Prevention and control of neglected tropical diseases: overview of randomized trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the prevention and control of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) and to identify areas where evidence is lacking. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed were searched for RCTs and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PubMed were searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews, both from inception to 31 December 2012. FINDINGS: Overall, 258 RCTs were found on American trypanosomiasis, Buruli ulcer, dengue, geohelminth infection, leishmaniasis, leprosy, lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, rabies, schistosomiasis or trachoma. No RCTs were found on cysticercosis, dracunculiasis, echinococcosis, foodborne trematodes, or human African trypanosomiasis. The most studied diseases were geohelminth infection (51 RCTs) and leishmaniasis (46 RCTs). Vaccines, chemoprophylaxis and interventions targeting insect vectors were evaluated in 113, 99 and 39 RCTs, respectively. Few addressed how best to deliver preventive chemotherapy, such as the choice of dosing interval (10) or target population (4), the population coverage needed to reduce transmission (2) or the method of drug distribution (1). Thirty-one publications containing 32 systematic reviews (16 with and 16 without meta-analyses) were found on American trypanosomiasis, dengue, geohelminths, leishmaniasis, leprosy, lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis or trachoma. Together, they included only 79 of the 258 published RCTs (30.6%). Of 36 interventions assessed, 8 were judged effective in more than one review. CONCLUSION: Few RCTs on the prevention or control of the principal NTDs were found. Trials on how best to deliver preventive chemotherapy were particularly rare.

Neglected tropical diseases: survey and geometry of randomised evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quantity and distribution of evidence from randomised controlled trials for the treatment of the major neglected tropical diseases and to identify gaps in the evidence with network analysis. DESIGN: Systematic review and network analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed from inception to 31 August 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials that examined treatment of 16 neglected tropical diseases or complications thereof published in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, or Dutch. RESULTS: We identified 971 eligible randomised trials. Leishmaniasis (184 trials, 23,039 participants) and geohelminth infections; 160 trials, 46,887 participants) were the most studied, while dracunculiasis (nine trials, 798 participants) and Buruli ulcer (five trials, 337 participants) were least studied. Relative to its global burden of disease, lymphatic filariasis had the fewest trials and participants. Only 11% of trials were industry funded. Either a single trial or trials with fewer than 100 participants comprised the randomised evidence for first or second line treatments for Buruli ulcer, human African trypanosomiasis, American trypanosomiasis, cysticercosis, rabies, echinococcosis, New World cutaneous leishmaniasis, and each of the foodborne trematode infections. Among the 10 disease categories with more than 40 trials, five lacked sufficient head to head comparisons between first or second line treatments. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the amount of evidence from randomised controlled trials for each of the 16 major neglected tropical diseases. Even in diseases with substantial evidence, such as leishmaniasis and geohelminth infections, some recommended treatments have limited supporting data and lack head to head comparisons.