Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36108067›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2022

Two snakebite antivenoms have potential to reduce Eswatini's dependency upon a single, increasingly unavailable product: Results of preclinical efficacy testing.

Stefanie K Menzies, Thea Litschka-Koen, Rebecca J Edge, Jaffer Alsolaiss, Edouard Crittenden, Steven R Hall, Adam Westhorpe, Brent Thomas, James Murray, Nondusimo Shongwe and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Presentation and management of snakebite envenomation at a District Hospital in the north-east of South Africa.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. ImprovingF1000Research · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Stefanie K MenziesCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9273-9296
Thea Litschka-KoenEswatini Snakebite Research and Intervention Centre, Simunye, Eswatini.
Rebecca J EdgeCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Jaffer AlsolaissCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Edouard CrittendenCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Steven R HallCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Adam WesthorpeCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Brent ThomasCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
James MurrayEswatini Snakebite Research and Intervention Centre, Simunye, Eswatini.
Nondusimo ShongweEswatini Snakebite Research and Intervention Centre, Simunye, Eswatini.
Sara PadidarEswatini Snakebite Research and Intervention Centre, Simunye, Eswatini.
David G LallooDepartment of Tropical Disease Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Nicholas R CasewellCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Jonathan PonsEswatini Snakebite Research and Intervention Centre, Simunye, Eswatini.
Robert A HarrisonCentre for Snakebite Research and Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Eswatini · SZ

Funding

Wellcome Trust 200517/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 217264/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSnakebite is a major public health concern in Eswatini, where treatment relies upon one antivenom-SAIMR Polyvalent. Although effective in treating snakebite, SAIMR Polyvalent is difficult to source outside its manufacturing country (South Africa) and is dauntingly expensive. We compared the preclinical venom-neutralising efficacy of two alternative antivenoms with that of SAIMR Polyvalent against the lethal and tissue-destructive effects of venoms from five species of medically important snakes using in vivo murine assays. The test antivenoms were 'Panafrican' manufactured by Instituto Clodomiro Picado and 'PANAF' manufactured by Premium Serums & Vaccines. PRINCIPAL

findingsIn vivo murine preclinical studies identified both test antivenoms were equally or more effective than SAIMR Polyvalent at neutralising lethal and tissue-destructive effects of Naja mossambica venom. Both test antivenoms were less effective than SAIMR Polyvalent at neutralising the lethal effects of Bitis arietans, Dendroaspis polylepis, Hemachatus haemachatus and Naja annulifera venoms, but similarly effective at neutralising tissue damage induced by B. arietans and H. haemachatus venoms. In vitro immunological assays identified that the titres and toxin-specificities of immunoglobulins (iGs) in the test antivenoms were comparable to that of SAIMR Polyvalent. Plasma clotting disturbances by H. haemachatus and N. mossambica were neutralised by the test antivenoms, whereas SAIMR Polyvalent failed to neutralise this bioactivity of N. mossambica venom. B. arietans SVMP activity was equally reduced by all three antivenoms, and H. haemachatus and N. mossambica PLA2 activities were neutralised by all three antivenoms.

conclusionsWhile both Panafrican and PANAF antivenoms exhibited promising preclinical efficacies, both were less poly-specifically effective than SAIMR Polyvalent in these murine assays. The efficacy of these antivenoms against the lethal and tissue-destructive effects of N. mossambica venom, the most common biting species in Eswatini, identify that Panafrican and PANAF antivenoms offer effective alternatives to SAIMR Polyvalent for the treatment of snakebite in Eswatini, and potentially for neighbouring countries.

Indexed as

Snake BitesViperidaeAnimalsAntiveninsEswatiniMicePhospholipases A2AntiveninsPhospholipases A2

Identifiers

PMID36108067
PMCPMC9529146
OpenAlexW4296029682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.