible preschool- and school-age children comparisons across all studies.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Age distribution of participants by Schistosoma species.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PNTD-D-19-02157_Response v05.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data were not produced by the current Meta-Analysis and only the original authors could make them available on an individual basis. These data are held in the repository of the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO.org). IDDO promotes data sharing and data re-use to generate new evidence that improves health and understanding of disease. Requests to access data can be submitted by email to dataccess@iddo.org via the Data Access Application Form available at IDDO.org/accessing-data. If eligible, requests will be reviewed by the IDDO Data Access Committee to ensure that use of data protects the interests of the participants and researchers according to the IDDO principles of data sharing (see https://www.iddo.org/data-sharing/accessing-data).


    Articles from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES