Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

WGO GUIDELINE

World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines

Management of Strongyloidiasis February 2018—Compact Version

Farthing, Michael MD*; Albonico, Marco MD; Bisoffi, Zeno MD; Bundy, Donald MD§; Buonfrate, Dora MD; Chiodini, Peter MD; Katelaris, Peter MD; Kelly, Paul MD, FRCP#; Savioli, Lorenzo MD**; Mair, Anton Le MD††

Author Information
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology: October 2020 - Volume 54 - Issue 9 - p 747-757
doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001369

Abstract

CASCADES AND KEY POINTS

Guideline Key Points

  • Strongyloides stercoralis is a soil-transmitted helminth, but it has a unique life cycle that can be completed in the human host, in a process known as autoinfection.
  • Worldwide, the burden of disease is substantial (300 to 400 million infections). Strongyloidiasis is mainly prevalent in the tropics and subtropics, but there is as yet no global public health strategy for controlling the parasite.
  • Infection is particularly serious, and may be disseminated outside the alimentary tract, in immunocompromised people—those with human T-cell lymphotropic virus type I (HTLV-I) infection and those receiving immunosuppressive drugs.
  • Clinical signs are often absent, but they may be diagnostic (larva currens). Diarrhea and malabsorption may be present in chronic infection.
  • The diagnosis was traditionally established by identifying larvae in feces (using the Baermann funnel technique), but this has been progressively replaced by commercially available serodiagnostic kits.
  • The treatment of choice is single-dose ivermectin 200 µg/kg. An alternative is albendazole, but this is significantly less effective and is not recommended.
  • Infection can be prevented by avoiding skin contact with soil that contains larvae.

WORLD GASTROENTEROLOGY ORGANISATION (WGO) CASCADES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF STRONGYLOIDIASIS

About WGO Cascades

WGO cascades: a hierarchical set of diagnostic, therapeutic, and management options for dealing with risk and disease, ranked by the resources available.

WGO guidelines and cascades are intended to highlight appropriate, context-sensitive, and resource-sensitive management options for all geographical areas, regardless of whether they are “developing,” “semideveloped,” or “developed.” WGO cascades are context-sensitive, and the context is not necessarily defined solely by resource availability.

Cascade options both for diagnosis and management of strongyloidiasis (Tables 1, 2) are key, and represent the most important part of this document. Particular emphasis is given to gold-standard, medium-resource, and low-resource categories. In addition, we also suggest 1 or more algorithms that should guide the clinician through the pathway of the patient’s clinical history, clinical signs and symptoms, diagnostic tests, and treatment options.

TABLE 1 - Cascade Options for Diagnosing Strongyloidiasis
Resource Level Cascade of Diagnostic Options
Gold standard IgG anti-Strongyloides serology plus one fecal test: Baermann or PCR
Medium resources IgG anti-Strongyloides serology plus one fecal test: STS
Low resources One fecal test: STS
For confirmation of eradication after treatment, a negative fecal test plus a reduction in the serology titer is required. Refinements of PCR diagnosis are still evolving.
Ig indicates immunoglobulin; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; STS, spontaneous tube sedimentation.

TABLE 2 - Cascade With Resource-sensitive Options for Managing Strongyloidiasis
Resource Level Cascade of Therapeutic Options
Gold standard Single-dose ivermectin
Medium resources Single-dose ivermectin
Low resources Single-dose ivermectin

WGO Cascades for the Diagnosis of Strongyloidiasis

Cascade for the Management of Strongyloidiasis

For the strongyloidiasis treatment cascade, there is only really one option, which is single-dose ivermectin, irrespective of the local resource level. In case of treatment failure and in view of the lack of evidence for alternative treatments, we recommend repeating the ivermectin course over 2 days.

INTRODUCTION

Strongyloidiasis is an infection with S. stercoralis, a roundworm that occurs widely in tropical and subtropical areas, but also in countries with temperate climates (Tables 3, 4).

TABLE 3 - World Health Organization (WHO) Key Facts on Strongyloidiasis
•An estimated 370 million people are infected worldwide1 (see also risk factors and special groups at risk for disseminated infection); precise data on prevalence are unknown in countries where it is endemic
•Infection is acquired through direct contact with contaminated soil during agricultural, domestic, and recreational activities; autoinfection can occur
•Like other soil-transmitted helminthiases, the risk of infection is associated with poor hygiene, making children especially vulnerable to infection
Strongyloidiasis is frequently underdiagnosed, because many cases are asymptomatic; moreover, commonly used diagnostic methods lack sensitivity
•Without appropriate therapy, the infection does not resolve and may persist for life
•Infection may be severe and even life-threatening in cases of immunodeficiency
•No public health strategies for controlling the disease have been developed at the global level
•In April 2017, ivermectin was added to the WHO essential drug list, with strongyloidiasis as an indication

TABLE 4 - Strongyloides stercoralis Infection Types—Terminology Explained
Strongyloidiasis Pathways of Infection Clinical Manifestations
Autoinfection A mostly asymptomatic process that enables the parasite to survive indefinitely in the human host
Hyperinfection A process of intense autoinfection; the phase in which third-stage larvae can be found in fresh stools
Disseminated infection The outcome of hyperinfection: larvae can be found anywhere, including in the sputum, urine, and gastric juice

Strongyloidiasis is different from all other soil-transmitted helminthic infections because the eggs produced through parthenogenesis by the parasitic female worm hatch when still in the bowel and produce rhabditiform larvae.

The presence of strongyloides in the gut wall causes inflammation and, in varying degrees, villous atrophy with consequent intestinal malabsorption. This inflammatory response also increases intestinal permeability and facilitates translocation of intestinal bacteria through the gut into the systemic circulation—part of the hyperinfection syndrome.

Soil-transmitted Helminthiases and Strongyloidiasis

Although strongyloidiasis has a similar route of infection to the other soil-transmitted helminthiases, it needs additional diagnostic tools beyond microscopy and requires different treatment. In areas in which preventive anthelmintic chemotherapy with ivermectin has been used to control onchocerciasis or lymphatic filariasis, there has been a noticeable reduction in the prevalence of strongyloidiasis.2–6 The World Health Organization (WHO) Essential Medicines Committee has included ivermectin in its list, including in combination with albendazole, for strongyloidiasis. Some 900 million people are now receiving this combination as part of neglected tropical disease (NTD) campaigns.7

Pathophysiology

S. stercoralis has a unique and complex life cycle. Figure 1 outlines the unique routes of S. stercoralis replication.

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1:
The life cycle of Strongyloides stercoralis. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.8 Use of this graphic does not imply endorsement by CDC, ATSDR, HHS, or the United States Government.

The life cycle of Strongyloides is more complex than that of most nematodes, with its alternation between free-living and parasitic cycles and its potential for autoinfection and multiplication within the host. There are 2 types of cycle:

  • The free-living cycle. The rhabditiform larvae passed in the stool can either molt twice and become infective filariform larvae (direct development), or molt 4 times and become free-living adult males and females that mate and produce eggs from which rhabditiform larvae hatch. The latter in turn can either develop into a new generation of free-living adults or into infective filariform larvae. The filariform larvae penetrate the human host’s skin to initiate the parasitic cycle. The free-living stage of the nematode’s life cycle is limited to a maximum of one generation.9 This is a unique feature of strongyloidiasis that has important implications both for treating infected people and for environmental control in preventing transmission. This means that it is vital that eradication therapy must be highly effective to remove all viable forms of the organism from the infected individual.
  • The parasitic cycle. Filariform larvae in contaminated soil penetrate the human skin and are transported to the lungs, where they penetrate the alveolar spaces; they are carried through the bronchial tree to the pharynx, are swallowed, and then reach the small intestine. In the small intestine, they molt twice and become adult female worms. The females live threaded in the epithelium of the small intestine and through parthenogenesis produce eggs, which yield rhabditiform larvae. The rhabditiform larvae can either be passed in the stool (see “The free-living cycle” above) or can develop further and cause autoinfection. In autoinfection, the rhabditiform larvae become infective filariform larvae, which can penetrate either the intestinal mucosa (internal autoinfection) or the skin of the perianal area (external autoinfection); in either case, the filariform larvae may follow the previously described route, being carried successively to the lungs, the bronchial tree, the pharynx, and the small intestine, where they mature into adults; or they may disseminate widely in the body. To date, occurrence of autoinfection in humans with helminthic infections is recognized only in S. stercoralis and Capillaria philippinensis infections. S. stercoralis is much more common and widespread. In strongyloidiasis, autoinfection explains the existence of infections persisting in persons who have not been in an endemic area for many years (the current record is 65 y) and the life-threatening morbidity of hyperinfection in immunocompromised individuals—both unusual for worm infections.

Disease Burden and Endemicity

Strongyloidiasis is endemic in tropical and subtropical regions (Figs. 2–5), and the prevalence is probably much higher than the 100 million people previously quoted: higher estimates of up to 370 million people have been published.1 It is also widespread in Eastern Europe, and scattered foci of the infection have been reported in elderly people in the Mediterranean region.

FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2:
The highest prevalence rates of strongyloidiasis. Source: Puthiyakunnon et al.10
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3:
Estimated prevalence of Strongyloides stercoralis in South-East Asia. Source: Schär et al.11
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4:
Prevalence of strongyloidiasis in Latin America. Source: Buonfrate et al.12
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5:
Prevalence of Strongyloides stercoralis in refugees and migrants by country. Source: Schär et al.13

We know little about the prevalence of infection and less about the clinical burden of morbidity. If it is indeed widespread, the risk of iatrogenic hyperinfection (with immunosuppressive management) is a challenge. It is thought that strongyloidiasis infects up to 40% of the population in some areas of the tropics and subtropics.13

Important notes: Australia, like other developed countries, is known to have Strongyloides “hot spots” that are not shown on this map (notably some migrants from endemic regions have it, but it is also endemic in some Aboriginal populations in the north of Australia).9,14 The figure illustrates how poor the data are. It is implausible that Strongyloides is absent from most of Africa and Asia. Other studies could have been cited that include evidence that Strongyloides infection is widespread. It is equally implausible that some countries shown have population-wide prevalences higher than 50%; the possibility of selection bias should be considered.

Migrant infections may occur in any country and may represent a potential global hazard. The disease can present in a consulting room anywhere.

Risk Factors and Special Groups at Risk of Infection

The biggest risk factor overall is a socioeconomic disadvantage in a relevant environment in which Strongyloides is endemic.

  • Poverty, poor housing, poor sanitation; walking barefoot, living in an environment in which open defecation occurs, prisoners of war.
  • Travelers and refugees to and from endemic areas.
  • Some studies have reported male sex, advanced age, animal-human transmission, and humid, wet climates in the tropics and subtropics as risk factors.11

Risk Factors and Special Groups at Risk for Disseminated Infection

  • Immunosuppressive medication—especially corticosteroids, but also tacrolimus and chemotherapeutic agents
  • HTLV-I infection.
  • Neoplasms, particularly hematologic malignancies (lymphoma, leukemia).
  • Organ transplantation (kidney allograft recipients).
  • Minor/possible risk factors: collagen vascular disease, malabsorption and malnutrition states, end-stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, local host factors, diverticular and blind loops (persistent strongyloidiasis in a blind loop in the intestine).

Strongyloidiasis and Immunosuppressed Patients

Strongyloidiasis ranges from asymptomatic to severe forms and can lead to hyperinfection syndrome and disseminated disease, associated with a high mortality rate in immunosuppressed patients.

In the tropics, there are many patients with rheumatoid arthritis, bronchial asthma, and glomerulonephritis who receive long-term steroid treatment. Patients can purchase steroids directly from pharmacies.

Strongyloidiasis is not an important acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)-associated opportunistic infection, but it is an opportunistic infection associated with HTLV-I.15 Although patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS can have disseminated strongyloidiasis or hyperinfection syndrome, observational studies have not shown an increased risk in this population.16

Mortality and Morbidity

Acute strongyloidiasis is often asymptomatic and can remain hidden for decades. Immunocompetent patients often have asymptomatic chronic lifelong infections if untreated.

Chronic infections are a potentially important cause of undisclosed morbidity. There is also a lack of efficient diagnostic tools, which are often cumbersome and have low sensitivity so that the true prevalence of infection and morbidity is not known. Since strongyloidiasis is viewed as an unusual disease, there has been little investment in diagnostic or epidemiological surveys, especially in children.

Clinically apparent strongyloidiasis can lead to cutaneous, gastrointestinal, and pulmonary symptoms.

PHYSICAL SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS

The key to diagnosing strongyloidiasis (Table 5) is to have an index of suspicion—the diagnosis can only be made for certain when the worm is identified in the stool. If there is a low worm burden, and due to the intermittent release of larvae in stool, it is often impossible to detect the worm if only a single stool is examined. A serial analysis of specimens taken over 3 days is necessary. A white blood cell count (WBC) is important, as is eosinophilia (high in 50% of patients).

TABLE 5 - Uncomplicated Strongyloidiasis: Physical Signs and Symptoms
Disease State Symptoms
Acute •Larva currens—intradermal migration of Strongyloides (most characteristic sign, but exceedingly rare in this phase)
•Itch (usually on feet)
•Wheezing/cough, low-grade fever
•Epigastric tenderness
•Diarrhea, nausea/vomiting
Chronic usually the result of autoinfection •Larva currens (most characteristic sign)
•Epigastric tenderness
•Asymptomatic/vague abdominal complaints
•Intermittent diarrhea (alternating with constipation)
•Occasional nausea and vomiting
•Weight loss (if heavier infection)
•Itching or recurrent skin rashes (chronic urticaria)

A patient’s eosinophilia status can be confusing: it is a most helpful sign in simple, uncomplicated infections and is mostly absent in disseminated strongyloidiasis.

Table 6 lists signs and symptoms that can be seen with hyperinfection syndrome and disseminated strongyloidiasis.16

TABLE 6 - Signs and Symptoms in Hyperinfection and Disseminated Strongyloidiasis
Gastrointestinal manifestations
•Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
•Ileus, bowel edema, intestinal obstruction
•Mucosal ulceration and subsequent peritonitis or bacterial sepsis
•Massive intestinal hemorrhage
Pulmonary manifestations and findings
•Cough, wheezing, dyspnea, hoarseness
•Pneumonitis
•Hemoptysis
•Respiratory failure
•Diffuse interstitial infiltrates or consolidation on chest radiographs
Neurological findings
•Aseptic or gram-negative meningitis
•Larvae have been reported in the CSF, meningeal vessels, dura, and epidural, subdural, and subarachnoid spaces
Systemic features
•Peripheral edema and ascites secondary to hypoalbuminemia from protein-losing enteropathy
•Recurrent gram-negative bacteremia/sepsis from larvae carrying bacteria through mucosal walls
•Syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone
•Peripheral blood eosinophilia is frequently absent
Cutaneous manifestations
•Recurrent maculopapular or urticarial rash most commonly found on the buttocks, perineum, and thighs due to repeated autoinfection, but can be found anywhere on the skin
•Larva currens—pathognomonic serpiginous or urticarial rash that advances as rapidly as 10 cm/h
CSF indicates cerebrospinal fluid.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.16

DIAGNOSIS AND DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

Evidence highlights the need to survey patients with eosinophilia even when a history of residence or travel in an endemic area is absent.17

Several diagnostic procedures have been developed over the years, and their use depends on local availability and relevant expertise: string tests, duodenal aspirates, duodenal biopsy, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), immunodiagnostic tests, and repeated examination of fresh stool with different methods.

The global prevalence of S. stercoralis infection has long been underestimated. This is likely due to reliance on direct stool microscopy and the Kato-Katz technique, which are commonly used in prevalence studies but are inadequate for S. stercoralis detection (Table 7).21 The commonly used fecal-based methods have particularly low sensitivity. Microscopy can be improved by examination of several stool samples, as well as concentration techniques,22 but the sensitivity remains low.

TABLE 7 - Sensitivity of Strongyloides Diagnostic Tests18
Diagnostic Tests Sensitivity (%)
Agar plate 85-97, 58-85
Dancescu culture 82-93
Harada-Mori culture 70-100
Modified Baermann in cup 50-100
Direct smear 5-44, 24-50
Duodenal aspirate 76
ELISA-IgG (serum) 80-100, 88
EIA (CDC) 95
PCR (stools) 95
CDC indicates Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; EIA, enzyme immune essay; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; Ig, immunoglobulin; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
Sources: Santiago and Leitão19 and Gyorkos et al.20

In both low/middle-income and also developed countries, the number of personnel who are well trained in the microscopic identification of parasites appears to be decreasing.

  • The application of molecular assays, still lagging behind virology or bacteriology, is expected to increase in parasitology.
  • Molecular diagnosis of S. stercoralis infection has yet to demonstrate optimal sensitivity.
  • Molecular diagnosis is unlikely to completely replace the other diagnostic techniques.
  • Serological assays currently show the highest sensitivity and are important for the screening of S. stercoralis and assessment of cure.21

Lodh et al23 presented research results showing that S. stercoralis DNA can be detected in urine. Once available, and if they are sufficiently sensitive, urine sample tests may be attractive, as they are much less labor-intensive and resource-intensive and do not involve the health risk of examining fresh stool.23

Stool Tests

Finding the larvae in stool, duodenal fluid, or occasionally in other tissues or fluids by means of microscopy establishes a definitive diagnosis of strongyloidiasis (Tables 8, 9; Supplemental Figs, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/JCG/A598 and http://links.lww.com/JCG/A599).25 However, because of low larval densities, a single examination is insensitive.26

TABLE 8 - Stool Tests for Strongyloidiasis
Fecal Tests Individual Diagnosis and Screening Assessment of Cure
Spontaneous tube sedimentation (STS) Suitable for basic laboratories in endemic areas; conflicting results on sensitivity Unsuitable
Formalin-ether concentration technique (FECT) Unsuitable (suboptimal sensitivity) Unsuitable
Baermann funnel technique, Koga agar plate culture (APC) Up to now the most accurate fecal tests, but do not exclude infection if negative; cumbersome, not routinely performed Suitable, but will tend to overestimate cure rate if used alone
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), real-time PCR (RT-PCR) Good, potentially cost-effective, allow simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens; low sensitivity for light infections according to some studies Many laboratories now have validated in-house tests that are routinely used (in conjunction with other methods). May become reference fecal tests for inclusion in trials and cure monitoring
Source: Buonfrate et al.21

TABLE 9 - Spontaneous Tube Sedimentation (STS) Protocol
Procedure Steps Description
Homogenize stools Approximately 10 g of feces is mixed with 10 mL of normal saline solution until homogenized (30-60 s or longer, as needed)
Spontaneous sedimentation Pour the homogenate into a conical tube (13×2.5 cm, 50 mL capacity) fitted with a cap using a filter (surgical gauze) at the top of the tube
Discard gauze and fill the tube with normal saline solution—don’t overfill; close cap tightly, taking care to avoid contact with the contents
Shake for 30 s and leave the tube in the vertical position for 45 min
Sediment analysis Take the sediment from the bottom of the tube using a plastic pipette
Place 2-3 drops in 2 smears; add Lugol solution to one of them, cover (6×2 cm), and observe under a microscope (×100 and ×400)
Source: Tello et al.24

Several methods are used to identify larvae in stool by microscopy:

  • Microscopy after concentration
  • Baermann funnel technique (still regarded as the gold standard).
  • Formalin-ether concentration technique (FECT).
  • Microscopy after culture
    • Harada-Mori filter paper culture.
    • Koga agar plate culture.
  • Direct microscopy
    • Use of a dissecting microscope to visualize larvae on agar plates.
    • Direct smear of feces in saline-Lugol iodine stain.

The use of these methods depends on local resource availability and especially the expertise of the microscopist.

Stool analyses for Strongyloides using the Baermann funnel technique and Koga agar culture method are the best fecal diagnostic methods for field settings today. These methods detect the parasite with greater sensitivity than other fecal methods.

  • Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is promising, but not yet standardized; there are concerns about the sensitivity of PCR, as it varies across different studies.
  • Anamnart et al27 tested stimulation of excretion of S. stercoralis larvae in stool by oral administration of a single dose of 400 mg albendazole and suggested that the application of albendazole plus the modified formalin-ether concentration technique (MFECT) could be used in patients with suspected asymptomatic strongyloidiasis—including patients with unexplained chronic diarrhea, patients returning from areas where strongyloidiasis is endemic, and patients with negative results in other parasitological tests.27

Serodiagnosis of Strongyloidiasis

In comparison with the Baermann technique and agar plate culture, serological tests have greater sensitivity, although some authors have concerns about their specificity.16

  • Many serological tests cross-react with filarial parasites, schistosomes, and Ascaris lumbricoides, decreasing the specificity of the tests.
  • It can be difficult to distinguish between active cases and historical cases, as antibodies can persist for some time.
  • More specific serological tests using recombinant antigens have been and are continuing to be developed and are available at specific laboratories.
  • Serological tests typically show a significant drop in titer by 6 to 12 months after parasite eradication, so that they can be used to assess cure.16

The most convenient and widely used serological method is the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to detect serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) against a crude extract of filariform larvae. ELISA is labor-intensive and requires a certain level of laboratory infrastructure for performance and interpretation of results, and this has hampered its applicability especially in areas where Strongyloides is endemic.26 Moreover, serology has limited value for follow-up after cure in endemic areas, as reinfection is possible.

Differential Diagnosis

There are many conditions that produce similar symptoms, including causes of acute and chronic diarrhea and malabsorption, other causes of eosinophilia, and other causes of severe gram-negative septicemia. The following should be considered in the differential diagnosis:

Intestinal infections—amebiasis, bacterial colitis, Shigella, Campylobacter, Yersinia, Clostridium difficile; see the WGO Global Guideline on Acute Diarrhea (Table 4).28

Nonhuman hookworm infection, producing cutaneous larva migrans—distinguished from the larva currens caused by S. stercoralis by the absence of scabbing, rapid migration, perianal involvement, and a wide band of urticaria in larva currens.

  • Inflammatory bowel disease.
  • Irritable bowel syndrome.
  • Functional abdominal disorders.
  • Drugs—nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and many others—are possible causes of eosinophilia.

The key diagnostic element is to think of strongyloidiasis as a possible diagnosis and identify the parasite directly and/or through serological/molecular tests.

MANAGEMENT OF STRONGYLOIDIASIS

  • Spontaneous cure cannot be expected, due to the parasite’s unique autoinfection life cycle.
  • Treat all patients with strongyloidiasis, even when asymptomatic, because of the risk of hyperinfection—a potentially fatal complication.
  • Reliable diagnosis of patients at risk is needed for accurate recognition and treatment before immunosuppressive therapy is initiated, or in patients with HTLV-I or HIV infection.
  • If emergency immunosuppression is required in a patient who may have previously undiagnosed strongyloidiasis, and diagnostic tests are not rapidly available (very few hospitals can do same-day serology), presumptive treatment with ivermectin should be considered.
  • Cure can be achieved with single-dose ivermectin.
  • Failure of treatment with ivermectin is generally due to the impairment of host immunity (frequent in patients with HTLV-I infection).26,29

A 2016 Cochrane review assessed the effects of ivermectin versus benzimidazoles (albendazole and thiabendazole) for treating Strongyloides infection.30

  • Ivermectin versus albendazole: cure rates with albendazole treatment were 48%, with a 26% rate of adverse events being reported, versus cure rates of 84% and an adverse event rate of 21% for ivermectin.
  • Ivermectin versus thiabendazole: cure rates with thiabendazole treatment were 69%, with a 73% rate of adverse events being reported, versus cure rates of 74% and an adverse event rate of 23% for ivermectin.

Uncomplicated Strongyloidiasis

The treatment of strongyloidiasis (Table 10) is difficult because, in contrast to other helminth infections, the Strongyloides worm burden has to be eradicated completely.

  • Complete eradication is difficult to ascertain, because of the low worm load and irregular larval output.
  • A definitive cure cannot be established on the basis of a negative follow-up stool examination alone—it also requires a decline in both serological titers and eosinophilia.
  • A single stool analysis for strongyloidiasis was found to be negative in up to 70% of known cases of Strongyloides infection. Reliable testing requires multiple stool examinations, probably at least 3 and with suitable techniques.
  • In the tropics, follow-up is a problem and if only fecal testing is available, it becomes the method of choice.
  • Albendazole (400 mg bid for 3 d) is sometimes used as an alternative or compromise.32,33 However, the efficacy of albendazole in the treatment of strongyloidiasis has been shown to be very low in comparison with ivermectin, and it should therefore not be used unless there is no alternative.30

TABLE 10 - Preferred Medication for Strongyloidiasis
Ivermectin Dose Regimens and Limitations of Use
Brand names: Stromectol, Mectizan •Drug of choice for acute and chronic strongyloidiasis
•Binds selectively with glutamate-gated chloride ion channels in invertebrate nerve and muscle cells, causing cell death
•Half-life is 16 h; metabolized in liver
Adult dose •200 µg/kg as a single oral dose
Pediatric dose •If >2 y or >15 kg, administer as in adults
•If <15 kg: safety and efficacy not established
Contraindications •Documented hypersensitivity
Interactions •None reported
Pregnancy •Safety for use during pregnancy has not been established
•Do not use in first trimester of pregnancy and avoid use until after delivery, if possible
•If there is (a risk of) hyperinfection, the benefit outweighs the risk and the women should be treated
Precautions •Treat mothers who intend to breastfeed only when the risk of delayed treatment outweighs possible risks to the newborn caused by ivermectin excretion in milk
•Perform stool examinations to verify eradication of infection
•Repeat courses of therapy may be required in patients who are immunocompromised
•May cause nausea, vomiting, mild CNS depression, and drowsiness
•Ivermectin may very rarely precipitate encephalitis in people who have concomitant heavy infection with Loa loa, due to the mass killing of microfilariae in the CNS. Loiasis should be excluded when treating patients who come from endemic areas
Use as public health intervention •The use of single-dose ivermectin is currently being considered as a treatment in community campaigns in endemic areas, as part of a comprehensive preventive chemotherapy strategy
CNS indicates central nervous system.
Source: Medscape.31

Hyperinfection or Disseminated Infection

Although some authors state that these terms describe 2 different aspects of the infection (hyperinfection: high levels of larvae in the usual body parts; dissemination: larvae present in any body part, not usually included in the parasitic cycle), they can probably be used interchangeably. In fact, they both refer to a very high parasite load and rapid spread of the infection—usually in immunosuppressed patients and often associated with corticosteroid treatment. Hyperinfection carries a high risk of gram-negative septicemia, so broad-spectrum antibiotics are usually given, especially to prevent bacterial meningitis.

In critically ill people with hyperinfection or disseminated strongyloidiasis who are unable to take oral medicines, ivermectin has been administered successfully by the subcutaneous route.34 For critically ill people, ivermectin is given daily for a duration of at least 14 days, with the total duration of treatment depending on when microscopic examinations of body fluids positive for larvae become negative (this can be stool or urine, or others in cases of hyperinfection).35

Prevention and Disease Control

Infection is prevented by avoiding direct skin contact with soil containing infective larvae. People at risk, especially children, should wear footwear when walking on areas with infected soil. Patients at risk should be identified and appropriate diagnostic tests should be performed before they begin immunosuppressive therapy.

Persons in household contact with patients are not at risk for infection. The proper disposal of human excreta reduces the prevalence of strongyloidiasis substantially.

No accepted prophylactic regimen exists and no vaccine is available.

Standard precautions should be observed for patients hospitalized with strongyloidiasis. Wearing gloves and gowns and diligent handwashing hygiene is important for those coming into potential contact with the patient’s feces.16

  • Early detection and effective treatment of S. stercoralis infection.
  • Screening of patients who are at risk for chronic strongyloidiasis before immunosuppressive treatment is started, especially with corticosteroids.
  • Preventive chemotherapy (PC) for S. stercoralis infection is not yet recommended by WHO, nor is it included in the strategy for soil-transmitted helminth control. However, consistent side benefits on S. stercoralis prevalence have been demonstrated after lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis elimination programs that used repeated PC with ivermectin/albendazole or with ivermectin alone.36
  • Proper evaluation of treatment using stool examination (with highly sensitive tests such as the Baermann technique, filter paper culture, and agar plate culture) and specific IgG serology follow-up for 1 to 2 years.37
  • Overseas presumptive treatment programs in refugee populations from countries where intestinal parasites are endemic (hookworm, Trichuris trichiura, Ascaris lumbricoides, and S. stercoralis).38
  • The installation and use of safe waste disposal systems still remains important.39
  • Wearing footwear could interrupt transmission of strongyloidiasis, but the cultural acceptability of footwear is low, particularly in hot climates, so other environmental control methods should be assessed.40 People who don’t have shoes often don’t have chairs, and then the buttocks are an additional target.
  • Detect anthelmintic resistance at an early stage. Various in vivo and in vitro methods are available for assessing the efficacy of anthelmintics, and specific laboratory methods can be applied to confirm a suspicion of resistance in the field—for example, as described in the World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (WAAVP) study recommendations and guidelines.41–43

The study by Forrer et al44 showed that community-based single-dose ivermectin treatment for S. stercoralis plus sanitation effectively reduced the infection risk in rural communities in Cambodia, with over 85% of villagers remaining negative 1 year after treatment. Infection control is feasible and highly beneficial, particularly in combination with improved sanitation.44

Khieu et al45 found that individuals with a latrine at home were infected with S. stercoralis significantly less frequently than those without one. The calculated population-attributable risk would be reduced by 39% if all participants used a latrine for defecation.11,45

Croker and She46 noted that the high prevalence of eosinophilia among persons with latent Strongyloides infection in Los Angeles County highlights the importance of screening individuals with eosinophilia in whom more common causes have been ruled out.

The StrongNet,36 an international network for improving diagnosis and access to treatment for strongyloidiasis control, advocates better and field-friendly diagnosis as well as the availability of ivermectin on a large scale for the control of strongyloidiasis in endemic areas. Following the efforts of this network, ivermectin has recently been included in the WHO’s Essential Medicines List for the treatment of strongyloidiasis; the ultimate goal is to develop a public health control strategy and to include S. stercoralis in the WHO’s PC strategy for soil-transmitted helminthiasis.

Prognosis

Acute and chronic strongyloidiasis have a good prognosis. However, untreated infection can persist for the remainder of the patient’s life, due to the autoinfection cycle. A patient’s prolonged absence from an endemic area is no guarantee of freedom from infection. Severe disseminated infection is commonly a fatal event, and it is often unresponsive to therapy.

In chronic strongyloidiasis, immunosuppression poses a risk for accelerated autoinfection. This may result in a sepsis-like syndrome, S. stercoralis hyperinfection, and the dissemination of larvae to distant organs such as the central nervous system, causing S. stercoralis–associated meningitis.47

APPENDIX

Abbreviations Used in This Guideline

Gold-standard Guideline

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.16

REFERENCES

1. Bisoffi Z, Buonfrate D, Montresor A, et al. Strongyloides stercoralis: a plea for action. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7:e2214.
2. Knopp S, Mohammed KA, Rollinson D, et al. Changing patterns of soil-transmitted helminthiases in Zanzibar in the context of national helminth control programs. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009;81:1071–1078.
3. Anselmi M, Buonfrate D, Guevara Espinoza A, et al. Mass administration of ivermectin for the elimination of onchocerciasis significantly reduced and maintained low the prevalence of Strongyloides stercoralis in Esmeraldas, Ecuador. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:e0004150.
4. Barda B, Albonico M, Buonfrate D, et al. Side benefits of mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis on Strongyloides stercoralis prevalence on Pemba Island, Tanzania. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;97:681–683.
5. Bisoffi Z. Human strongyloidiasis: time to act? Basel, Switzerland: European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; 2017. Available at: www.escmid.org/escmid_publications/escmid_elibrary/material/?mid=44339.
6. World Health Organization. What are intestinal worms (soil transmitted helminthiasis)? Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 2018. Available at: www.who.int/intestinal_worms/disease/en/. Accessed March 13, 2018.
7. Bundy DAP, Appleby LJ, Bradley M, et alBundy DAP, de Silva N, Horton S, Jamison DT, Patton GC. Mass deworming programs in middle childhood and adolescence. Child and Adolescent Health and Development, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank Group; 2017:165–182.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Parasites—Strongyloides. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2015. Available at: www.cdc.gov/parasites/strongyloides/biology.html. Accessed March 13, 2018.
    9. Ross KE, Bradbury RS, Garrard TA, et al. The National Strongyloides Working Group in Australia 10 workshops on: commendations and recommendations. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017;41:221–223.
    10. Puthiyakunnon S, Boddu S, Li Y, et al. Strongyloidiasis—an insight into its global prevalence and management. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8:e3018.
      11. Schär F, Giardina F, Khieu V, et al. Occurrence of and risk factors for Strongyloides stercoralis infection in South-East Asia. Acta Trop. 2016;159:227–238.
      12. Buonfrate D, Mena MA, Angheben A, et al. Prevalence of strongyloidiasis in Latin America: a systematic review of the literature. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143:452–460.
      13. Schär F, Trostdorf U, Giardina F, et al. Strongyloides stercoralis: global distribution and risk factors. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7:e2288.
      14. Kearns TM, Currie BJ, Cheng AC, et al. Strongyloides seroprevalence before and after an ivermectin mass drug administration in a remote Australian Aboriginal community. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11:e0005607.
      15. Crompton DWT, Engels D, Savioli L, et al. editorsPreparing to control schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis in the twenty-first century [special double issue of journal]. Acta Trop. 2003;86:121–347.
      16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Parasites—Strongyloides. Resources for health professionals. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. Available at: www.cdc.gov/parasites/strongyloides/health_professionals/index.html. Accessed March 13, 2018.
      17. Repetto SA, Ruybal P, Solana ME, et al. Comparison between PCR and larvae visualization methods for diagnosis of Strongyloides stercoralis out of endemic area: a proposed algorithm. Acta Trop. 2016;157:169–177.
      18. Marcos LA, Terashima A, Canales M, et al. Update on strongyloidiasis in the immunocompromised host. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2011;13:35–46.
      19. Santiago M, Leitão B. Prevention of Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome: a rheumatological point of view. Eur J Intern Med. 2009;20:744–748.
      20. Gyorkos TW, Genta RM, Viens P, et al. Seroepidemiology of Strongyloides infection in the Southeast Asian refugee population in Canada. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132:257–264.
      21. Buonfrate D, Formenti F, Perandin F, et al. Novel approaches to the diagnosis of Strongyloides stercoralis infection. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21:543–552.
      22. Knopp S, Mgeni AF, Khamis IS, et al. Diagnosis of soil-transmitted helminths in the era of preventive chemotherapy: effect of multiple stool sampling and use of different diagnostic techniques. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2:e331.
      23. Lodh N, Caro R, Sofer S, et al. Diagnosis of Strongyloides stercoralis: detection of parasite-derived DNA in urine. Acta Trop. 2016;163:9–13.
      24. Tello R, Terashima A, Marcos LA, et al. Highly effective and inexpensive parasitological technique for diagnosis of intestinal parasites in developing countries: spontaneous sedimentation technique in tube. Int J Infect Dis. 2012;16:e414–e416.
      25. Siddiqui AA, Berk SL. Diagnosis of Strongyloides stercoralis infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:1040–1047.
      26. van Doorn HR, Koelewijn R, Hofwegen H, et al. Use of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and dipstick assay for detection of Strongyloides stercoralis infection in humans. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:438–442.
      27. Anamnart W, Pattanawongsa A, Intapan PM, et al. Albendazole stimulates the excretion of Strongyloides stercoralis larvae in stool specimens and enhances sensitivity for diagnosis of strongyloidiasis. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:4216–4220.
      28. World Gastroenterology Organisation. Acute diarrhea in adults and children: a global perspective. Milwaukee, WI: World Gastroenterology Organisation; 2012. Available at: www.worldgastroenterology.org/guidelines/global-guidelines/acute-diarrhea/acute-diarrhea-english. Accessed March 13, 2018.
      29. Varatharajalu R, Kakuturu R. Strongyloides stercoralis: current perspectives. Rep Parasitol. 2016;5:23–33.
      30. Henriquez-Camacho C, Gotuzzo E, Echevarria J, et al. Ivermectin versus albendazole or thiabendazole for Strongyloides stercoralis infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1:CD007745.
      31. Medscape. Ivermectin (Rx). Brand and other names: Stromectol. Dosage forms & strengths. 2018. Available at: https://reference.medscape.com/drug/stromectol-ivermectin-342657. Accessed March 13, 2018.
        32. Horton J. Albendazole: a review of anthelmintic efficacy and safety in humans. Parasitology. 2000;121(suppl):S113–S132.
        33. Venkatesan P. Albendazole. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1998;41:145–147.
        34. Chiodini PL, Reid AJ, Wiselka MJ, et al. Parenteral ivermectin in Strongyloides hyperinfection. Lancet. 2000;355:43–44.
        35. Boulware DR. Strongyloides infection. 2018. Available at: http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/monograph/907/treatment/step-by-step.html.
        36. Albonico M, Becker SL, Odermatt P, et al. StrongNet: an international network to improve diagnostics and access to treatment for strongyloidiasis control. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0004898.
        37. Luvira V, Watthanakulpanich D, Pittisuttithum P. Management of Strongyloides stercoralis: a puzzling parasite. Int Health. 2014;6:273–281.
        38. Maskery B, Coleman MS, Weinberg M, et al. Economic analysis of the impact of overseas and domestic treatment and screening options for intestinal helminth infection among US-bound refugees from Asia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0004910.
        39. Nelson GS. Review of D.I. Grove, A history of human helminthology (1990). J Helminthol. 1991;65:120.
        40. Ross KE, O’Donahoo FJ, Garrard TA, et al. Simple solutions to Strongyloides stercoralis infection. BMJ Clin Res Ed. 2013;347:f6294.
        41. European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP). Reflection paper on anthelmintic resistance. London. UK: European Medicines Agency; 2017. Available at: www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_001563.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058002ddc2. Accessed March 13, 2018.
        42. Wood IB, Amaral NK, Bairden K, et al. World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) second edition of guidelines for evaluating the efficacy of anthelmintics in ruminants (bovine, ovine, caprine). Vet Parasitol. 1995;58:181–213.
        43. Coles GC, Bauer C, Borgsteede FH, et al. World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) methods for the detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Vet Parasitol. 1992;44:35–44.
        44. Forrer A, Khieu V, Schindler C, et al. Ivermectin treatment and sanitation effectively reduce Strongyloides stercoralis infection risk in rural communities in Cambodia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0004909.
        45. Khieu V, Schär F, Forrer A, et al. High prevalence and spatial distribution of Strongyloides stercoralis in rural Cambodia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8:e2854.
        46. Croker C, She R. Increase in reports of Strongyloides infection—Los Angeles County, 2013-2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64:922–923.
        47. Keiser PB, Nutman TB. Strongyloides stercoralis in the immunocompromised population. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004;17:208–217.
        Keywords:

        strongyloidiasis; Strongyloides stercoralis; soil-transmitted helminth and ivermectin

        Supplemental Digital Content

        Copyright © 2020 World Gastroenterology Organisation. All rights reserved.