Introduction: Traditionally, health ministries implement mass drug administration programmes for each neglected tropical disease (NTD) as separate and distinct campaigns. Many NTDs have overlapping endemicity suggesting co-administration might improve programme reach and efficiency, helping accelerate progress towards 2030 targets. Safety data are required to support a recommendation to undertake co-administration.
Methodology: We aimed to compile and summarize existing data on co-administration of ivermectin, albendazole and azithromycin, including both data on pharmacokinetic interactions and data from previous experimental and observational studies conducted in NTD-endemic populations. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, research and conference abstracts, gray literature, and national policy documents. We limited the publication language to English and used a search period from January 1st, 1995 through October 1st, 2022. Search terms were: azithromycin and ivermectin and albendazole, mass drug administration co-administration trials, integrated mass drug administration, mass drug administration safety, pharmacokinetic dynamics, and azithromycin and ivermectin and albendazole. We excluded papers if they did not include data on co-administration of azithromycin and both albendazole and ivermectin, or azithromycin with either albendazole or ivermectin alone.
Results: We identified a total of 58 potentially relevant studies. Of these we identified 7 studies relevant to the research question and which met our inclusion criteria. Three papers analyzed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions. No study found evidence of clinically significant drug-drug interactions likely to impact safety or efficacy. Two papers and a conference presentation reported data on the safety of combinations of at least two of the drugs. A field study in Mali suggested the rates of adverse events were similar with combined or separate administration, but was underpowered. A further field study in Papua New Guinea used all three drugs as part of a four-drug regimen also including diethylcarbamazine; in this setting, co-administration appeared safe but there were issues with the consistency in how adverse events were recorded.
Conclusion: There are relatively limited data on the safety profile of co-administering ivermectin, albendazole and azithromycin as an integrated regimen for NTDs. Despite the limited amount of data, available evidence suggests that such a strategy is safe with an absence of clinically important drug-drug interactions, no serious adverse events reported and little evidence for an increase in mild adverse events. Integrated MDA may be a viable strategy for national NTD programmes.
BT - PLoS neglected tropical diseases C1 -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37315102
DA - 06/2023 DO - 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011224 IS - 6 J2 - PLoS Negl Trop Dis LA - eng M3 - Review N2 -Introduction: Traditionally, health ministries implement mass drug administration programmes for each neglected tropical disease (NTD) as separate and distinct campaigns. Many NTDs have overlapping endemicity suggesting co-administration might improve programme reach and efficiency, helping accelerate progress towards 2030 targets. Safety data are required to support a recommendation to undertake co-administration.
Methodology: We aimed to compile and summarize existing data on co-administration of ivermectin, albendazole and azithromycin, including both data on pharmacokinetic interactions and data from previous experimental and observational studies conducted in NTD-endemic populations. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, research and conference abstracts, gray literature, and national policy documents. We limited the publication language to English and used a search period from January 1st, 1995 through October 1st, 2022. Search terms were: azithromycin and ivermectin and albendazole, mass drug administration co-administration trials, integrated mass drug administration, mass drug administration safety, pharmacokinetic dynamics, and azithromycin and ivermectin and albendazole. We excluded papers if they did not include data on co-administration of azithromycin and both albendazole and ivermectin, or azithromycin with either albendazole or ivermectin alone.
Results: We identified a total of 58 potentially relevant studies. Of these we identified 7 studies relevant to the research question and which met our inclusion criteria. Three papers analyzed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions. No study found evidence of clinically significant drug-drug interactions likely to impact safety or efficacy. Two papers and a conference presentation reported data on the safety of combinations of at least two of the drugs. A field study in Mali suggested the rates of adverse events were similar with combined or separate administration, but was underpowered. A further field study in Papua New Guinea used all three drugs as part of a four-drug regimen also including diethylcarbamazine; in this setting, co-administration appeared safe but there were issues with the consistency in how adverse events were recorded.
Conclusion: There are relatively limited data on the safety profile of co-administering ivermectin, albendazole and azithromycin as an integrated regimen for NTDs. Despite the limited amount of data, available evidence suggests that such a strategy is safe with an absence of clinically important drug-drug interactions, no serious adverse events reported and little evidence for an increase in mild adverse events. Integrated MDA may be a viable strategy for national NTD programmes.
PY - 2023 SP - 1 EP - 10 T2 - PLoS neglected tropical diseases TI - Pharmacokinetics, feasibility and safety of co-administering azithromycin, albendazole, and ivermectin during mass drug administration: A review. UR - https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0011224&type=printable VL - 17 SN - 1935-2735 ER -