One versus two doses of ivermectin-based mass drug administration for the control of scabies: A cluster randomised non-inferiority trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mass drug administration (MDA) based on two doses of ivermectin, one week apart, substantially reduces prevalence of both scabies and impetigo. The Regimens of Ivermectin for Scabies Elimination (RISE) trial assessed whether one-dose ivermectin-based MDA would be as effective. METHODS: RISE was a cluster-randomised trial in Solomon Islands. We assigned 20 villages in a 1:1 ratio to one- or two-dose ivermectin-based MDA. We planned to test whether the impact of one dose on scabies prevalence at 12 and 24 months was non-inferior to two, at a 5% non-inferiority margin. RESULTS: We deferred endpoint assessment to 21 months due to COVID-19. We enrolled 5239 participants in 20 villages at baseline and 3369 at 21 months from an estimated population of 5500. At baseline scabies prevalence was similar in the two arms (one-dose 17·2%; two-dose 13·2%). At 21 months, there was no reduction in scabies prevalence (one-dose 18·7%; two-dose 13·4%), and the confidence interval around the difference included values substantially greater than 5%. There was however a reduction in prevalence among those who had been present at the baseline assessment (one-dose 15·9%; two-dose 10·8%). Additionally, we found a reduction in both scabies severity and impetigo prevalence in both arms, to a similar degree. CONCLUSIONS: There was no indication of an overall decline in scabies prevalence in either arm. The reduction in scabies prevalence in those present at baseline suggests that the unexpectedly high influx of people into the trial villages, likely related to the COVID-19 pandemic, may have compromised the effectiveness of the MDA. Despite the lack of effect there are important lessons to be learnt from this trial about conducting MDA for scabies in high prevalence settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001086257.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".