Evaluation of Two DNA Extraction Methods for Detection of Strongyloides stercoralis Infection.

Strongyloides stercoralis is present worldwide, but its prevalence is still uncertain, mainly due to the lack of sensitivity of diagnostic methods. Molecular techniques are under development, but a standardized protocol is still unavailable. We compared the sensitivity of real-time PCR, using two extraction protocols, with that of the Baermann technique. Samples were collected in the framework of the baseline screening of a randomized clinical trial evaluating moxidectin against S. stercoralis in Lao People's Democratic Republic. Two stool samples from each participant were processed by the Baermann method, and one subsample was processed by PCR. DNA was extracted using the QIAamp DNA stool minikit based on the standard protocol for the QIAamp DNA minikit (QIA) and using a modification of the QIA procedure (POL). Subsequently, all extracted samples were analyzed by real-time PCR. Overall, 95 samples were analyzed by the three diagnostic methods. Sixty-nine (72.6%) samples were positive according to the Baermann method, 25 (26.3%) by the QIA method, and 62 (65.3%) by the POL method. The sensitivities were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7 to 92.9), 31.0% (95% CI, 21.3 to 42.6), and 78.0% (95% CI, 66.8 to 86.1) for the Baermann, QIA, and POL methods, respectively. The sensitivities calculated for each day of the Baermann method separately were 60% (48.4 to 70.8%) and 64% (52.2 to 74.2%) for days 1 and 2, respectively. In conclusion, the POL method revealed a good performance and was comparable to the Baermann test performed on two stool samples and superior to the Baermann method performed on one stool sample. Additional studies are needed to standardize a PCR protocol for S. stercoralis diagnosis.

Efficacy of Moxidectin Versus Ivermectin Against Strongyloides stercoralis Infections: A Randomized, Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Infections with Strongyloides stercoralis are of considerable public health relevance. Moxidectin, a well-established drug in veterinary medicine under consideration for regulatory submission for the treatment of onchocerciasis, might serve as an alternative to the widely used ivermectin. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory, randomized, single-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of moxidectin (8 mg) vs ivermectin (200 µg/kg) against S. stercoralis infections. Cure rate (CR) against S. stercoralis was the primary outcome. Safety and efficacy against coinfections with soil-transmitted helminths and Opisthorchis viverrini were secondary outcomes. Noninferiority required the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the differences in CRs not exceed 7 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 127 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the 2 treatments whereby 1 participant per arm was lost to follow-up. We observed a CR of 93.7% (59/63) for moxidectin compared to 95.2% (59/62) for ivermectin. Differences between CRs were estimated as -1.5% percentage points (95% CI, -9.6 to 6.5), thus the lower limit of the CI exceeds the noninferiority margin of 7 percentage points. No side effects were observed. CRs against hookworm infection were 57% (moxidectin) and 56% (ivermectin). Low efficacy for both drugs against O. viverrini was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Moxidectin might be a safe and efficacious alternative to ivermectin for the treatment of S. stercoralis infection, given that only slight differences in CRs were observed. However, noninferiority could not be demonstrated. Larger clinical trials should be conducted once the drug is marketed. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN11983645.