BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS: Weexamined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturer's direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS: For participants with triglycerides <2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P<0.05). Non-HDL-C assays misclassified fewer patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P<0.05). For participants with triglycerides > or =2.26 mmol/L (> or =200 mg/dL) and <4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non-HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS: Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.
Cardiovascular Diseases ; Cholesterol ; Cholesterol, LDL ; Humans ; Indicators and Reagents ; Triglycerides

INTRODUCTION: Oral ivermectin is an approved first-line option to topical permethrin in Europe and Japan for the treatment of classic scabies, while combination oral ivermectin and topical permethrin is used in clinical practice for extensive or recurrent cases. There is unclear evidence on comparative efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin versus topical permethrin or its combination in the treatment of classic scabies.

METHODS: We searched PubMed from January 1, 2016 up to August 7, 2021 for systematic reviews that included RCTs comparing oral ivermectin versus topical permethrin or its combination in the clinical treatment of scabies. We described the characteristics of included studies, assessed reporting quality, and summarized results and conclusion.

RESULTS: We included five systematic reviews. Permethrin did not differ from oral ivermectin in cure rate at the 3 to 6-week time point but had an earlier cure at 1-2 weeks. Adverse effects did not significantly diff er and were few, mild, and transient with both treatments. The evidence ranged widely from low to high certainty and mainly came from three moderate-to-high quality systematic reviews. Combination oral ivermectin and topical permethrin was ranked higher in efficacy but lower in safety compared to either drug alone in one moderate validity network meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION: There is varying certainty of evidence suggesting comparable efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin versus topical permethrin. Limited evidence suggest higher efficacy and lower safety of combination oral ivermectin and topical permethrin compared to either drug alone. An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis is warranted.

KEYWORDS: scabies, ivermectin, permethrin, effectiveness, efficacy, safety