Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31233536›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2019

Reviewing evidence of the clinical effectiveness of commercially available antivenoms in sub-Saharan Africa identifies the need for a multi-centre, multi-antivenom clinical trial.

Julien Potet, James Smith, Lachlan McIver

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06615960 (The Safety and Effectiveness of PANAF- Premium TM Snake Venom Antiserum-Pan Africa Administered As a Standard Treatment for Cases of Snakebites- a Phase IV Open Label Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06615960 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

The Safety and Effectiveness of PANAF- Premium TM Snake Venom Antiserum-Pan Africa Administered As a Standard Treatment for Cases of Snakebites- a Phase IV Open Label Trial

TypeobservationalSponsorPremium Serums & Vaccines Pvt.Ltd.Ran2024 to 2025Enrolled112ConditionsSnake Bites
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Julien PotetMédecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9974-7195
James SmithMédecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign, Geneva, Switzerland.
Lachlan McIverMédecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSnakebite envenoming kills more than more than 20,000 people in Sub-Saharan Africa every year. Poorly regulated markets have been inundated with low-price, low-quality antivenoms. This review aimed to systematically collect and analyse the clinical data on all antivenom products now available in markets of sub-Saharan Africa. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsOur market analysis identified 12 polyspecific and 4 monospecific antivenom products in African markets. Our search strategy was first based on a systematic search of publication databases, followed by manual searches and discussions with experts. All types of data, including programmatic data, were eligible. All types of publications were eligible, including grey literature. Cohorts of less than 10 patients were excluded. 26 publications met the inclusion criteria. Many publications had to be excluded because clinical outcomes were not clearly linked to a specific product. Our narrative summaries present product-specific clinical data in terms of safety and effectiveness against the different species and envenoming syndromes. Three products (EchiTabPlus, EchiTabG, SAIMR-Echis-monovalent) were found to have been tested in robust clinical studies and found effective against envenoming caused by the West African carpet viper (Echis ocellatus). Four products (Inoserp-Panafricain, Fav-Afrique, SAIMR-Polyvalent, Antivipmyn-Africa) were found to have been evaluated only in observational single-arm studies, with varying results. For nine other products, there are either no data in the public domain, or only negative data suggesting a lack of effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Clinical data vary among the different antivenom products currently in African markets. Some products are available commercially although they have been found to lack effectiveness. The World Health Organization should strengthen its capacity to assess antivenom products, support antivenom manufacturers, and assist African countries and international aid organizations in selecting appropriate quality antivenoms.

Indexed as

Africa South of the SaharaAntiveninsClinical Trials as TopicHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicSnake BitesTreatment OutcomeAntivenins

Identifiers

PMID31233536
PMCPMC6615628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.