Full text

 

 

J. Venom. Anim. Toxins incl. Trop. Dis.

V.19, p.112-117, 2013.

Original paper - ISSN 1678-9199.

 

Use of antivenoms for the treatment of envenomation by Elapidae snakes in Guinea, Sub-Saharan Africa

 
Mamadou C Baldé 1, Jean-Philippe Chippaux 4, Mamadou Y Boiro 1, Roberto P Stock 4, Achille Massougbodji 3

1Institut Pasteur de Guinée, Kindia, Guinée

2Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Cotonou, Bénin

3Centre d’Etude et de Recherche sur le Paludisme Associé à la Grossesse et à l’Enfance, Cotonou, Bénin

4Instituto de Biotecnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cuernavaca, México

ABSTRACT

 

Background

In Guinea Elapids are responsible for 20% of envenomations. The associated case fatality rate (CFR) ranged 15-27%, irrespective of treatment.

 

Results

We studied 77 neurotoxic envenomations divided in 3 groups: a set of patients that received only traditional or symptomatic treatments, and two other groups that received either 2 or 4 initial vials of Antivipmyn® Africa renewed as necessary. CFR was 27.3%, 15.4% and 17.6%, respectively. Although antivenom treatment was likely to reduce CFR, it didn’t seem to have an obvious clinical benefit for the patients, suggesting a low treatment efficacy. Mean delay to treatment or clinical stages were not significantly different between the patients who recovered and the patients who died, or between groups. Interpretation of these results is complicated by the lack of systematic studies under comparable conditions. Of particular importance is the absence of assisted ventilation, available to patients in all the other clinical studies of neurotoxic envenomation.

 

Conclusion

The apparent lack of clinical benefit may have several causes. The hypothesis of a limited therapeutic window, i.e. an insufficient formation of antigen-antibody complexes once toxins are bound to their targets and/or distributed beyond the reach of antivenom, should be explored.

 

Key words: Elapid; Neurotoxins; Treatment; Antivenom; Guinea; Africa

 

Received: October 1, 2012; Accepted: November 30, 2012

 
 

Competing interest The author declares no conflicts of interest.

 
 

Authors’ contributions JPC, RPS and AM designed the study. MCB, JPC and AM wrote the protocol. MCB and MYB performed the field study. MCB, JPC analysed the results. JPC wrote the draft. All authors corrected and validated the paper. MCB and JPC are garantors of the paper.

 

 

Correspondence: jean-philippe.chippaux@ird.fr