Background: Most studies assessing praziquantel (PZQ) efficacy have used relatively insensitive diagnostic methods, thereby overestimating cure rate (CR) and intensity reduction rate (IRR). To... Show moreBackground: Most studies assessing praziquantel (PZQ) efficacy have used relatively insensitive diagnostic methods, thereby overestimating cure rate (CR) and intensity reduction rate (IRR). To determine accurately PZQ efficacy, we employed more sensitive DNA and circulating antigen detection methods. Methodology: A sub-analysis was performed based on a previously published trial conducted in children from Cote d'Ivoire with a confirmed Schistosoma mansoni infection, who were randomly assigned to a standard (single dose of PZQ) or intense treatment group (4 repeated doses of PZQ at 2-week intervals). CR and IRR were estimated based on PCR detecting DNA in a single stool sample and the up-converting particle lateral flow (UCP-LF) test detecting circulating anodic antigen (CAA) in a single urine sample, and compared with traditional KatoKatz (KK) and point-of-care circulating cathodic antigen (POC-CCA). Principal findings: Individuals positive by all diagnostic methods (i.e., KK, POC-CCA, PCR, and UCP-LF CAA) at baseline were included in the statistical analysis (n = 125). PCR showed a CR of 45% (95% confidence interval (CI) 32-59%) in the standard and 78% (95% CI 66-87%) in the intense treatment group, which is lower compared to the KK results (64%, 95% CI 52-75%) and 88%, 95% CI 78-93%). UCP-LF CAA showed a significantly lower CR in both groups, 16% (95% CI 11-24%) and 18% (95% CI 12-26%), even lower than observed by POCCCA (31%, 95% CI 17-35% and 36%, 95% CI 26-47%). A substantial reduction in DNA and CAA-levels was observed after the first treatment, with no further decrease after additional treatment and no significant difference in IRR between treatment groups. Conclusion/Significance:The efficacy of (repeated) PZQ treatment was overestimated when using egg-based diagnostics (i.e. KK and PCR). Quantitative worm-based diagnostics (i.e. POC-CCA and UCPLF CAA) revealed that active Schistosoma infections are still present despite multiple treatments. These results stress the need for using accurate diagnostic tools to monitor different PZQ treatment strategies, in particular when moving toward elimination of schistosomiasis.Author summaryEfficacy of praziquantel (PZQ) for the treatment of schistosomiasis is usually assessed by classical microscopic detection of parasite eggs in stool or urine. Due to low sensitivity, especially in case of low-intensity infections, the prevalence of infection is underestimated leading to an overestimated cure rate (CR) when using these methods. In a repeated treatment trial, the efficacy of one versus four repeated PZQ treatments, given at 2-week intervals, was investigated in school-aged children from Cote d'Ivoire by applying a range of diagnostic methods, including traditional microscopy as well as more sensitive DNA and circulating antigen detection methods. Our results demonstrate that PZQ efficacy measurements vary based on the diagnostic method used: while egg-based diagnostics (stool microscopy and DNA detection methods) show an improved CR after repeated treatment, the CR determined by worm-based diagnostics (urine circulating antigen detection methods) remained poor over time. Although all four diagnostic methods showed a significant reduction in intensity of infection already after a single treatment, more accurate antigen diagnostics revealed that, in most cases, worms remain present even after multiple treatments. Hence, using accurate diagnostic tools is essential to determine the true infection status and to monitor and evaluate treatment programs. Show less
