-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2010Malaria transmission occurs most frequently in environments with humidity greater than 60% and ambient temperature of 25 °C to 30 °C. Risks increase with longer... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Malaria transmission occurs most frequently in environments with humidity greater than 60% and ambient temperature of 25 °C to 30 °C. Risks increase with longer visits and depend on activity. Infection can follow a single mosquito bite. Incubation is usually 10 to 14 days but can be up to 18 months depending on the strain of parasite.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug preventive interventions in non-pregnant adult travellers? What are the effects of drug prophylaxis in non-pregnant adult travellers? What are the effects of antimalaria vaccines in adult and child travellers? What are the effects of antimalaria interventions in child travellers, pregnant travellers, and in airline pilots? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to November 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 79 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: aerosol insecticides, amodiaquine, air conditioning and electric fans, atovaquone-proguanil, biological control measures, chloroquine (alone or with proguanil), diethyltoluamide (DEET), dietary supplementation, doxycycline, electronic mosquito repellents, full-length and light-coloured clothing, insecticide-treated clothing/nets, mefloquine, mosquito coils and vapourising mats, primaquine, pyrimethamine-dapsone, pyrimethamine-sulfadoxine, smoke, topical (skin-applied) insect repellents, and vaccines.
Topics: Antimalarials; Bedding and Linens; Chloroquine; Humans; Malaria; Mefloquine; Primaquine; Travel
PubMed: 21418669
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2007Malaria transmission occurs most frequently in environments with humidity over 60% and ambient temperature of 25-30 degrees C. Risks increase with longer visits and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Malaria transmission occurs most frequently in environments with humidity over 60% and ambient temperature of 25-30 degrees C. Risks increase with longer visits and depend on activity. Infection can follow a single mosquito bite. Incubation is usually 10-14 days but can be up to 18 months depending on the strain of parasite.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug preventive interventions in adult travellers? What are the effects of drug prophylaxis in adult travellers? What are the effects of antimalaria vaccines in travellers? What are the effects of antimalaria interventions in child travellers, pregnant travellers, and in airline pilots? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to February 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 69 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acoustic buzzers, aerosol insecticides, amodiaquine, air conditioning and electric fans, atovaquone-proguanil, biological control measures, chloroquine (alone or with proguanil), diethyltoluamide (DEET), doxycycline, full-length and light-coloured clothing, insecticide-treated clothing/nets, mefloquine, mosquito coils and vaporising mats, primaquine, pyrimethamine-dapsone, pyrimethamine-sulfadoxine, smoke, topical (skin-applied) insect repellents, and vaccines.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Animals; Antimalarials; Bedding and Linens; Chloroquine; Humans; Insect Repellents; Insecticides; Malaria; Travel
PubMed: 19450348
DOI: No ID Found -
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 2018We evaluated existing data on the prophylactic efficacy of atovaquone-proguanil (AP) in order to determine whether prophylaxis in travellers can be discontinued on the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
We evaluated existing data on the prophylactic efficacy of atovaquone-proguanil (AP) in order to determine whether prophylaxis in travellers can be discontinued on the day of return from a malaria-endemic area instead of seven days after return as per currently recommended post-travel schedule.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify relevant studies. This PROSPERO-registered systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy included terms or synonyms relevant to AP combined with terms to identify articles relating to prophylactic use of AP and inhibitory and half-life properties of AP. Studies considered for inclusion were: randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, quasi-experimental studies, open-label trials, patient-control studies, cross-sectional studies; as well as case-series and non-clinical studies. Data on study design, characteristics of participants, interventions, and outcomes were extracted. Primary outcomes considered relevant were prophylactic efficacy and prolonged inhibitory activity and half-life properties of AP.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 1,482 publications, of which 40 were selected based on screening. Following full text review, 32 studies were included and categorized into two groups, namely studies in support of the current post-travel regimen (with a total of 2,866 subjects) and studies in support of an alternative regimen (with a total of 533 subjects).
CONCLUSION
There is limited direct and indirect evidence to suggest that an abbreviated post-travel regimen for AP may be effective. Proguanil, however, has a short half-life and is essential for the synergistic effect of the combination. Stopping AP early may result in mono-prophylaxis with atovaquone and possibly select for atovaquone-resistant parasites. Furthermore, the quality of the studies in support of the current post-travel regimen outweighs the quality of the studies in support of an alternative short, post-travel regimen, and the total sample size of the studies to support stopping AP early comprises a small percentage of the total sample size of the studies performed to establish the efficacy of the current AP regimen. Additional research is required - especially from studies evaluating impact on malaria parasitaemia and clinical illness and conducted among travellers in high malaria risk settings - before an abbreviated regimen can be recommended in current practice.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42017055244.
Topics: Antimalarials; Atovaquone; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Combinations; Drug Synergism; Endemic Diseases; Humans; Malaria; Post-Exposure Prophylaxis; Proguanil; Travel; Travel-Related Illness
PubMed: 29242073
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2017.12.005 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2010Opportunistic infections can occur in up to 40% of people with HIV infection and a CD4 count less than 250/mm(3), although the risks are much lower with use of highly... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Opportunistic infections can occur in up to 40% of people with HIV infection and a CD4 count less than 250/mm(3), although the risks are much lower with use of highly active antiretroviral treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of prophylaxis for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) and toxoplasmosis? What are the effects of antituberculosis prophylaxis in people with HIV infection? What are the effects of prophylaxis for disseminated Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) disease for people with, and without, previous MAC disease? What are the effects of prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus (CMV), herpes simplex virus (HSV), and varicella zoster virus (VZV)? What are the effects of prophylaxis for invasive fungal disease in people with, and without, previous fungal disease? What are the effects of discontinuing prophylaxis against opportunistic pathogens in people on highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART)? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 43 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: aciclovir; antituberculosis prophylaxis; atovaquone; azithromycin (alone or plus rifabutin); clarithromycin (alone, or plus rifabutin and ethambutol); discontinuing prophylaxis for CMV, MAC, and PCP; ethambutol added to clarithromycin; famciclovir; fluconazole; isoniazid; itraconazole; oral ganciclovir; rifabutin (alone or plus macrolides); trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; and valaciclovir.
Topics: AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections; Fluconazole; HIV Infections; Humans; Isoniazid; Opportunistic Infections; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 21418688
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Mar 2018Atovaquone/proguanil, registered as Malarone®, is a fixed-dose combination recommended for first-line treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atovaquone/proguanil, registered as Malarone®, is a fixed-dose combination recommended for first-line treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in non-endemic countries and its prevention in travellers. Mutations in the cytochrome bc1 complex are causally associated with atovaquone resistance.
METHODS
This systematic review assesses the clinical efficacy of atovaquone/proguanil treatment of uncomplicated malaria and examines the extent to which codon 268 mutation in cytochrome b influences treatment failure and recrudescence based on published information.
RESULTS
Data suggest that atovaquone/proguanil treatment efficacy is 89%-98% for P. falciparum malaria (from 27 studies including between 18 and 253 patients in each case) and 20%-26% for Plasmodium vivax malaria (from 1 study including 25 patients). The in vitro P. falciparum phenotype of atovaquone resistance is an IC50 value >28 nM. Case report analyses predict that recrudescence in a patient presenting with parasites carrying cytochrome b codon 268 mutation will occur on average at day 29 (95% CI: 22, 35), 19 (95% CI: 7, 30) days longer than if the mutation is absent.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests atovaquone/proguanil treatment for P. falciparum malaria is effective. Late treatment failure is likely to be associated with a codon 268 mutation in cytochrome b, though recent evidence from animal models suggests these mutations may not spread within the population. However, early treatment failure is likely to arise through alternative mechanisms, requiring further investigation.
Topics: Atovaquone; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance, Multiple; Drug Therapy, Combination; Electron Transport Complex III; Humans; Malaria, Falciparum; Malaria, Vivax; Mutation; Plasmodium falciparum; Proguanil; Travel; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 29237012
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkx431 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2015 stated atovaquone-proguanil can be used in travellers, and is an option in malaria-endemic areas in combination with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2015 stated atovaquone-proguanil can be used in travellers, and is an option in malaria-endemic areas in combination with artesunate, as an alternative treatment where first-line artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is not available or effective. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review undertaken in 2005.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of atovaquone-proguanil (alone and in combination with artemisinin drugs) versus other antimalarial drugs for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
The date of the last trial search was 30 January 2020. Search locations for published trials included the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. To include recently published and unpublished trials, we also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting efficacy and safety data for atovaquone-proguanil or atovaquone-proguanil with a partner drug compared with at least one other antimalarial drug for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For this update, two review authors re-extracted data and assessed certainty of evidence. We meta-analyzed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons. Outcome measures include unadjusted treatment failures and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-adjusted treatment failures. PCR adjustment differentiates new infection from recrudescent infection.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventeen RCTs met our inclusion criteria providing 4763 adults and children from Africa, South-America, and South-East Asia. Eight trials reported PCR-adjusted data to distinguish between new and recrudescent infection during the follow-up period. In this abstract, we report only the comparisons against the three WHO-recommended antimalarials which were included within these trials. There were two comparisons with artemether-lumefantrine, one trial from 2008 in Ethiopia with 60 participants had two failures with atovaquone-proguanil compared to none with artemether-lumefantrine (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 28). A second trial from 2012 in Colombia with 208 participants had one failure in each arm (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 42). There was only one comparison with artesunate-amodiaquine from a 2014 trial conducted in Cameroon. There were six failures with atovaquone-proguanil at day 28 and two with artesunate-amodiaquine (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 28: 9.4% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 2.9% with artesunate-amodiaquine; RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.67 to 15.22; 1 RCT, 132 participants; low-certainty evidence), although there was a similar number of PCR-unadjusted treatment failures (9 (14.1%) with atovaquone-proguanil and 8 (11.8%) with artesunate-amodiaquine; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.91; 1 RCT, 132 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were two comparisons with artesunate-mefloquine from a 2012 trial in Colombia and a 2002 trial in Thailand where there are high levels of multi-resistant malaria. There were similar numbers of PCR-adjusted treatment failures between groups at day 42 (2.7% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 2.4% with artesunate-mefloquine; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.34; 2 RCTs, 1168 participants; high-certainty evidence). There were also similar PCR-unadjusted treatment failures between groups (5.3% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 6.6% with artesunate-mefloquine; RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.3; 1 RCT, 1063 participants; low-certainty evidence). When atovaquone-proguanil was combined with artesunate, there were fewer treatment failures with and without PCR-adjustment at day 28 (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 28: 2.16% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to no failures with artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil; RR 5.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 43.52; 2 RCTs, 375 participants, low-certainty evidence) and day 42 (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 42: 3.82% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 2.05% with artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil (RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.95 to 3.56; 2 RCTs, 1258 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). In the 2002 trial in Thailand, there were fewer treatment failures in the artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil group compared to the atovaquone-proguanil group at day 42 with PCR-adjustment. Whilst there were some small differences in which adverse events were more frequent in the atovaquone-proguanil groups compared to comparator drugs, there were no recurrent associations to suggest that atovaquone-proguanil is strongly associated with any specific adverse event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Atovaquone-proguanil was effective against uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, although in some instances treatment failure rates were between 5% and 10%. The addition of artesunate to atovaquone-proguanil may reduce treatment failure rates. Artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil and the development of parasite resistance may represent an area for further research.
Topics: Adult; Amodiaquine; Antimalarials; Artemether, Lumefantrine Drug Combination; Artemisinins; Atovaquone; Cameroon; Child; Colombia; Drug Combinations; Ethiopia; Humans; Malaria, Falciparum; Mefloquine; Proguanil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thailand; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 33459345
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004529.pub3 -
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 2019Malaria infection poses a significant risk in pregnancy, yet chemoprophylaxis for pregnant women is limited. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the incidence...
BACKGROUND
Malaria infection poses a significant risk in pregnancy, yet chemoprophylaxis for pregnant women is limited. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the incidence of adverse outcomes after atovaquone-proguanil (AP) exposure during pregnancy.
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, the authors searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium Library to identify relevant literature including infant outcomes after exposure to atovaquone, proguanil, or AP in pregnancy. Two authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts, and extracted data into an EpiInfo database. Overall proportions and 95% confidence intervals of adverse outcomes were determined by pooling data across studies.
RESULTS
Of 455 records identified, 16 studies were included: ten AP studies and six proguanil studies. The overall proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of adverse outcomes reported for the 446 women exposed to AP include miscarriage (8.08% CI: 5.07, 12.08%), stillbirth (1.05% CI: 0.03, 5.73%), early neonatal death (0% CI: 0, 7.4%), and congenital anomalies (2.56% CI: 1.28, 4.53%).
CONCLUSIONS
The limited available data suggest that outcomes following AP exposure during pregnancy are similar to expected rates in similar populations. AP may be a promising option for pregnant women, but further data are needed on its safety in pregnancy.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Antimalarials; Atovaquone; Drug Combinations; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Malaria; Malaria, Falciparum; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Parasitic; Proguanil; Stillbirth; Travel
PubMed: 30654041
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2019.01.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017Mefloquine is one of four antimalarial agents commonly recommended for preventing malaria in travellers to malaria-endemic areas. Despite its high efficacy, there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Mefloquine is one of four antimalarial agents commonly recommended for preventing malaria in travellers to malaria-endemic areas. Despite its high efficacy, there is controversy about its psychological side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the efficacy and safety of mefloquine used as prophylaxis for malaria in travellers.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published on the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase (OVID); TOXLINE (https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/toxline.htm); and LILACS. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home) for trials in progress, using 'mefloquine', 'Lariam', and 'malaria' as search terms. The search date was 22 June 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (for efficacy and safety) and non-randomized cohort studies (for safety). We compared prophylactic mefloquine with placebo, no treatment, or an alternative recommended antimalarial agent. Our study populations included all adults and children, including pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of trials, extracted and analysed data. We compared dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prespecified adverse outcomes are included in 'Summary of findings' tables, with the best available estimate of the absolute frequency of each outcome in short-term international travellers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 RCTs (11,470 participants); 35 cohort studies (198,493 participants); and four large retrospective analyses of health records (800,652 participants). Nine RCTs explicitly excluded participants with a psychiatric history, and 25 cohort studies stated that the choice of antimalarial agent was based on medical history and personal preference. Most RCTs and cohort studies collected data on self-reported or clinician-assessed symptoms, rather than formal medical diagnoses. Mefloquine efficacyOf 12 trials comparing mefloquine and placebo, none were performed in short-term international travellers, and most populations had a degree of immunity to malaria. The percentage of people developing a malaria episode in the control arm varied from 1% to 82% (median 22%) and 0% to 13% in the mefloquine group (median 1%).In four RCTs that directly compared mefloquine, atovaquone-proguanil and doxycycline in non-immune, short-term international travellers, only one clinical case of malaria occurred (4 trials, 1822 participants). Mefloquine safety versus atovaquone-proguanil Participants receiving mefloquine were more likely to discontinue their medication due to adverse effects than atovaquone-proguanil users (RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.31; 3 RCTs, 1438 participants; high-certainty evidence). There were few serious adverse effects reported with mefloquine (15/2651 travellers) and none with atovaquone-proguanil (940 travellers).One RCT and six cohort studies reported on our prespecified adverse effects. In the RCT with short-term travellers, mefloquine users were more likely to report abnormal dreams (RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.04, moderate-certainty evidence), insomnia (RR 4.42, 95% CI 2.56 to 7.64, moderate-certainty evidence), anxiety (RR 6.12, 95% CI 1.82 to 20.66, moderate-certainty evidence), and depressed mood during travel (RR 5.78, 95% CI 1.71 to 19.61, moderate-certainty evidence). The cohort studies in longer-term travellers were consistent with this finding but most had larger effect sizes. Mefloquine users were also more likely to report nausea (high-certainty evidence) and dizziness (high-certainty evidence).Based on the available evidence, our best estimates of absolute effect sizes for mefloquine versus atovaquone-proguanil are 6% versus 2% for discontinuation of the drug, 13% versus 3% for insomnia, 14% versus 7% for abnormal dreams, 6% versus 1% for anxiety, and 6% versus 1% for depressed mood. Mefloquine safety versus doxycyclineNo difference was found in numbers of serious adverse effects with mefloquine and doxycycline (low-certainty evidence) or numbers of discontinuations due to adverse effects (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.87; 4 RCTs, 763 participants; low-certainty evidence).Six cohort studies in longer-term occupational travellers reported our prespecified adverse effects; one RCT in military personnel and one cohort study in short-term travellers reported adverse events. Mefloquine users were more likely to report abnormal dreams (RR 10.49, 95% CI 3.79 to 29.10; 4 cohort studies, 2588 participants, very low-certainty evidence), insomnia (RR 4.14, 95% CI 1.19 to 14.44; 4 cohort studies, 3212 participants, very low-certainty evidence), anxiety (RR 18.04, 95% CI 9.32 to 34.93; 3 cohort studies, 2559 participants, very low-certainty evidence), and depressed mood (RR 11.43, 95% CI 5.21 to 25.07; 2 cohort studies, 2445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The findings of the single cohort study reporting adverse events in short-term international travellers were consistent with this finding but the single RCT in military personnel did not demonstrate a difference between groups in frequencies of abnormal dreams or insomnia.Mefloquine users were less likely to report dyspepsia (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.74; 5 cohort studies, 5104 participants, low certainty-evidence), photosensitivity (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11; 2 cohort studies, 1875 participants, very low-certainty evidence), vomiting (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.27; 4 cohort studies, 5071 participants, very low-certainty evidence), and vaginal thrush (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 1 cohort study, 1761 participants, very low-certainty evidence).Based on the available evidence, our best estimates of absolute effect for mefloquine versus doxycyline were: 2% versus 2% for discontinuation, 12% versus 3% for insomnia, 31% versus 3% for abnormal dreams, 18% versus 1% for anxiety, 11% versus 1% for depressed mood, 4% versus 14% for dyspepsia, 2% versus 19% for photosensitivity, 1% versus 5% for vomiting, and 2% versus 16% for vaginal thrush.Additional analyses, including comparisons of mefloquine with chloroquine, added no new information. Subgroup analysis by study design, duration of travel, and military versus non-military participants, provided no conclusive findings.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The absolute risk of malaria during short-term travel appears low with all three established antimalarial agents (mefloquine, doxycycline, and atovaquone-proguanil).The choice of antimalarial agent depends on how individual travellers assess the importance of specific adverse effects, pill burden, and cost. Some travellers will prefer mefloquine for its once-weekly regimen, but this should be balanced against the increased frequency of abnormal dreams, anxiety, insomnia, and depressed mood.
Topics: Adult; Antimalarials; Atovaquone; Child; Chloroquine; Doxycycline; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Malaria, Falciparum; Mefloquine; Primaquine; Proguanil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Travel-Related Illness
PubMed: 29083100
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006491.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2011To prevent the development of drug resistance, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends treating malaria with combination therapy. Azithromycin, an antibiotic with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
To prevent the development of drug resistance, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends treating malaria with combination therapy. Azithromycin, an antibiotic with antimalarial properties, may be a useful additional option for antimalarial therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the use of azithromycin alone or in combination with other antimalarial drugs with the use of alternative antimalarial drugs for treating uncomplicated malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum or Plasmodium vivax.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (August 2010); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2010); MEDLINE (1966 to August 2010); EMBASE (1974 to August 2010); LILACS (August 2010); the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT, August 2010); conference proceedings; and reference lists. We also contacted researchers and a pharmaceutical company.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing azithromycin, either alone or combined with another antimalarial drug, with another antimalarial drug used alone or combined with another antimalarial drug, or with azithromycin combined with another antimalarial drug if different combinations or doses of azithromycin were used. The primary outcome was treatment failure by day 28, defined as parasitological or clinical evidence of treatment failure between the start of treatment and day 28. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure by day 28 corrected for new infections confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), fever and parasite clearance time, and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two people independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We used risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen trials met the inclusion criteria (2284 participants, 69% males, 16% children). They were conducted in disparate malaria endemic areas, with the earlier studies conducted in Thailand (five) and India (two), and the more recent studies (eight) spread across three continents (South America, Africa, Asia). The 15 studies involved 41 treatment arms, 12 different drugs, and 28 different treatment regimens. Two studies examined P. vivax.Three-day azithromycin (AZ) monotherapy did not perform well for P. vivax or P. falciparum (Thailand: P. vivax failure rate 0.5 g daily, 56%, 95% CI 31 to 78. India: P. vivax failure rate 1 g daily,12%, 95% CI 7 to 21; P. falciparum failure rate 1 g daily, 64%, 95% CI 36 to 86.) A 1 g azithromycin and 0.6 g chloroquine combination daily for three days for uncomplicated P. falciparum infections was associated with increased treatment failure in India and Indonesia compared with the combination of sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine and chloroquine (pooled RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.67), and compared with the combination atovaquone-proguanil in a multicentre trial in Columbia and Surinam (RR 24.72, 95% CI 6.16 to 99.20). No increased risk of treatment failure was seen in two studies in Africa with mefloquine as the comparator drug (pooled RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.51 to 7.96, P = 0.3); the pooled RR for PCR-corrected data for the combination versus mefloquine was 1.01, 95% CI 0.18 to 5.84 (P = 1.0). An increased treatment failure risk was seen when comparing azithromycin in a dose of 1.2 to 1.5 mg in combination with artesunate (200 mg per day for three days) with artemether-lumefantrine (pooled RR 3.08, 95% CI 2.09 to 4.55; PCR-corrected pooled RR 3.63, 95% CI 2.02 to 6.52).Serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation were similar across treatment arms. More adverse events were reported when comparing the 1 g azithromycin/ 0.6 g chloroquine combination with mefloquine (pooled RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36) or atovaquone-proguanil (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09 to1.83).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is no evidence for the superiority or equivalence of azithromycin monotherapy or combination therapy for the treatment of P. falciparum or P. vivax compared with other antimalarials or with the current first-line antimalarial combinations. The available evidence suggests that azithromycin is a weak antimalarial with some appealing safety characteristics. Unless the ongoing dose, formulation and product optimisation process results in a universally efficacious product, or a specific niche application is identified that is complementary to the current scala of more efficacious antimalarial combinations, azithromycin's future for the treatment of malaria does not look promising.
Topics: Antimalarials; Artemether, Lumefantrine Drug Combination; Artemisinins; Artesunate; Atovaquone; Azithromycin; Chloroquine; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ethanolamines; Female; Fluorenes; Humans; Malaria, Falciparum; Malaria, Vivax; Male; Mefloquine; Proguanil; Pyrimethamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfadoxine; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 21328286
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006688.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2008Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) is a common AIDS-defining opportunistic illness in people with HIV infection, but its incidence has fallen with use of prophylactic... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) is a common AIDS-defining opportunistic illness in people with HIV infection, but its incidence has fallen with use of prophylactic treatment. Without treatment, PCP is likely to be fatal in people with AIDS, so placebo-controlled studies would be considered unethical.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of first-line antipneumocystis treatments for Pneumocystis pneumonia in people infected with HIV? What are the effects of adjuvant corticosteroids in people receiving first-line antipneumocystis treatments for Pneumocystis pneumonia in people infected with HIV? What are the effects of treatments for Pneumocystis pneumonia in people infected with HIV who have not responded to first-line antipneumocystis treatment? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2008 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 22 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: adjuvant corticosteroids, aerosolised or intravenous pentamidine, atovaquone, clindamycin-primaquone, treatment after failure of first-line treatment, trimethoprim-dapsone, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX, co-trimoxazole).
Topics: AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections; Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Atovaquone; HIV Infections; Humans; Pneumonia, Pneumocystis; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 19445734
DOI: No ID Found