Is anthelmintic resistance a concern for the control of human soil-transmitted helminths?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The major human soil-transmitted helminths (STH), Ascaris lumbricoides, hookworms (Necator americanus and Ancylostoma duodenale) and Trichuris trichiura have a marked impact on human health in many parts of the world. Current efforts to control these parasites rely predominantly on periodic mass administration of anthelmintic drugs to school age children and other at-risk groups. After many years of use of these same drugs for controlling roundworms in livestock, high levels of resistance have developed, threatening the sustainability of these livestock industries in some locations. Hence, the question arises as to whether this is likely to also occur in the human STH, thereby threatening our ability to control these parasites. This is particularly important because of the recent increase in mass control programmes, relying almost exclusively on benzimidazole anthelmintics. It will be important to ensure that resistance is detected as it emerges in order to allow the implementation of mitigation strategies, such as use of drug combinations, to ensure that the effectiveness of the few existing anthelmintic drugs is preserved. In this review we address these issues by firstly examining the efficacy of anthelmintics against the human STH, and assessing whether there are any indications to date that resistance has emerged. We then consider the factors that influence the effect of current drug-use patterns in selecting for resistant parasite populations. We describe the tools currently available for resistance monitoring (field-based coprological methods), and those under development (in vitro bioassays and molecular tests), and highlight confounding factors that need to be taken into account when interpreting such resistance-monitoring data. We then highlight means to ensure that the currently available tools are used correctly, particularly with regard to study design, and we set appropriate drug-efficacy thresholds. Finally, we make recommendations for monitoring drug efficacy in the field, as components of control programmes, in order to maximise the ability to detect drug resistance, and if it arises to change control strategy and prevent the spread of resistance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".