Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 October 25; Volume 6 (Issue 10); e006913.; DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006913
Martins D, Ribeiro I, Potet J
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 October 25; Volume 6 (Issue 10); e006913.; DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006913
SUMMARY POINTS
• Despite inherent differences, Snakebite Envenoming and COVID-19 have much in common in terms of research and development (R&D) challenges and opportunities.
• Both crises require a diversified portfolio of R&D solutions, ranging from diagnostics to treatments, that can effectively work and be accessible in different resource settings.
• Collaborative clinical research and streamlined regulatory pathways are critical to accelerate these candidates in the R&D pipeline.
• Transformative progress is possible with a concerted approach that aligns strong political will, coordinated financing and the needs of the most marginalised communities.
• Despite inherent differences, Snakebite Envenoming and COVID-19 have much in common in terms of research and development (R&D) challenges and opportunities.
• Both crises require a diversified portfolio of R&D solutions, ranging from diagnostics to treatments, that can effectively work and be accessible in different resource settings.
• Collaborative clinical research and streamlined regulatory pathways are critical to accelerate these candidates in the R&D pipeline.
• Transformative progress is possible with a concerted approach that aligns strong political will, coordinated financing and the needs of the most marginalised communities.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012 December 13; Volume 6 (Issue 12); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001950
Hasker E, Lutumba P, Chappuis F, Kande V, Potet J, et al.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012 December 13; Volume 6 (Issue 12); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001950
Journal Article > LetterFull Text
BMJ. 2014 September 30; Volume 349; DOI:10.1136/bmj.g5861
Reid J, Potet J, Athersuch K, Grovestock M, Sanjuan J
BMJ. 2014 September 30; Volume 349; DOI:10.1136/bmj.g5861
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
N Engl J Med. 2016 January 7; Volume 374 (Issue 1); 23-32.; DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1504605
Gignoux EM, Azman AS, de Smet M, Azuma P, Massaquoi M, et al.
N Engl J Med. 2016 January 7; Volume 374 (Issue 1); 23-32.; DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1504605
BACKGROUND
Malaria treatment is recommended for patients with suspected Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa, whether systematically or based on confirmed malaria diagnosis. At the Ebola treatment center in Foya, Lofa County, Liberia, the supply of artemether–lumefantrine, a first-line antimalarial combination drug, ran out for a 12-day period in August 2014. During this time, patients received the combination drug artesunate–amodiaquine; amodiaquine is a compound with anti–Ebola virus activity in vitro. No other obvious change in the care of patients occurred during this period.
METHODS
We fit unadjusted and adjusted regression models to standardized patient-level data to estimate the risk ratio for death among patients with confirmed EVD who were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine (artesunate–amodiaquine group), as compared with those who were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine (artemether–lumefantrine group) and those who were not prescribed any antimalarial drug (no-antimalarial group).
RESULTS
Between June 5 and October 24, 2014, a total of 382 patients with confirmed EVD were admitted to the Ebola treatment center in Foya. At admission, 194 patients were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine and 71 were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine. The characteristics of the patients in the artesunate–amodiaquine group were similar to those in the artemether–lumefantrine group and those in the no-antimalarial group. A total of 125 of the 194 patients in the artemether–lumefantrine group (64.4%) died, as compared with 36 of the 71 patients in the artesunate–amodiaquine group (50.7%). In adjusted analyses, the artesunate–amodiaquine group had a 31% lower risk of death than the artemether–lumefantrine group (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.89), with a stronger effect observed among patients without malaria.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients who were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine had a lower risk of death from EVD than did patients who were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine. However, our analyses cannot exclude the possibility that artemether–lumefantrine is associated with an increased risk of death or that the use of artesunate–amodiaquine was associated with unmeasured patient characteristics that directly altered the risk of death.
Malaria treatment is recommended for patients with suspected Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa, whether systematically or based on confirmed malaria diagnosis. At the Ebola treatment center in Foya, Lofa County, Liberia, the supply of artemether–lumefantrine, a first-line antimalarial combination drug, ran out for a 12-day period in August 2014. During this time, patients received the combination drug artesunate–amodiaquine; amodiaquine is a compound with anti–Ebola virus activity in vitro. No other obvious change in the care of patients occurred during this period.
METHODS
We fit unadjusted and adjusted regression models to standardized patient-level data to estimate the risk ratio for death among patients with confirmed EVD who were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine (artesunate–amodiaquine group), as compared with those who were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine (artemether–lumefantrine group) and those who were not prescribed any antimalarial drug (no-antimalarial group).
RESULTS
Between June 5 and October 24, 2014, a total of 382 patients with confirmed EVD were admitted to the Ebola treatment center in Foya. At admission, 194 patients were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine and 71 were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine. The characteristics of the patients in the artesunate–amodiaquine group were similar to those in the artemether–lumefantrine group and those in the no-antimalarial group. A total of 125 of the 194 patients in the artemether–lumefantrine group (64.4%) died, as compared with 36 of the 71 patients in the artesunate–amodiaquine group (50.7%). In adjusted analyses, the artesunate–amodiaquine group had a 31% lower risk of death than the artemether–lumefantrine group (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.89), with a stronger effect observed among patients without malaria.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients who were prescribed artesunate–amodiaquine had a lower risk of death from EVD than did patients who were prescribed artemether–lumefantrine. However, our analyses cannot exclude the possibility that artemether–lumefantrine is associated with an increased risk of death or that the use of artesunate–amodiaquine was associated with unmeasured patient characteristics that directly altered the risk of death.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 October 25; Volume 12 (Issue 10); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006716
Taieb F, Dub T, Madec Y, Tondeur L, Chippaux JP, et al.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 October 25; Volume 12 (Issue 10); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006716
Snakebite has only recently been recognized as a neglected tropical disease by the WHO. Knowledge regarding snakebites and its care is poor both at the population level, and at the health care staff level. The goal of this study was to describe the level of knowledge and clinical practice regarding snakebite among health care staff from Cameroon.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 September 10; Volume 9 (Issue 9); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003896
Alirol E, Lechevalier P, Zamatto F, Chappuis F, Alcoba G, et al.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 September 10; Volume 9 (Issue 9); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003896
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Toxicon: X. 2021 October 26; Volume 12; 100086.; DOI:10.1016/j.toxcx.2021.100086
Potet J, Beran D, Ray N, Alcoba G, Habib AG, et al.
Toxicon: X. 2021 October 26; Volume 12; 100086.; DOI:10.1016/j.toxcx.2021.100086
Access to safe, effective, quality-assured antivenom products that are tailored to endemic venomous snake species is a crucial component of recent coordinated efforts to reduce the global burden of snakebite envenoming. Multiple access barriers may affect the journey of antivenoms from manufacturers to the bedsides of patients. Our review describes the antivenom ecosystem at different levels and identifies solutions to overcome these challenges. At the global level, there is insufficient manufacturing output to meet clinical needs, notably for antivenoms intended for use in regions with a scarcity of producers. At national level, variable funding and deficient regulation of certain antivenom markets can lead to the procurement of substandard antivenom. This is particularly true when producers fail to seek registration of their products in the countries where they should be used, or where weak assessment frameworks allow registration without local clinical evaluation. Out-of-pocket expenses by snakebite victims are often the main source of financing antivenoms, which results in the underuse or under-dosing of antivenoms, and a preference for low-cost products regardless of efficacy. In resource-constrained rural areas, where the majority of victims are bitten, supply of antivenom in peripheral health facilities is often unreliable. Misconceptions about treatment of snakebite envenoming are common, further reducing demand for antivenom and exacerbating delays in reaching facilities equipped for antivenom use. Multifaceted interventions are needed to improve antivenom access in resource-limited settings. Particular attention should be paid to the comprehensive list of actions proposed within the WHO Strategy for Prevention and Control of Snakebite Envenoming.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022 November 17; Volume 16 (Issue 11); e0010897.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010897
Gutiérrez JM, Borri J, Giles-Vernick T, Duda R, Habib AG, et al.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022 November 17; Volume 16 (Issue 11); e0010897.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010897
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 October 25; Volume 12 (Issue 10); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006914
Sunyoto T, Verdonck K, el Safi S, Potet J, Picado A, et al.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 October 25; Volume 12 (Issue 10); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006914
Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is the most frequent form of leishmaniasis, with 0.7 to 1.2 million cases per year globally. However, the burden of CL is poorly documented in some regions. We carried out this review to synthesize knowledge on the epidemiological burden of CL in sub-Saharan Africa.
Journal Article > ReviewAbstract
Expert Opin Emerg Drugs. 2012 November 20; Volume 17 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1517/14728214.2012.748036
Balasegaram M, Ritmeijer KKD, Lima MA, Burza S, Ortiz Genovese G, et al.
Expert Opin Emerg Drugs. 2012 November 20; Volume 17 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1517/14728214.2012.748036