Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 213

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identifying sub-optimal responses to ivermectin in the treatment of River Blindness

Open access
Churcher, Thomas S., Pion, Sébastien D. S., Osei-Atweneboana, Mike Y., Prichard, Roger K., Awadzi, Kwablah, Boussinesq, Michel, Collins, Richard C., Whitworth, James A., Basáñez, María-Gloria·2009·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Identification of drug resistance before it becomes a public health concern requires a clear distinction between what constitutes a normal and a suboptimal treatment response. A novel method of analyzing drug efficacy studies in human helminthiases is proposed and used to investigate recent claims of atypical responses to ivermectin in the treatment of River Blindness. The variability in the rate at which Onchocerca volvulus microfilariae repopulate host's skin following ivermectin treatment is quantified using an individual-based onchocerciasis mathematical model. The model estimates a single skin repopulation rate for every host sampled, allowing reports of suboptimal responses to be statistically compared with responses from populations with no prior exposure to ivermectin. Statistically faster rates of skin repopulation were observed in 3 Ghanaian villages (treated 12–17 times), despite the wide variability in repopulation rates observed in ivermectin-naïve populations. Another village previously thought to have high rates of skin repopulation was shown to be indistinguishable from the normal treatment response. The model is used to generate testable hypotheses to identify whether atypical rates of skin repopulation by microfilariae could result from low treatment coverage alone or provide evidence of decreased ivermectin efficacy. Further work linking phenotypic poor responses to treatment with parasite molecular genetics markers will be required to confirm drug resistance. Limitations of the skin-snipping method for estimating parasite load indicates that changes in the distribution of microfilarial repopulation rates, rather than their absolute values, maybe a more sensitive indicator of emerging ivermectin resistance.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0906176106

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 213

Metadata

Authors
Churcher, T. S., Pion, S. D. S., Osei-Atweneboana, M. Y., Prichard, R. K., Awadzi, K., Boussinesq, M., Collins, R. C., Whitworth, J. A., & Basáñez, M.-G.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2009-09-29
Volume
106
Issue
39
Pages
16716-16721
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2071685455
Cited by
213
References
2
FWCI
16.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Identifying sub-optimal responses to ivermectin in the treatment of River Blindness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0906176106
The paper
Churcher, T. S., Pion, S. D. S., Osei-Atweneboana, M. Y., Prichard, R. K., Awadzi, K., Boussinesq, M., Collins, R. C., Whitworth, J. A., & Basáñez, M.-G. (2009). Identifying sub-optimal responses to ivermectin in the treatment of River Blindness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906176106

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.