The pathogenesis of chorioretinal disease in onchocerciasis

Presumed Onchocerciasis Chorioretinitis Spilling over into North America, Europe and Middle East

BACKGROUND

Newer generation ophthalmologists practicing in the developed world are not very familiar with some tropical ocular diseases due to the absence of reports in the ophthalmic literature over the past thirty years. Because of world globalization or due to influx of immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, exotic retinal diseases are being encountered more often in ophthalmology clinics.

METHODS

A multicenter case series of chorioretinitis or optic neuritis with obscure etiology that used serial multimodal imaging.

RESULTS

Four cases qualified with the diagnosis of presumed ocular onchocerciasis based on their residence near fast rivers in endemic areas, multimodal imaging, long term follow-up showing progressive disease and negative workup for other diseases. Characteristic findings include peripapillary choroiditis with optic neuritis or atrophy, subretinal tracts of the microfilaria, progressive RPE atrophy around heavily pigmented multifocal chorioretinal lesions of varying shapes, subretinal white or crystalline dots, and response to ivermectin. Typical skin findings are often absent in such patients with chorioretinitis rendering the diagnosis more challenging.

CONCLUSIONS

Familiarity with the myriad ocular findings of onchocerciasis, and a high-degree of suspicion in subjects residing in endemic areas can help in the correct diagnosis and implementation of appropriate therapy. Onchocercal chorioretinitis is a slow, insidious, progressive, and prolonged polymorphous disease.

Onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy: an update and future perspectives

Onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy (OAE) is an important neglected public health problem in areas with high ongoing onchocerciasis transmission. The risk that children in such areas develop epilepsy is related to their Onchocerca volvulus microfilarial (mf) load. Before the implementation of mass treatment with ivermectin, microfilariae were detected in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). More recently, neither O. volvulus microfilariae nor DNA were detected in CSF or brain tissue; however, these samples were obtained years after seizure onset. It is possible that during fever-induced increased blood-brain barrier permeability, microfilariae enter the brain and, upon dying, cause an inflammatory reaction inducing seizures. Including OAE in the onchocerciasis disease burden estimation may mobilise extra resources for onchocerciasis disease elimination and treatment/care of OAE-affected persons/families.

Doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone for treatment of patients with onchocerciasis

BACKGROUND

Onchocerciasis, also known as "river blindness," is a parasitic disease that is caused by infection from the filarial nematode (roundworm), Onchocerca volvulus. Nematodes are transmitted from person to person by blackflies of the Simulium genus, which usually breed in fast flowing streams and rivers. The disease is the second leading infectious cause of blindness in endemic areas.Ivermectin (a microfilaricide) is widely distributed to endemic populations for prevention and treatment of onchocerciasis. Doxycycline, an antibiotic, targets Wolbachia organisms that are crucial to the survival of adult onchocerca (macrofilaricide). Combined treatment with both drugs is believed to cause direct microfilarial death by ivermectin and indirect macrofilarial death by doxycycline. Long-term reduction in the numbers of microfilaria in the skin and eyes and in the numbers of adult worms in the body has the potential to reduce the transmission and occurrence of onchocercal eye disease.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone for prevention and treatment of onchocerciasis. The secondary aim was to assess the effectiveness of doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone for prevention and treatment of onchocercal ocular lesions in communities co-endemic for onchocerciasis and Loa loa (loiasis) infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 7, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2015), PubMed (1948 to July 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to July 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 1 July 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had compared doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone. Participants with or without one or more characteristic signs of ocular onchocerciasis resided in communities where onchocerciasis was endemic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three RCTs including a total of 466 participants with a diagnosis of onchocerciasis. All trials compared doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone. One study investigated improvement in visual impairment at six-month follow-up; the other two studies measured microfilarial loads in skin snips to assess sustained effects of treatment at follow-up of 21 months or longer. The studies were conducted at various centers across three countries (Cameroon, Ghana, and Liberia). We judged all studies to be at overall high risk of bias because of inadequate randomization and lack of masking (one study), missing data (two studies), and selective outcome reporting (three studies).Only one study measured visual outcomes. This study reported uncertainty about the difference in the proportion of participants with improvement in visual impairment at six-month follow-up for doxycycline plus ivermectin compared with ivermectin alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.80 to 1.39; 240 participants; very low-quality evidence). No participant in either group showed improvement in optic atrophy, chorioretinitis, or sclerosing keratitis at six-month follow-up. More participants in the doxycycline plus ivermectin group than in the ivermectin alone group showed improvement in iridocyclitis (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.22) and punctate keratitis (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.00) at six-month follow-up; however, we graded these results as very low quality.Two studies reported that a six-week course of doxycycline may result in Wolbachia depletion and macrofilaricidal and sterilizing activities in female Onchocerca worms; however, no analysis was possible because data were missing and incomplete (graded evidence as very low quality). Adverse events were reported in 16 of 135 (12%) participants in one of these studies and included itching, headaches, body pains, and vertigo; no difference between treatment groups was reported for any adverse event. The second study reported that one (1.3%) participant in the doxycycline plus ivermectin group had bloody diarrhea after treatment was initiated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence on the effectiveness of doxycycline plus ivermectin compared with ivermectin alone in preventing and treating onchocerciasis is unclear. Limited evidence of very low quality from two studies indicates that a six-week course of doxycycline followed by ivermectin may result in more frequent macrofilaricidal and microfilaricidal activity and sterilization of female adult Onchocerca compared with ivermectin alone; however, effects on vision-related outcomes are uncertain. Future studies should consider the effectiveness of treatments in preventing visual acuity and visual field loss and their effects on anterior and posterior segment lesions, particularly chorioretinitis. These studies should report outcomes in a uniform and consistent manner at follow-up of three years or longer to allow detection of meaningful changes in vision-related outcomes.

Ivermectin for onchocercal eye disease (river blindness)

BACKGROUND

It is believed that ivermectin (a microfilaricide) could prevent blindness due to onchocerciasis. However, when given to everyone in communities where onchocerciasis is common, the effects of ivermectin on lesions affecting the eye are uncertain and data on whether the drug prevents visual loss are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of ivermectin in preventing visual impairment and visual field loss in onchocercal eye disease. The secondary aim was to assess the effects of ivermectin on lesions affecting the eye in onchocerciasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1950 to April 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 April 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with at least one year of follow-up comparing ivermectin with placebo or no treatment. Participants in the trials were people normally resident in endemic onchocercal communities with or without one or more characteristic signs of ocular onchocerciasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We contacted study authors for additional information. As trials varied in design and setting, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included four trials: two small studies (n = 398) in which people with onchocercal infection were given one dose of ivermectin or placebo and followed up for one year; and two larger community-based studies (n = 4941) whereby all individuals in selected communities were treated every six or 12 months with ivermectin or placebo, whether or not they were infected, and followed for two to three years. The studies provide evidence that treating people who have onchocerciasis with ivermectin reduces the number of microfilariae in their skin and eye(s) and reduces the number of punctate opacities. There was weaker evidence that ivermectin reduced the risk of chorioretinitis. The studies were too small and of too short a duration to provide evidence for an effect on sclerosing keratitis, iridocyclitis, optic nerve disease or visual loss. One community-based study in communities mesoendemic for the savannah strain of O.volvulus provided evidence that annual mass treatment with ivermectin reduces the risk of new cases of optic nerve disease and visual field loss. The other community-based study of mass biannual treatment of ivermectin in communities affected by the forest strain of O.volvulus demonstrated reductions in microfilarial load, punctate keratitis and iridocyclitis but not sclerosing keratitis, chorioretinitis, optic atrophy or visual impairment. The study was underpowered to estimate the effect of ivermectin on visual impairment and other less frequent clinical signs. The studies included in this review reported some adverse effects, in particular an increased risk of postural hypotension in people treated with ivermectin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The lack of evidence for prevention of visual impairment and blindness should not be interpreted to mean that ivermectin is not effective, however, clearly this is a key question that remains unanswered. The main evidence for a protective effect of mass treatment with ivermectin on visual field loss and optic nerve disease comes from communities mesoendemic for the savannah strain of O.volvulus. Whether these findings can be applied to communities with different endemicity and affected by the forest strain is unclear. Serious adverse effects were rarely reported. None of the studies, however, were conducted in areas where people are infected with Loa loa (loiasis).

A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of the effects of ivermectin at normal and high doses, given annually or three-monthly, against Onchocerca volvulus: ophthalmological results

A three-year randomized, controlled, double-blind trial was conducted in Cameroon to determine whether ivermectin, given at three-monthly intervals and/or at high doses (800 microg/kg), had a greater effect on adult Onchocerca volvulus than standard doses (150 microg/kg annually). As several patients complained of transitory subjective visual problems after treatment, some of them being of an unexpected type, we organized two series of detailed ophthalmological examinations to evaluate whether they were associated with ocular lesions. Analysis showed that these complaints were significantly more frequent in the two groups treated with high doses of ivermectin than in the reference group. In the ophthalmological examinations, the only differences recorded between the groups were a lower prevalence and mean number of microfilariae in the anterior chamber in the groups treated three-monthly, and, at the first examination round, a higher prevalence of early lesions of the iris in the group treated at high doses annually. These findings do not allow us to explain the cause of the transitory ocular complaints, nor why they were more frequent in the groups treated at high doses. However, one may conclude that using doses of ivermectin higher than the standard one should be considered with caution.

Ivermectin for onchocercal eye disease (river blindness)

BACKGROUND

It is believed that ivermectin (a microfilaricide) could prevent blindness due to onchocerciasis. However, when given to everyone in communities where onchocerciasis is common, the effects of ivermectin on lesions affecting the eye are uncertain and data on whether the drug prevents visual loss is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness of ivermectin in preventing visual acuity and visual field loss in onchocercal eye disease. The secondary aim is to assess the effects of ivermectin on lesions affecting the eye in onchocerciasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group specialised register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register - CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the reference lists of identified trials, the Science Citation Index and we contacted investigators, experts and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with at least one year follow up, comparing ivermectin at a dose of 150 micrograms per kilogram of body weight with either placebo or no treatment. Participants were people normally resident in endemic onchocercal communities with or without one or more characteristic signs of ocular onchocerciasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Trials varied in design and setting, so no meta-analysis was done.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes five trials with data from 3810 participants. All the trials compared ivermectin with placebo and were judged to be of moderate risk of bias in terms of methodological quality. No statistically significant difference was observed in any trial (reporting visual acuity outcome) between ivermectin and placebo groups for visual acuity loss.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Questions about the effectiveness of ivermectin in preventing visual acuity loss have not been answered by best available evidence.

Effect of repeated ivermectin treatments on ocular onchocerciasis: evaluation after six to eight doses

In 26 villages (1987 population 12,302), hyperendemic for savanna onchocerciasis in North Cameroon, ivermectin was distributed annually between 1987/89 and 1995. Each year until 1992, ophthalmologic examinations were performed before treatment. A final examination was made in 1995. The effects of ivermectin on ocular onchocerciasis were assessed by following (a) the ophthalmologic indices in three cohorts of males recruited before treatment in 1987, 1988 and 1989, who were treated and examined annually, and (b) the indices recorded yearly in the cross-section of males aged 15-19 years. The indices in 1995 from patients who had received up to eight doses were compared with those calculated before treatment in individuals of similar age. In the cohorts, the prevalences of microfilariae in the anterior chamber (MFAC) and of punctate keratitis (PK) recorded in 1995 were markedly reduced; there was a non-significant decrease in sclerosing keratitis (SK), and a significant worsening in the fundus indices in the cohorts. The cross-sectional analysis showed significant decreases in the prevalences of MFAC, PK and SK, and a significant increase in the mean visual acuity; there was no significant change in any fundus index. The findings suggest that repeated ivermectin treatment does not prevent the appearance of initial retinal lesions or the worsening of existing retinal lesions.

Phylogeny of Wolbachia in filarial nematodes

Intracellular bacteria have been observed in various species of filarial nematodes (family Onchocercidae). The intracellular bacterium of the canine filaria Dirofilaria immitis has been shown to be closely related to Wolbachia, a rickettsia-like micro-organism that is widespread among arthropods. However, the relationships between endosymbionts of different filariae, and between these and the arthropod wolbachiae, appear not to have been studied. To address these issues we have examined ten species of filarial nematodes for the presence of Wolbachia. For nine species, all samples examined were PCR positive using primers specific for the ftsZ gene of Wolbachia. For one species, the examined samples were PCR negative. Sequences of the amplified ftsZ gene fragments of filarial wolbachiae fall into two clusters (C and D), which are distinct from the A and B clusters recognized for arthropod wolbachiae. These four lineages (A-D) are related in a star-like phylogeny, with higher nucleotide divergence observed between C and D wolbachiae than that observed between A and B wolbachiae. In addition, within each of the two lineages of filarial wolbachiae, the phylogeny of the symbionts is consistent with the host phylogeny. Thus, there is no evidence for recent Wolbachia transmission between arthropods and nematodes. Endosymbiont 16S ribosomal DNA sequences from a subset of filarial species support these findings.