Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Single dose moxidectin versus ivermectin for Onchocerca volvulus infection in Ghana, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a randomised, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial

Open access
Opoku, Nicholas O, Bakajika, Didier K, Kanza, Eric M, Howard, Hayford, Mambandu, Germain L, Nyathirombo, Amos, Nigo, Maurice M, Kasonia, Kambale, Masembe, Safari L, Mumbere, Mupenzi, Kataliko, Kambale, Larbelee, Jemmah P, Kpawor, Mawolo, Bolay, Kpehe M, Bolay, Fatorma, Asare, Sampson, Attah, Simon K, Olipoh, George, Vaillant, Michel, Halleux, Christine M, Kuesel, Annette C·2018·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and socioeconomic effects of onchocerciasis, a parasitic disease that is primarily endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, have motivated large morbidity and transmission control programmes. Annual community-directed ivermectin treatment has substantially reduced prevalence. Elimination requires intensified efforts, including more efficacious treatments. We compared parasitological efficacy and safety of moxidectin and ivermectin. METHODS: This double-blind, parallel group, superiority trial was done in four sites in Ghana, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We enrolled participants (aged ≥12 years) with at least 10 Onchocerca volvulus microfilariae per mg skin who were not co-infected with Loa loa or lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemic. Participants were randomly allocated, stratified by sex and level of infection, to receive a single oral dose of 8 mg moxidectin or 150 μg/kg ivermectin as overencapsulated oral tablets. The primary efficacy outcome was skin microfilariae density 12 months post treatment. We used a mixed-effects model to test the hypothesis that the primary efficacy outcome in the moxidectin group was 50% or less than that in the ivermectin group. The primary efficacy analysis population were all participants who received the study drug and completed 12-month follow-up (modified intention to treat). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00790998. FINDINGS: Between April 22, 2009, and Jan 23, 2011, we enrolled and allocated 998 participants to moxidectin and 501 participants to ivermectin. 978 received moxidectin and 494 ivermectin, of which 947 and 480 were included in primary efficacy outcome analyses. At 12 months, skin microfilarial density (microfilariae per mg of skin) was lower in the moxidectin group (adjusted geometric mean 0·6 [95% CI 0·3-1·0]) than in the ivermectin group (4·5 [3·5-5·9]; difference 3·9 [3·2-4·9], p<0·0001; treatment difference 86%). Mazzotti (ie, efficacy-related) reactions occurred in 967 (99%) of 978 moxidectin-treated participants and in 478 (97%) of 494 ivermectin-treated participants, including ocular reactions (moxidectin 113 [12%] participants and ivermectin 47 [10%] participants), laboratory reactions (788 [81%] and 415 [84%]), and clinical reactions (944 [97%] and 446 [90%]). No serious adverse events were considered to be related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Skin microfilarial loads (ie, parasite transmission reservoir) are lower after moxidectin treatment than after ivermectin treatment. Moxidectin would therefore be expected to reduce parasite transmission between treatment rounds more than ivermectin could, thus accelerating progress towards elimination. FUNDING: UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32844-1

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Opoku, N. O., Bakajika, D. K., Kanza, E. M., Howard, H., Mambandu, G. L., Nyathirombo, A., Nigo, M. M., Kasonia, K., Masembe, S. L., Mumbere, M., Kataliko, K., Larbelee, J. P., Kpawor, M., Bolay, K. M., Bolay, F., Asare, S., Attah, S. K., Olipoh, G., Vaillant, M., Halleux, C. M., & Kuesel, A. C.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
392
Issue
10154
Pages
1207-1216
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2783063986
Cited by
304
References
26
FWCI
16.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Single dose moxidectin versus ivermectin for Onchocerca volvulus infection in Ghana, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a randomised, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32844-1
The paper
Opoku, N. O., Bakajika, D. K., Kanza, E. M., Howard, H., Mambandu, G. L., Nyathirombo, A., Nigo, M. M., Kasonia, K., Masembe, S. L., Mumbere, M., Kataliko, K., Larbelee, J. P., Kpawor, M., Bolay, K. M., Bolay, F., Asare, S., Attah, S. K., Olipoh, G., Vaillant, M., . . . Kuesel, A. C. (2018). Single dose moxidectin versus ivermectin for Onchocerca volvulus infection in Ghana, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a randomised, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32844-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.