An analysis of preclinical efficacy testing of antivenoms for sub-Saharan Africa: Inadequate independent scrutiny and poor-quality reporting are barriers to improving snakebite treatment and management.
Stuart AinsworthStefanie K MenziesNicholas R CasewellRobert A HarrisonPublished in: PLoS neglected tropical diseases (2020)
There is a disturbing lack of (i) preclinical efficacy testing of antivenom for sub Saharan Africa, (ii) publicly available reports and (iii) independent scrutiny of this medically important data. Where reports do exist, the methods and metrics used are highly variable. This prevents comprehensive meta-analysis of antivenom preclinical efficacy, and severely reduces the utility of antivenom ED50 results in the decision making of physicians treating patients and of national and international health agencies. Here, we propose the use of a standardised result reporting checklist to resolve this issue. Implementation of these straightforward steps will deliver uniform evaluation of products across laboratories, facilitate meta-analyses, and contribute vital information for designing the clinical trials needed to achieve the WHO target of halving snakebite morbidity and mortality by 2030.
Keyphrases
- adverse drug
- clinical trial
- end stage renal disease
- healthcare
- decision making
- primary care
- quality improvement
- meta analyses
- systematic review
- emergency department
- cell therapy
- chronic kidney disease
- ejection fraction
- public health
- randomized controlled trial
- health information
- mental health
- stem cells
- big data
- peritoneal dialysis
- machine learning
- human health
- artificial intelligence
- data analysis
- study protocol
- mouse model
- combination therapy