-
Transactions of the Royal Society of... Apr 2022Malaria is one of the most serious global problems. The objective of this study is to assess whether intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) using artemisinin-based... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of intermittent preventive treatment with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine vs artemisinin-based drugs for malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Malaria is one of the most serious global problems. The objective of this study is to assess whether intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) using artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) was a promising alternative to IPT with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPT-SP).
METHODS
We searched the following sources up to 12 August 2020: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Database from inception. The randomized controlled trials comparing SP with ACTs for malaria were included. Data were pooled using Stata.14 software. We performed subgroup analysis based on the different types of ACTs groups and participants.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies comprising 5180 people were included. The meta-analysis showed that ACTs had the lower risk of number of any parasitemia (RR=0.46; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96, p=0.039; I2=90.50%, p<0.001), early treatment failure (RR=0.17; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.48, p<0.001; I2=66.60%, p=0.011) and late treatment failure (RR=0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92, p<0.001; I2=87.80%, p<0.001) compared with SP. There was no significant difference in adequate clinical response, average hemoglobin and adverse neonatal outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Combinations with ACTs appear promising as suitable alternatives for IPT-SP.
Topics: Antimalarials; Artemisinins; Drug Combinations; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Malaria; Malaria, Falciparum; Pyrimethamine; Sulfadoxine
PubMed: 34651193
DOI: 10.1093/trstmh/trab158 -
Lancet (London, England) Nov 1996Opinion and policy over the use of amodiaquine for treating malaria vary. Amodiaquine is more palatable than chloroquine and may be more effective but serious adverse... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Opinion and policy over the use of amodiaquine for treating malaria vary. Amodiaquine is more palatable than chloroquine and may be more effective but serious adverse events have been reported in travellers taking it as prophylaxis. It is not recommended as first-line treatment. In the light of the global debate over the use of this drug, we conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness and tolerability of amodiaquine in the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria.
METHODS
This is a systematic review of published and unpublished randomised or pseudorandomised trials of amodiaquine. Observational reports were also systematically identified and reviewed to access evidence of serious adverse events.
FINDINGS
40 trials met the inclusion criteria. Symptomatic patients were enrolled in 24 studies in comparisons of amodiaquine (n = 1071) with chloroquine (n = 1097). Amodiaquine was significantly more effective than chloroquine, with odds ratios and 99% confidence intervals (OR [99% CI]) of 4.29 (3.30-5.58) on day 7 and 6.00 (3.97-9.06) on day 14. Time to parasite clearance was significantly shorter with amodiaquine and fever clearance times were marginally faster. Eight studies compared amodiaquine with chloroquine in asymptomatic parasitaemia, with effects on parasitological outcomes similar to those for symptomatic malaria. At twelve sites, 692 amodiaquine and 679 sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (S/P) recipients were enrolled. The two drugs did not differ significantly on day 7 (OR 0.74 [0.48-1.15]) but the odds ratios favoured S/P on day 14 (OR 0.51 [0.28-0.93]) and on day 28 (OR 0.30 [0.16-0.55]). The time to parasitological clearance was similar in the two groups; fever clearance times were significantly shorter with amodiaquine. Tolerability was assessed for both comparative and non-comparative trials. The rates of adverse events in controlled trials were 10.7%, 8.8%, and 14.3% with amodiaquine, chloroquine, and S/P, respectively. No life-threatening adverse events and no significant shifts in laboratory indices were reported.
INTERPRETATION
This systematic review of published and unpublished trials supports the use of amodiaquine in the treatment of uncomplicated malaria. However, there is partial cross-resistance between chloroquine and amodiaquine, and monitoring of the effectiveness of this drug and surveillance for evidence of toxicity must continue.
Topics: Amodiaquine; Antimalarials; Chloroquine; Humans; Malaria, Falciparum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 8898036
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)06217-4 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Nov 2011Malaria is a serious parasitic infection, which affects millions of people worldwide. As pregnancy has been shown to alter the pharmacokinetics of many medications, the... (Review)
Review
Malaria is a serious parasitic infection, which affects millions of people worldwide. As pregnancy has been shown to alter the pharmacokinetics of many medications, the efficacy and safety of antimalarial drug regimens may be compromised in pregnant women. The objective of this review is to systematically review published literature on the pharmacokinetics of antimalarial agents in pregnant women. A search of MEDLINE (1948-May 2011), EMBASE (1980-May 2011), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-May 2011), Google and Google Scholar was conducted for articles describing the pharmacokinetics of antimalarials in pregnancy (and supplemented by a bibliographic review of all relevant articles); all identified studies were summarized and evaluated according to the level of evidence, based on the classification system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Identified articles were included in the review if the study had at least one group that reported at least one pharmacokinetic parameter of interest in pregnant women. Articles were excluded from the review if no pharmacokinetic information was reported or if both pregnant and non-pregnant women were analysed within the same group. For quinine and its metabolites, there were three articles (one level II-1 and two level III); for artemisinin compounds, two articles (both level III); for lumefantrine, two articles (both level III); for atovaquone, two articles (both level III); for proguanil, three articles (one level II-1 and two level III); for sulfadoxine, three articles (all level II-1); for pyrimethamine, three articles (all level II-1); for chloroquine and its metabolite, four articles (three level II-1 and one level II-3); for mefloquine, two articles (one level II-1 and one level III); and for azithromycin, two articles (one level II-1 and one level III). Although comparative trials were identified, most of these studies were descriptive and classified as level III evidence. The main findings showed that pharmacokinetic parameters are commonly altered in pregnancy for the majority of recommended agents. Importantly, first-line regimens of artemisinin-based compounds, lumefantrine, chloroquine and pyrimethamine/sulfadoxine may undergo significant changes that could decrease therapeutic efficacy. These changes are usually due to increases in the apparent oral clearance and volume of distribution that commonly occur in pregnant women, and may result in decreased exposure and increased therapeutic failure. In order to assess the clinical implications of these changes and to provide safe and effective dosage regimens, there is an immediate need for dose-optimization studies of all recommended first- and second-line agents used in pregnant women with malaria.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antimalarials; Artemisinins; Atovaquone; Chloroquine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ethanolamines; Female; Fluorenes; Humans; Lumefantrine; Malaria; Mefloquine; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Parasitic; Proguanil; Pyrimethamine; Quinine; Sulfadoxine
PubMed: 21973268
DOI: 10.2165/11594550-000000000-00000 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2009The World Health Organization recommends uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria is treated using Artemisinin-based Combination Therapy (ACT). This review aims to assist the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization recommends uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria is treated using Artemisinin-based Combination Therapy (ACT). This review aims to assist the decision making of malaria control programmes by providing an overview of the relative benefits and harms of the available options.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of ACTs with other available ACT and non-ACT combinations for treating uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) to March 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized head to head trials of ACTs in uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria.This review is limited to: dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine; artesunate plus mefloquine; artemether-lumefantrine (six doses); artesunate plus amodiaquine; artesunate plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We analysed primary outcomes in line with the WHO 'Protocol for assessing and monitoring antimalarial drug efficacy' and compared drugs using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Secondary outcomes were effects on P. vivax, gametocytes, haemoglobin, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty studies met the inclusion criteria. All five ACTs achieved PCR adjusted failure rates of < 10%, in line with WHO recommendations, at most study sites.Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine performed well compared to the ACTs in current use (PCR adjusted treatment failure versus artesunate plus mefloquine in Asia; RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.79; three trials, 1062 participants; versus artemether-lumefantrine in Africa; RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64; three trials, 1136 participants).ACTs were superior to amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in East Africa (PCR adjusted treatment failure versus artemether-lumefantrine; RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.24; two trials, 618 participants; versus AS+AQ; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; three trials, 1515 participants).Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.43; four trials, 1442 participants) and artesunate plus mefloquine (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.41; four trials, 1003 participants) were more effective than artemether-lumefantrine at reducing the incidence of P.vivax over 42 days follow up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine is another effective first-line treatment for P. falciparum malaria.The performance of the non-ACT (amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine) falls below WHO recommendations for first-line therapy in parts of Africa.In areas where primaquine is not being used for radical cure of P. vivax, ACTs with long half-lives may provide some benefit.
Topics: Antimalarials; Artemisinins; Artesunate; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ethanolamines; Fluorenes; Humans; Lumefantrine; Malaria; Malaria, Falciparum; Malaria, Vivax; Mefloquine; Parasitemia; Pyrimethamine; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfadoxine
PubMed: 19588433
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007483.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000Amodiaquine has been widely used to treat malaria. Due to reports of fatal adverse drug reactions, discontinuation or modification of its use has been suggested. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Amodiaquine has been widely used to treat malaria. Due to reports of fatal adverse drug reactions, discontinuation or modification of its use has been suggested.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of amodiaquine for treating malaria.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group trials register and Medline. We also contacted researchers in the field and drug companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing amodiaquine with other treatment for uncomplicated malarial infections in adults and children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Both reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty trials were included. Allocation was adequately concealed in three trials. Amodiaquine was more effective than chloroquine for parasite clearance. The combined results of parasite clearance at seven days from 24 trials was 83% for amodiaquine and 56% for chloroquine (odds ratio 4.29, 95% confidence interval 3.51 to 5.24). The odds ratio for parasite clearance at 14 days was 6.00, 95% confidence interval 4.38 to 8.21. Amodiaquine and sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine showed similar results for parasite clearance on day seven, but sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine appeared to be more effective on day 14 and 28. No significant difference for adverse events was observed between amodiaquine and chloroquine and sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine. Reported adverse effects were minor or moderate, not life threatening.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence to support the continued use of amodiaquine in the treatment of uncomplicated malaria, although drug resistance should be considered. Monitoring for toxicity should also continue.
Topics: Amodiaquine; Antimalarials; Humans; Malaria
PubMed: 10796468
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000016 -
JAMA Jun 2007In malaria-endemic regions, strategies to control malaria during pregnancy rely on case management of malaria illness and anemia, and preventive measures such as... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
In malaria-endemic regions, strategies to control malaria during pregnancy rely on case management of malaria illness and anemia, and preventive measures such as insecticide-treated nets and intermittent preventive therapy (IPT).
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effect of increasing resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine on the efficacy of IPT during pregnancy in Africa.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
The 6 databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, LILACS, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the trial register and bibliographic database of the Malaria in Pregnancy Library were searched for relevant studies regardless of language, published between 1966 and December 2006. The reference lists of all trials identified were searched and researchers were contacted about relevant data. Nine trials of IPT with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine during pregnancy in Africa were identified and matched by year and location with treatment studies of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine among symptomatic children.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data on the efficacy of IPT with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine on placental and peripheral malaria, birth weight, and hemoglobin level/anemia were independently abstracted by 2 investigators. Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance was defined as the proportion of total treatment failures in symptomatic children by day 14.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Four trials compared 2-dose IPT with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine to case management or placebo in women during their first or second pregnancy. The IPT reduced placental malaria (relative risk [RR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35-0.68), low birth weight (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.92), and anemia (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-0.99). The effect did not vary by sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance levels (range, 19%-26%). Efficacy of IPT with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine was lower among women using insecticide-treated nets. Three trials compared 2-dose with monthly IPT with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine during pregnancy. Among HIV-positive women in their first or second pregnancy, monthly IPT resulted in less placental malaria (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18-0.64) and higher birth weight (mean difference, 112 g; 95% CI, 19-205 g) over the range of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance tested (8%-39%). Among HIV-negative women, there was no conclusive additional effect of monthly dosing (2 trials; 24% and 39% resistance).
CONCLUSIONS
In areas in which 1 of 4 treatments with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine fail in children by day 14, the 2-dose IPT with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine regimen continues to provide substantial benefit to HIV-negative semi-immune pregnant women. However, more frequent dosing is required in HIV-positive women not using cotrimoxazole prophylaxis for opportunistic infections.
Topics: Antimalarials; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance; Female; Humans; Malaria; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Parasitic; Pyrimethamine; Sulfadoxine
PubMed: 17579229
DOI: 10.1001/jama.297.23.2603 -
Parasitology Research Oct 2022A plethora of studies analyse the molecular markers of drug resistance and hence help in guiding the evidence-based malaria treatment policies in India. For reporting... (Review)
Review
A plethora of studies analyse the molecular markers of drug resistance and hence help in guiding the evidence-based malaria treatment policies in India. For reporting mutations, a number of techniques including DNA sequencing, restriction-fragment length polymorphism and mutation-specific polymerase chain reaction have been employed across numerous studies, including variations in the methodology used. However, there is no sufficient data from India comparing these methods as well as report the prevalence of polymorphisms in SP drug resistance molecular markers independently using such methods. Therefore, all data from Indian studies available for molecular marker studies of Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance to sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine was gathered, and a systematic review was performed. This systematic review identifies the molecular methods in use in India and compares each method for detecting sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine drug resistance marker. To delay the spread of drug-resistant parasite strains, a simplified and standardized molecular method is much needed which can be obtained by analysing the performance of each method in use and answering the necessity of newer methodological approaches.
Topics: Antimalarials; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance; Humans; India; Malaria, Falciparum; Plasmodium falciparum; Pyrimethamine; Sulfadoxine
PubMed: 35980472
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-022-07623-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2006A malaria vaccine is needed because of the heavy burden of mortality and morbidity due to this disease. This review describes the results of trials of blood... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A malaria vaccine is needed because of the heavy burden of mortality and morbidity due to this disease. This review describes the results of trials of blood (asexual)-stage vaccines. Several are under development, but only one (MSP/RESA, also known as Combination B) has been tested in randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of blood-stage malaria vaccines in preventing infection, disease, and death.
SEARCH STRATEGY
In March 2006, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Science Citation Index. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of articles, and contacted organizations and researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing blood-stage vaccines (other than SPf66) against P. falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae, or P. ovale with placebo, control vaccine, or routine antimalarial control measures in people of any age receiving a challenge malaria infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Both authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Results for dichotomous data were expressed as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials of MSP/RESA vaccine with 217 participants were included; all five reported on safety, and two on efficacy. No severe or systemic adverse effects were reported at doses of 13 to 15 microg of each antigen (39 to 45 microg total). One small efficacy trial with 17 non-immune participants with blood-stage parasites showed no reduction or delay in parasite growth rates after artificial challenge. In the second efficacy trial in 120 children aged five to nine years in Papua New Guinea, episodes of clinical malaria were not reduced, but MSP/RESA significantly reduced parasite density only in children who had not been pretreated with an antimalarial drug (sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine). Infections with the 3D7 parasite subtype of MSP2 (the variant included in the vaccine) were reduced (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.57; 719 participants) while those with the other main subtype, FC27, were not (720 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The MSP/RESA (Combination B) vaccine shows promise as a way to reduce the severity of malaria episodes, but the effect of the vaccine is MSP2 variant-specific. Pretreatment for malaria during a vaccine trial makes the results difficult to interpret, particularly with the relatively small sample sizes of early trials. The results show that blood-stage vaccines may play a role and merit further development.
Topics: Antigens, Protozoan; Humans; Malaria; Malaria Vaccines; Merozoites; Protozoan Proteins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vaccines, Combined
PubMed: 17054281
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006199 -
Malaria Journal Oct 2015This study aimed to synthesize the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of a single dose artemisinin-naphthoquine (ASNQ) for treatment of uncomplicated malaria... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to synthesize the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of a single dose artemisinin-naphthoquine (ASNQ) for treatment of uncomplicated malaria in endemic countries.
METHODS
A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCT), assessing efficacy and safety of single dose ASNQ was carried out. Comparator drugs included artemether-lumefentrine (AL), chloroquine plus sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (CQSP) and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP). The efficacy and safety profile of non-comparator, single-arm studies on the single dose ASNQ was also assessed. The primary endpoint was efficacy defined as an absence of PCR-confirmed parasitaemia. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the six domains for the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Five RCTs and three single-arm studies were included in this review. As RCT studies did not compare the same anti-malarial drugs, it was difficult to do a pooled analysis. At day 28, a pooled analysis of two RCTs (n = 271) showed a comparable efficacy on PCR-confirmed parasitaemia between ASNQ and AL. Another RCT, which compared ASNQ and CQSP or ASNQ and DHP, also showed comparable efficacy. At day 42, one RCT comparing ASNQ and DHP and another RCT comparing ASNQ and AL reported comparable levels of efficacy. The proportion of parasite clearance was faster in the ASNQ groups than the comparators at day 1, and almost all parasites were cleared by day 3 in the ASNQ groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The present review provides some evidence to support that there is similar efficacy and safety of the single dose ASNQ compared to other anti-malarial drugs in treating uncomplicated malaria. Larger, adequately powered, well-designed studies are recommended to substantiate the efficacy and safety in different populations and in different epidemiological settings. As the potential evolution of drug resistance is a great concern and this cannot be addressed in a short-term study, the use of single dose ASNQ needs further evaluation.
Topics: Antimalarials; Artemisinins; Humans; Malaria; Naphthoquinones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26445424
DOI: 10.1186/s12936-015-0919-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2007Artemether-lumefantrine is being recommended by the World Health Organization for treating uncomplicated malaria. It is expensive. We sought evidence of its superiority... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Artemether-lumefantrine is being recommended by the World Health Organization for treating uncomplicated malaria. It is expensive. We sought evidence of its superiority over existing treatment regimens.
OBJECTIVES
To compare artemether-lumefantrine with other antimalarial drugs for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register (May 2005), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2005), EMBASE (1988 to May 2005), conference proceedings, and reference lists of articles. We contacted experts in malaria research and the pharmaceutical company that manufactures artemether-lumefantrine.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing artemether-lumefantrine administered orally with standard treatment regimens (single drug or combination).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria to potentially relevant trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Parasitaemia on day 28 (day 42 for sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and day 63 for mefloquine) was the primary outcome. Adverse event information was collected from the studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials (1698 participants) tested a four dose regimen. Failure rates for artemether-lumefantrine tended to be higher (comparisons included sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, halofantrine, and mefloquine; difference statistically significant for mefloquine). When compared with chloroquine, artemether-lumefantrine was better in two studies, but the failure rate for chloroquine at these sites was over 50%. Two trials (419 participants) tested a six dose regimen against mefloquine plus artesunate. Artemether-lumefantrine was associated with higher failure rates but the studies were small.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The four dose regimen of artemether-lumefantrine seems to be less effective than most other current antimalarial regimens. The six dose regimen is largely untested. The authors are aware that some recently published trials may change the results of this review, and are preparing an update. These trials are referenced in 'Studies awaiting assessment'.
Topics: Antimalarials; Artemisinins; Drug Combinations; Ethanolamines; Fluorenes; Humans; Malaria, Falciparum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sesquiterpenes
PubMed: 17636715
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003125.pub2