-
Parasitology Research Feb 2017Plasmodium falciparum is responsible for the vast majority of the morbidity and mortality associated with malaria infection globally. Although a number of studies have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Plasmodium falciparum is responsible for the vast majority of the morbidity and mortality associated with malaria infection globally. Although a number of studies have reported the emergence of drug resistance in different therapies for P. falciparum infection, the degree of the drug resistance in different antimalarials is still unclear. This research investigated the risk of drug resistance in the therapies with different medications based on meta-analyses. Relevant original randomized control trials (RCTs) were searched in all available electronic databases. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to evaluate the risk of drug resistance resulting from different treatments. Seventy-eight studies were included in the meta-analysis to compare drug resistance in the treatment of P. falciparum infections and yielded the following results: chloroquine (CQ) > sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) (RR = 3.67, p < 0.001 ), mefloquine (MQ) < SP (RR = 0.26, p < 0.001), artesunate + sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (AS + SP) > artemether + lumefantrine (AL) (RR = 2.94, p < 0.001), dihydroartemisinin + piperaquine (DHA + PQ) < AL (RR = 0.7, p < 0.05), and non-artemisinin-based combination therapies (NACTs) > artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) (RR = 1.93, p < 0.001); no significant difference was found in amodiaquine (AQ) vs. SP, AS + AQ vs. AS + SP, AS + AQ vs. AL, or AS + MQ vs. AL. These results presented a global view for the current status of antimalarial drug resistance and provided a guidance for choice of antimalarials for efficient treatment and prolonging the life span of the current effective antimalarial drugs.
Topics: Amodiaquine; Antimalarials; Artemisinins; Chloroquine; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Malaria, Falciparum; Mefloquine; Plasmodium falciparum; Pyrimethamine; Quinolines; Risk; Sulfadoxine
PubMed: 28028628
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-016-5353-2 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021The WHO recommends Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACTs) as the first-line treatment for malaria. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the effects of artemisinin... (Review)
Review
The Effect of Artemisinin-Based Drugs vs Non-artemisinin-based Drugs on Gametophyte Carrying in the Body After the Treatment of Uncomplicated Falciparum Malaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
The WHO recommends Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACTs) as the first-line treatment for malaria. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the effects of artemisinin and its derivatives as well as non-artemisinin drugs on the gametophytes in the host during the treatment of falciparum malaria. Fourteen studies were included in this analysis, and the artemisinin combination drugs involved were: artemether-lumefantrine (AL), artemisinin (AST), artemether-benflumetol (AB), dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine + trimethoprim + primaquine (CV8), amodiaquine + sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (ASP), pyronaridine-phosphate + dihydroartemisinin (PP-DHA), dihydroartemisinin (DHA), and mefloquine + artesunate (MA), with 1702 patients. The control intervention measures involved the following: sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP), mefloquine (MQ), atovaquone-proguanil (AT-PG), chloroquine + sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (C-SP), quinine (Q), pyronaridine-phosphate (PP), pyronaridine (PN), and mefloquine + primaquine (MP), with 833 patients. The effect of ACTs was more obvious (OR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.22-0.62, < 0.05). In the control group of second malaria attacks, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (RD = 1.16, 95%CI: 0.81-1.66, < 0.05); there was no significant difference in treatment failure during follow-up (RD = -0.01, 95%CI: 0.04-0.03, < 0.05). There were also very few serious adverse events in both groups. ACTs showed good therapeutic effects in preventing gametocythemia but did not control the recrudescence rate and overall cure, which indicated the effectiveness of the combination of antimalarial drugs. Further research is required to explore which compatibility method is most conducive to the development of clinical malaria control.
PubMed: 35069184
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.707498 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Dec 2018About 80% of all reported sickle cell disease (SCD) cases in children anually are recorded in Africa. Although malaria is considered a major cause of death in SCD... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
About 80% of all reported sickle cell disease (SCD) cases in children anually are recorded in Africa. Although malaria is considered a major cause of death in SCD children, there is limited data on the safety and effectiveness of the available antimalarial drugs used for prophylaxis. Also, previous systematic reviews have not provided quantitative measures of preventive effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to determine the safety and effectiveness of antimalarial chemoprophylaxis used in SCD patients.
METHODS
We searched in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, POPLine and Cochrane library, for the period spanning January 1990 to April 2018. We considered randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing any antimalarial chemoprophylaxis to, 1) other antimalarial chemoprophylaxis, 2) placebo or 3) no intervention, in SCD patients. Studies comparing at least two treatment arms, for a minimum duration of three months, with no restriction on the number of patients per arm were reviewed. The data were extracted and expressed as odds ratios. Direct pairwise comparisons were performed using fixed effect models and the heterogeneity assessed using the I-square.
RESULTS
Six qualified studies that highlighted the importance of antimalarial chemoprophylaxis in SCD children were identified. In total, seven different interventions (Chloroquine, Mefloquine, Mefloquine artesunate, Proguanil, Pyrimethamine, Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine amodiaquine) were evaluated in 912 children with SCD. Overall, the meta-analysis showed that antimalarial chemoprophylaxis provided protection against parasitemia and clinical malaria episodes in children with SCD. Nevertheless, the risk of hospitalization (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.267-1.959; I = 0.0%), blood transfusion (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.542-1.280; I = 29.733%), vaso-occlusive crisis (OR = 19, 95% CI = 1.713-2.792; I = 93.637%), and mortality (OR = 0.511, 95% CI = 0.189-1.384; I = 0.0%) did not differ between the intervention and placebo groups.
CONCLUSION
The data shows that antimalarial prophylaxis reduces the incidence of clinical malaria in children with SCD. However, there was no difference between the occurrence of adverse events in children who received placebo and those who received prophylaxis. This creates an urgent need to assess the efficacy of new antimalarial drug regimens as potential prophylactic agents in SCD patients.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42016052514).
Topics: Africa; Anemia, Sickle Cell; Antimalarials; Chemoprevention; Child; Humans; Malaria; Network Meta-Analysis; Parasitemia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30541465
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-018-3556-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Intermittent preventive treatment could help prevent malaria in infants (IPTi) living in areas of moderate to high malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. The World... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intermittent preventive treatment could help prevent malaria in infants (IPTi) living in areas of moderate to high malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) policy recommended IPTi in 2010, but its adoption in countries has been limited.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) with antimalarial drugs to prevent malaria in infants living in malaria-endemic areas.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following sources up to 3 December 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), LILACS (Bireme), and reference lists of articles. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal for ongoing trials up to 3 December 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IPT to placebo or no intervention in infants (defined as young children aged between 1 to 12 months) in malaria-endemic areas.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcome was clinical malaria (fever plus asexual parasitaemia). Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted data. We summarized dichotomous outcomes and count data using risk ratios (RR) and rate ratios respectively, and presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted protective efficacy values and their 95% CIs; when an included trial did not report this data, we calculated these values from the RR or rate ratio with its 95% CI. Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 trials that enrolled 19,098 infants; all were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Three trials were cluster-RCTs. IPTi with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) was evaluated in 10 trials from 1999 to 2013 (n = 15,256). Trials evaluating ACTs included dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (1 trial, 147 participants; year 2013), amodiaquine-artesunate (1 study, 684 participants; year 2008), and SP-artesunate (1 trial, 676 participants; year 2008). The earlier studies evaluated IPTi with SP, and were conducted in Tanzania (in 1999 and 2006), Mozambique (2004), Ghana (2004 to 2005), Gabon (2005), Kenya (2008), and Mali (2009). One trial evaluated IPTi with amodiaquine in Tanzania (2000). Later studies included three conducted in Kenya (2008), Tanzania (2008), and Uganda (2013), evaluating IPTi in multiple trial arms that included artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT). Although the effect size varied over time and between drugs, overall IPTi impacts on the incidence of clinical malaria overall, with a 27% reduction (rate ratio 0.73, 0.65 to 0.82; 10 studies, 10,602 participants). The effect of SP appeared to attenuate over time, with trials conducted after 2009 showing little or no effect of the intervention. IPTi with SP probably resulted in fewer episodes of clinical malaria (rate ratio 0.79, 0.74 to 0.85; 8 trials, 8774 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), anaemia (rate ratio 0.82, 0.68 to 0.98; 6 trials, 7438 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), parasitaemia (rate ratio 0.66, 0.56 to 0.79; 1 trial, 1200 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital admissions (rate ratio 0.85, 0.78 to 0.93; 7 trials, 7486 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). IPTi with SP probably made little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.93, 0.74 to 1.15; 9 trials, 14,588 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Since 2009, IPTi trials have evaluated ACTs and indicate impact on clinical malaria and parasitaemia. A small trial of DHAP in 2013 shows substantive effects on clinical malaria (RR 0.42, 0.33 to 0.54; 1 trial, 147 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and parasitaemia (moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In areas of sub-Saharan Africa, giving antimalarial drugs known to be effective against the malaria parasite at the time to infants as IPT probably reduces the risk of clinical malaria, anaemia, and hospital admission. Evidence from SP studies over a 19-year period shows declining efficacy, which may be due to increasing drug resistance. Combinations with ACTs appear promising as suitable alternatives for IPTi. 2 December 2019 Up to date All studies incorporated from most recent search All eligible published studies found in the last search (3 Dec, 2018) were included.
Topics: Africa South of the Sahara; Antimalarials; Disease Eradication; Drug Combinations; Endemic Diseases; Humans; Infant; Malaria; Parasitemia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31792925
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011525.pub2 -
Tropical Medicine and Health Nov 2023The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), one of the most malaria-affected countries worldwide, is a potential hub for global drug-resistant malaria. This study aimed at... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), one of the most malaria-affected countries worldwide, is a potential hub for global drug-resistant malaria. This study aimed at summarizing and mapping surveys of malaria parasites carrying molecular markers of drug-resistance across the country.
METHODS
A systematic mapping review was carried out before July 2023 by searching for relevant articles through seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, African Journal Online, African Index Medicus, Bioline and Web of Science).
RESULTS
We identified 1541 primary studies of which 29 fulfilled inclusion criteria and provided information related to 6385 Plasmodium falciparum clinical isolates (collected from 2000 to 2020). We noted the PfCRT K76T mutation encoding for chloroquine-resistance in median 32.1% [interquartile interval, IQR: 45.2] of analyzed malaria parasites. The proportion of parasites carrying this mutation decreased overtime, but wide geographic variations persisted. A single isolate had encoded the PfK13 R561H substitution that is invoked in artemisinin-resistance emergence in the Great Lakes region of Africa. Parasites carrying various mutations linked to resistance to the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine combination were widespread and reflected a moderate resistance profile (PfDHPS A437G: 99.5% [IQR: 3.9]; PfDHPS K540E: 38.9% [IQR: 47.7]) with median 13.1% [IQR: 10.3] of them being quintuple IRN-GE mutants (i.e., parasites carrying the PfDHFR N51I-C59R-S108N and PfDHPS A437G-K540E mutations). These quintuple mutants tended to prevail in eastern regions of the country. Among circulating parasites, we did not record any parasites harboring mutations related to mefloquine-resistance, but we could suspect those with decreased susceptibility to quinine, amodiaquine, and lumefantrine based on corresponding molecular surrogates.
CONCLUSIONS
Drug resistance poses a serious threat to existing malaria therapies and chemoprevention options in the DRC. This review provides a baseline for monitoring public health efforts as well as evidence for decision-making in support of national malaria policies and for implementing regionally tailored control measures across the country.
PubMed: 37968745
DOI: 10.1186/s41182-023-00551-7 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Feb 2024Primaquine is used to eliminate Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites, but its optimal dosing regimen remains unclear. We undertook a systematic review and individual patient... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Primaquine is used to eliminate Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites, but its optimal dosing regimen remains unclear. We undertook a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of different primaquine dosing regimens to prevent P vivax recurrence.
METHODS
For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central for prospective clinical studies of uncomplicated P vivax from endemic countries published between Jan 1, 2000, and June 8, 2023. We included studies if they had active follow-up of at least 28 days, and if they included a treatment group with daily primaquine given over multiple days, where primaquine was commenced within 7 days of schizontocidal treatment and was given alone or coadministered with chloroquine or one of four artemisinin-based combination therapies (ie, artemether-lumefantrine, artesunate-mefloquine, artesunate-amodiaquine, or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine). We excluded studies if they were on prevention, prophylaxis, or patients with severe malaria, or if data were extracted retrospectively from medical records outside of a planned trial. For the meta-analysis, we contacted the investigators of eligible trials to request individual patient data and we then pooled data that were made available by Aug 23, 2021. We assessed the effects of total dose and duration of primaquine regimens on the rate of first P vivax recurrence between day 7 and day 180 by Cox's proportional hazards regression (efficacy analysis). The effect of primaquine daily dose on gastrointestinal symptoms on days 5-7 was assessed by modified Poisson regression (tolerability analysis). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019154470.
FINDINGS
Of 226 identified studies, 23 studies with patient-level data from 6879 patients from 16 countries were included in the efficacy analysis. At day 180, the risk of recurrence was 51·0% (95% CI 48·2-53·9) in 1470 patients treated without primaquine, 19·3% (16·9-21·9) in 2569 patients treated with a low total dose of primaquine (approximately 3·5 mg/kg), and 8·1% (7·0-9·4) in 2811 patients treated with a high total dose of primaquine (approximately 7 mg/kg), regardless of primaquine treatment duration. Compared with treatment without primaquine, the rate of P vivax recurrence was lower after treatment with low-dose primaquine (adjusted hazard ratio 0·21, 95% CI 0·17-0·27; p<0·0001) and high-dose primaquine (0·10, 0·08-0·12; p<0·0001). High-dose primaquine had greater efficacy than low-dose primaquine in regions with high and low relapse periodicity (ie, the time from initial infection to vivax relapse). 16 studies with patient-level data from 5609 patients from ten countries were included in the tolerability analysis. Gastrointestinal symptoms on days 5-7 were reported by 4·0% (95% CI 0·0-8·7) of 893 patients treated without primaquine, 6·2% (0·5-12·0) of 737 patients treated with a low daily dose of primaquine (approximately 0·25 mg/kg per day), 5·9% (1·8-10·1) of 1123 patients treated with an intermediate daily dose (approximately 0·5 mg/kg per day) and 10·9% (5·7-16·1) of 1178 patients treated with a high daily dose (approximately 1 mg/kg per day). 20 of 23 studies included in the efficacy analysis and 15 of 16 in the tolerability analysis had a low or unclear risk of bias.
INTERPRETATION
Increasing the total dose of primaquine from 3·5 mg/kg to 7 mg/kg can reduce P vivax recurrences by more than 50% in most endemic regions, with a small associated increase in gastrointestinal symptoms.
FUNDING
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Medicines for Malaria Venture.
Topics: Humans; Antimalarials; Artemether; Artemether, Lumefantrine Drug Combination; Artesunate; Malaria; Malaria, Vivax; Plasmodium vivax; Primaquine; Prospective Studies; Recurrence; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37748496
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00430-9 -
BMC Infectious Diseases May 2019Management of Ebola virus disease (EVD) has historically focused on infection prevention, case detection and supportive care. Several specific anti-Ebola therapies have...
BACKGROUND
Management of Ebola virus disease (EVD) has historically focused on infection prevention, case detection and supportive care. Several specific anti-Ebola therapies have been investigated, including during the 2014-2016 West African outbreak. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the effect of anti-Ebola virus therapies on clinical outcomes to guide their potential use and future evaluation.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health, Cochrane Library, African Index Medicus, WHOLIS (inception-9 April 2018), and trial registries for observational studies or clinical trials, in any language, that enrolled patients with confirmed EVD who received therapy targeting Ebola virus and reported on mortality, symptom duration, or adverse effects.
RESULTS
From 11,257 citations and registered trials, we reviewed 55 full-text citations, of which 35 met eligibility criteria (1 randomized clinical trial (RCT), 8 non-randomized comparative studies, 9 case series and 17 case reports) and collectively examined 21 anti-Ebola virus agents. The 31 studies performed during the West African outbreak reported on 4.8% (1377/28616) of all patients with Ebola. The only RCT enrolled 72 patients (0.25% of all patients with Ebola) and compared the monoclonal antibody ZMapp vs. standard care (mortality, 22% vs. 37%; 95% confidence interval for risk difference, - 36 to 7%). Studies of convalescent plasma, interferon-β-1a, favipiravir, brincidofovir, artesunate-amodiaquine and TKM-130803 were associated with at least moderate risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Research evaluating anti-Ebola virus agents has reached very few patients with EVD, and inferences are limited by non-randomized study designs. ZMapp has the most promising treatment signal.
Topics: Amides; Amodiaquine; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antiviral Agents; Artemisinins; Databases, Factual; Drug Combinations; Ebolavirus; Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola; Humans; Pyrazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31046707
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-3980-9 -
PloS One 2019The WHO recommends artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria. Hence, monitoring the efficacy of antimalarial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The WHO recommends artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria. Hence, monitoring the efficacy of antimalarial drugs is a key component of malaria control and elimination. The published randomized trials that assessed comparisons of ACTs for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria reported conflicting results in treatment efficacy. A network meta-analysis is an extension of pairwise meta-analysis that can synthesize evidence simultaneously from both direct and indirect treatment comparisons. The objective was to synthesize evidence on the comparative efficacy of antimalarial drugs for treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Asian region.
METHODS
Relevant randomized trials that assessed efficacy of antimalarial drugs for patients having uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Asian region were searched in health-related databases. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Main outcome was treatment success at day 28 as determined by the absence of parasiteamia. We performed network meta-analysis of the interventions in the trials, and assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Seventeen randomized trials (n = 5043) were included in this network meta-analysis study. A network geometry was formed with 14 antimalarial treatment options such as artemether-lumefantrine (AL), artemisinin-piperaquine, artesunate-amodiaquine, artesunate-mefloquine (ASMQ), artesunate-chloroquine, artesunate-mefloquine home treatment, artesunate-mefloquine 2-day course, artesunate plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, chloroquine, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP), dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine home treatment, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine 4-day course, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and added artesunate, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. A maximum number of trials included was DHP compared to ASMQ (n = 5). In general, DHP had better efficacy than AL at day 28 (DHP vs AL: OR 2.5, 95%CI:1.08-5.8). There is low certainty evidence due to limited number of studies and small trials.
DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest the superiority of DHP (3-day course) to AL and other comparator ACTs are with the overall low/very low quality of evidence judgements. Moreover, one drug regimen is better than another is only if current drug-resistance patterns are at play. For example, the AL might be better than DHP in areas where both artemisinin and piperaquine resistance patterns are prevalent. For substantiation, well-designed larger trials from endemic countries are needed. In the light of benefit versus harm concept, future analysis with safety information is recommended.
Topics: Antimalarials; Asia; Databases, Factual; Drug Resistance; Humans; Malaria, Falciparum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31856172
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225882