IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0013992.html

Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials for onchocerciasis, loiasis and mansonellosis: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Fabrice Lotola Mougeni
  • Marta Bofill Roig
  • Marc P Hübner
  • Ute Klarmann-Schulz
  • Benjamin Lenz
  • Sabine Specht
  • Martin Posch
  • Sonja Zehetmayer

Abstract

Background: The design and analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in filarial diseases such as onchocerciasis, loiasis, and mansonellosis pose unique statistical challenges, including skewed endpoints and limited sample sizes. This systematic review summarizes design and analysis approaches of RCTs conducted in these diseases with a focus on the statistical methodology.Methods and findings: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and four trial registries to identify RCTs investigating treatments for onchocerciasis, loiasis, and mansonellosis published or registered between 2000 and 2024. We excluded studies focusing on new methods or pharmacokinetics, short reports, and Phase I trials. Forty-four studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (23 for onchocerciasis, 16 for loiasis, and 5 for mansonellosis), information was retrieved from the registries, the manuscripts and/or the study protocol. As primary efficacy endpoints, for onchocerciasis studies qualitative endpoints dominated, while quantitative endpoints were more frequently observed for loiasis and mansonellosis. The most frequently reported hypothesis tests for the primary endpoint were the Mann-Whitney U and the chi-squared tests. We found considerable heterogeneity between trials - not only in study-specific parameters such as the number of arms, type of blinding or control group - but also in design parameters or attributes that could be standardized within each disease across studies with similar objectives, such as the primary endpoint, length of follow-up, the analysis method and the primary analysis population.Conclusions: Several trials were well-planned with detailed information provided in either the manuscript or the registry. However, for some trials, information was sparse or incomplete, indicating a need for more structured and transparent reporting. Adopting established frameworks such as CONSORT and ICH E9 (R1) estimand approach would enhance transparency and better align trial objectives, analyses, and reported conclusions.Author summary: Filarial diseases such as onchocerciasis (“river blindness”), loiasis (“African eye worm”), and mansonellosis affect millions of people, mainly in tropical regions. Developing effective treatments for these diseases requires carefully designed clinical trials. However, conducting and analyzing these trials can be difficult because patient numbers are often small and the measurements used to evaluate treatment success can vary widely. In this study, we systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials from the past 25 years that tested treatments for these filarial diseases. We examined the design of these trials, the analysis of the results, and the statistical methods applied. We found that, although many studies were well planned, there was substantial variation in key trial characteristics, including primary outcome measures, duration of follow-up, and data analysis methods. In several trials, essential details were insufficiently reported, which limited comparisons across studies. Clearer and more consistent reporting together with the use of advanced statistical methods, would make research on these diseases more reliable and easier to interpret.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabrice Lotola Mougeni & Marta Bofill Roig & Marc P Hübner & Ute Klarmann-Schulz & Benjamin Lenz & Sabine Specht & Martin Posch & Sonja Zehetmayer, 2026. "Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials for onchocerciasis, loiasis and mansonellosis: A systematic review," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-23, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0013992
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013992
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0013992
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0013992&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013992?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0013992. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.